Hey!

I am a junior at Ridge High School and have debated for 3 years in Public Forum.

I prefer flay also give 10 sec. Grace period but I flow so go whatever speed you want as long as it does not impede clarity. Read whatever arguments as long as they are not sexist, racist, etc.

Guaranteed good speaker points if you:

1. Collapse offense in the back half of the round

2. Weigh

3. Are not rude

Tech > Truth - Any dropped argument is considered true. I will not intervene.

Add me to the email chain: Ishmamabtahi17@gmail.com

General Stuff:

I do not flow crossfire, so if something important happens, bring it up in a speech.

When bringing up a new piece of evidence, just the author and date is fine (you don't need the organization or credentials).

Speaker points are not based on your presentation, they're based on what you add to my flow. If you are excessively rude, I will dock though.

It's silly to go for a turn to an argument that you just read defense to if that defense responds to the turn. Your opponents need just point this out at some point in the round for you to lose that turn.

If there is no weighing, I default to strength of link, meaning I vote for the team who wins their offense most cleanly.

Important: If you do not read a content warning on a sensitive argument and your opponent's object in any way, you will be dropped. Sensitive arguments do not just exist within the round, and they can affect the people around you so please be considerate of others.

Hi! I've done LD for 3 years and am currently speech captain at my high school, so I care most about your presentation, weighing, and the topicality of your arguments

Also I've like never done PF in my life lol so please don't run anything too progressive. Keep it traditional

Quality>quantity- make sure you have a warrant for all cards you use. I'd rather see you use a few cards with thoughtful explanations as opposed to a bunch of cards with no purpose to your argument

I don't mind spreading but PLEASE make sure you articulate. I won't flow anything that I can't understand

In the end I'll go off of the main clashes from the round (voter issues) + whichever side effectively convinced me the most

Please be respectful to your opponents and ofc have fun!

If you have any questions about anything feel free to reach out, my email is @oludarabadero@icloud.com

I have experience as a Parli debate judge, but this is my first time judging PF.

Argumentation: In a round, I mainly look for strong and logical argumentation. I'm pretty tabula rasa, so I want to see persuasion and a lot of impacting and warranting to convince me.

Evidence: Make sure you use evidence to support your contentions.

Spreading: Do NOT spread. I want to hear well-articulated arguments, so please communicate clearly and at a moderate pace so I can get everything down on my flow.

Organization: Please make sure to signpost. I helps me on my flow keeps the round much more organized for both sides.

Decorum: Please be respectful to your opponents and especially be respectful during crossfire.

I can't wait to see all of your arguments. Have fun!

I competed for four years, so I am functional on the flow, but please speak intelligibly.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

I prefer quality over quantity. Please do not spread too fast. Speak clearly and resolutely. I can flow at a medium pace if you are speaking so quickly that you’re gasping for air expect those cards, contentions, impacts to be dropped.

Hello!

I’m Emilie, a current sophomore on the Princeton Debate Panel. I have 4 years of experience in APDA and BP and have judged some rounds in college.

As for paradigms, I have 5 main considerations:

1. I appreciate claims with substantial evidence supporting them. This evidence should use both analysis and reasoning. If a broad claim is brought up with no evidence to support it, it will likely be dropped.
2. I value collapsing and weighing impacts, especially during the summary and final focus speeches. Make sure you let me know why your side deserves to win and how your contentions outweigh your opponents in regards to effects.

3. In terms of spreading, it won’t be a detriment to your side, as long as your argumentation is as clear and concise as possible. I focus on quality of an argument rather than quantity.

4. Respect and kindness is always a must, especially during crossfires where things might get heated. Please be mindful of those around you throughout the entire round and let us be aware of any content warnings that may arise.

5. Please, please, please sign post i.e. “my first contention is…” This makes the debate so much easier to follow. I also appreciate off-time roadmaps although they are not necessary.

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program.

For e-mail chain: melaco@gmail.com. Speechdrop is also great.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

Number of Years I’ve been judging debate since 2018.

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.…)

If you read nothing else, read this: I am a flow judge. (IMO, truth does not exist within the confines of a debate round. The setting of the resolution is the beginning of world creation, which you will build upon and participate in during the round and that is outside the confines of "the real world." I fall short of being a tech judge, but I lean tech.) I expect teams to warrant and clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. Be very clear in your final speeches on why you are winning the round. State clearly what your path to the ballot is. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. I prefer for you, in your final speech, to tell me the RFD you would like me to write.

I don't vote on anything in cross, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on new arguments brought up too late in round.

Happy to clarify any of my prefs, ask before round begins.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: I went to a critical theory-oriented art school MFA program, so no surprise, I love theory, kritik and tricks because it reminds me of grad school. I have a pretty broad background on much of the literature. That being said, it's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik/tricks. You need to completely understand your argument (and not just reading something you found on the wiki or that a friend gave you), and it needs to be clearly presented during the debate in an accessible way. I need well-explained, warranted voters. Please warrant your implications. Be very clear on why I should vote for you.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I expect you to also be keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you pause prep to call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Everything Else:
Cards (where applicable): I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during cross. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the debaters brought up in a speech and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tab immediately.

Judge Disclosure: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. As a judge, I should be able to give you a good RFD after the round. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Judging after 8pm: I'm a morning person. If it is after 8pm, I am probably tired. Clarity in your speeches is always important, but takes on even more importance after 8pm. Talk to me like I'm half-asleep, because I might be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown:
30: Excellent job, I think you are in the top two percent of debaters at this tournament.

29: Very strong ability. You demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round

28: Ability to function well in the round, however at some point, analysis or organization could have been better.

27: Lacking organization and/or analysis in this debate round.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. May have made a large error.

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

Hi guys, I'm Sophia.

I'm a senior at Scarsdale High School and have been debating in public forums for the past three years. I will be flowing, but treat me like a lay judge. Here are my preferences for the round:

1. NO SPREADING. If I can't understand what you are saying, it will be like you didn't say anything at all.
2. Signpost
3. No Ks or theory (if you don't know what that is, don't worry about it)
4. If you collapse an argument, you can't bring it back up later in the round - I will not start flowing it again
5. Argue over ideas, not numbers - cards are great, but they don't replace proper warranting
6. Be polite during cross. I will subconsciously be biased against you if you are rude (don't be overly fake and nice either)

I expect you to time your own speeches and prep time, but I will be timing, too. There is no leeway for prep timing and ~10 seconds of leeway for speeches.

Most importantly, have fun! This is just debate! A win or loss does not reflect who you are as a person. Try your best, and you will do great.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

PS: I will give you more speaker points if you make a good joke that makes me laugh.

I am a judge with eleven years of experience in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, and Parliamentary Debate.

I am a flow judge that values precision of thought, argument structure, and word choice. I welcome authoritative sourcing in support of arguments but never an appeal to authority. I understand the tactical reason for speed but prefer to be convinced by the strength of the argument and the rhetorical elegance of the presentation.

As a teacher of history that thrives on disputation, I require a clash of ideas. I am philosophically fond the counterpunch and find a “turn” often to be the highlight of a debate. Find the flaw in your opponent’s argument and exploit it to your advantage.

In Public Forum and LD:

During cross, strive for a balance between contention and civility.

In Congress and Parliamentary Debate:

Regardless of the prep time, demonstrate a certain depth and breadth of content knowledge related to the bill or motion. Reasoned argument on behalf of the commonweal is preferred over moral preference and preening.

Disclosure (if permitted by tournament rules) is not a time for discussion or appeal.

I am a new judge with very little debate experience. Please time speeches and keep up with prep time. No fast talking. I like to see well-developed arguments that engage the opponent. Don’t assume I am an expert on the topic; it’s public forum. I am more interested in how you debate evidence in speeches than reading anything after the round. Funny is good but be kind to one another!

Yo!

I'm Owen, he/him, current senior at the Masters school, been debating PF all four years.

Do:

- be chill! neither your opponents nor i want to be yelled at, and if you're generally verbally abusive i'll drop speaks or drop you, depending on how bad it is

- signpost well. it makes it easier for literally everyone. please

- have your cards ready. please please

Don't

- be bigoted. obv if you misgender someone, are racist, are homophobic etc. etc. you will lose no questions asked. but! it also looks really bad if you're only performatively valuing your social justice framework, i.e. if you drop it when your opponents concede the frame and try to win under it. it's a strategic decision within the fiction of the round so you won't lose instantly but still

- spread to the point of incomprehensibility! i understand whole point of this format as convincing the judge that you're right and if i cannot understand you i will not be convinced

- cheat on prep. i don't want to have to keep track of it but i will

- just generally do anything bad or that you think will lose you speaks

Other important things

- include me on email chains/card docs: owen@owenedelson.com

- tech over truth

- defense isn't sticky

- my feedback and RFDs tend to focus on what you got wrong more than what you got right. this is not indicative of your quality as a debater. the squeaky wheel gets the grease, you know how it is.

As a judge, I place most of my emphasis on the cogency and viability of arguments put forth by debaters. Please be sure that you are clear and articulate in your reasoning; I would rather see a debater display a working knowledge of the subject matter through a measured appeal than rely on spreading and/or aggressive tactics. I do not expect perfection, nor a performance meticulously rehearsed. The most important thing you can be is yourself, but make sure that you do so in a way that illuminates your depth of understanding of the topic. Happy debating!

Hello My Name is Judge Forde and I have been judging debate for 5 years. I have been apart of the debate community for 9 years, where I started as a coach during my last years of High School. I mainly Judge Public Forum and I am willing to learn more about other competitions. Most of my tournaments have been through New York while others were not to far from New York. I am proud to be apart of these competitions and I look forward to Judging more Tournaments. Thank you for Welcoming me Aboard.

As a former public forum debater, I am accustomed to seeing structured debate that uses warranted evidence and prefers the use of warrants along with impacts over the use of numbers themselves. Numbers are cool and all, but explain why the numbers make sense in the context of the round.

Defense doesn't need to be extended in summary.

Weigh please.

Any questions? Ask me! Happy to answer them.

Thanks.

Rutgers '24

Timothy Christian '20

UPDATE Princeton Classic 12/4/2022:

I know I am judging novice PF and a lot of you probably don't know what the terms below in my paradigm mean yet, and that's totally fine. Just know that I did PF my freshman year of high school so I am somewhat familiar with how it works. However, that being said, I have not judged debate at all since my freshman year of college so I'm not too familiar with what the recent topics, and I'm a biochemistry major so the only things related to debate/politics I focus on are stuff I read on the news. If you want good speaks, just remember to signpost, be clear on extensions, and give me clear voters.

Pref Shortcut

LARP: 1

K(idpol/cap):1-2

K(postmodern):4-5

T: 2-3

Theory/tricks: 6/strike

put me on the email chain b4 round(smg433@scarletmail.rutgers.edu) and title docs with your school, tournament, and what round it is

Things I will not tolerate:

1. Any discrimination against a marginalized group

2. Spreading against traditional kids/kids whose second language is English

3. Theory that cites NSDA as a rule

What's up guys, my name is Steve and I debated for Timothy Christian for 4 years. I did 1 year of PF, 1 year of lay LD debate, and 2 years of circuit LD debate. I am currently at Rutgers University in NJ majoring in biochemistry and minoring in critical race and ethnic studies. Since I haven't judged in a while and flowing online is different from in person, PLEASE SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU START and then speed up. Also remember to signpost in AC/NC and rebuttals. As per my record as a competitor, I was mediocre at best because I rarely drilled or did practice rounds. In terms of my level of comfortableness, I would say that I am most familiar with identity based kritiks(afropess, setcol, little bit of queerness, etc). This paradigm will break my perspective on each practice of debate--enjoy :)

LARP:

Fine with this. This can be the most simple type of circuit debate, but be sure to weigh mpx AS WELL AS fw if it matters. I need to know why structural violence o/w extinction or vice versa in order for you to have my ballot. As I look back on my career, I realize that a lot of my issues were with how I didn't weigh fw properly so make sure to do that because that can be the difference between wins and losses.

K(Identity/Cap):

I am somewhat comfortable with this because I hired Brianna Aaron to coach me for the last two topics of my junior year, so take that information for what you will. I mostly went with anti-blackness, setcol, or cap. Depending on when you have me for judging, I may have forgotten a bit depending on how active I am in the LD community(which probably won't be much once I'm in college). I like these arguments because the literature intrigued me, and although I didn't debate much my senior year I enjoyed reading these in my free time. HOWEVER, just because you read these in front of me doesn't mean that I will automatically vote for you. You should still have smart case turns, framing arguments, link extensions, mpx extensions, alt extensions, etc.

Arguments on non-black people running afropess

Personally, I don't care whether or not your opponent is non-black and running afropess. These are minute issues in debate relative to the grand scheme of how our world operates, so forgive me if I'm not too worried about this. That doesn't mean I won't vote for someone who rebuts afropess by saying that their non-black opponent is reading it. If you point out and say "judge, my opponent is non-black and is reading afropess," then I'm going to need you to articulate your point further because that doesn't explain why the practice is bad. If you add something along the lines of "my opponent is commodifying the experiences of black Americans to win a round," then that is more of a fulfilling argument.

K aff vs T

I don't hold any particular belief on this issue in the community but as I judge I'll see how skewed my decisions are. All I'll say here is do good weighing. T debaters should have solid TVAs in order to guarantee a ballot from me.

Pomo:

I'm not too familiar with any postmodern philosophy other than maybe Baudrillard, but that stuff has always bored me since I didn't understand it, so just keep that in mind if you read it in front of me. However, just because I wasn't interested in it doesn't mean I'll automatically vote you down if you read it. All it means is that it'll be smarter for you to err on overexplaining rather than underexplaining the arguments to me. If you don't want to do that, then don't pref me too high/strike me

Theory/Tricks:

yeah no thanks.

PF Paradigm

I did PF as a freshman and I didn't want to continue after that horrendous year of Ls. I can keep up with the tempo so just remember to weigh your arguments; otherwise, you might not like your speaks. While I understand that util is the main fw used in PF, I might give extra points if you guys read some CRT since I do enjoy that literature and am getting a minor in it. Also, I remember going to some rounds and seeing that when the womxn went up for CF against a male opponent, the male would usually sound condescending and take control, whereas the womxn wouldn't. After watching a round with one of my friends in it, I asked her why she wasn't more aggressive, and she said that she had been given lower speaker points for it in the past. So just so you know, I won't dock points for "being aggressive," but know that there is a fine line between being aggressive and being rude/condescending.

I am a traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed through strong, logical arguments supported by evidence and designed to uphold a sound value structure (in LD). Spreading is tolerated (barely) but certainly NOT appreciated or rewarded. If being tolerated in a round is your goal, go ahead and spread. Ad Hominem attacks, implied or explicit, are a pretty sure way to get a loss. Civilly presented, compelling, and supported arguments and counter arguments will be measurably appreciated. NO THEORY

History, English, and Philosophy educator with a medium amount of experience in debate and flowing. Drive towards impact, or you will most likely lose the round.

Spreading will not help you as much as you hope it will. Keep your contentions slow and clear. Racism, sexism, and stereotyping of groups will most likely get you DQ. Strong aversions to K. Lastly, I expect cross to be civil and will not flow it.

I like well explained and clear warrants

I equally weigh warrants over evidence. However, do provide and counter the evidence to support the warrants.

Please do not use complicated debate jargon (ex. we outweigh on pre-req, magnitude, and scope)

I generally think that public speaking is a huge part of the debate

I believe delivery with a clear and persuasive articulation is equally important. Do not speak too fast to add unnecessary words.

Hello everyone,

Good luck to all participants. I am an open-minded judge who will decide the round based on the quality of the debate and not on any personal or preconceived views I may have on the topic.

Some background. I never competed formally in Debate in high school but I’ve taken a debate class before. That being said, I’m not super familiar with anything super techy or the norms of what goes on in rounds (other than what I’ve been told by my friend who did compete in PF).

I will flow the round but value well-warranted analytics and arguments over speed and/or argument and evidence with poor explanation/analysis. I can’t handle much speed so please no spreading and do your best to speak clearly.

I prefer narrative debate and highly value weighing. I will vote for qualitative argumentation over a series of blippy arguments.

Fair warning. I want a real, substantive debate on the merits of the issues presented by the topic. I WILL NOT vote for Ks or other theory-based arguments that do not address the topic. If you want to run a K about the topic, please try to do so without jargon but also be warned I know little of how to evaluate those arguments.

My name is Lukas Hemmer. I have received judge training, and have participated in 5 tournaments, but please go easy. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered slowly and carefully. Treat me like you would a "Lay" judge.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.

Debate is about how you present your research and analysis work. It is about the quality of you work, not the quantity, nor how fast you can speak. If you try to jam 10 arguments with 20 sources within 4 minutes of time, I probably will not be able to follow your thought.

So

1. State your point clearly
2. Give data/source directly support your point
3. Provide a clear link between your source and point
4. Finish with a firm conclusion

Hello!!

I'm a third-year student at Princeton University and debated in World Schools, British Parliamentary, and American Parliamentary tournaments. I have no previous experience in PF.

In terms of style, I'm able to flow relatively fast speakers, but please don't spread.

I appreciate evidence to substantiate claims, but I won't credit it if it's not accompanied by appropriate reasoning and analysis. Please especially avoid fixating on the credibility of sources of evidence. Additionally, laying out the incentives/warrants to prove your claim can set your argument above your opponent’s.

In general, I appreciate teams with a strong strategic focus, who show me why their arguments matter beyond why their arguments are true. This often looks like multi-layered refutations that involves taking the other team at their best and still proving why the case stands. Weighing is extremely encouraged.

Regarding equity, please always be kind and sensitive to all speakers in the round. Don't interrupt speakers or engage in ad hominem attacks during crossfire sessions.

Best of luck in round!! Always a pleasure and privilege to listen to you.

Hello. I’m a first year student at Princeton University and debated in ADPA, BP, DANEIS, and LD formats. I competed in the World University Debate and Public Speaking Championships. In recent years, however, I have competed mainly in BP, so I may not be the most familiar with updates to PF rules.

In terms of style, I’m best able to flow slow to medium speakers. Yes, fast speakers can be successful in winning, but it will probably hurt your speaker score, as speaking fast is a bad way to speak. You shouldn’t speak fast if you don’t have to.

I appreciate evidence, but you must also use analysis and reasoning with evidence. You cannot just use evidence in isolation, as that isn’t convincing. Also, I appreciate a good focus on strategy. I want you to show me that your arguments are both true and important.

Lastly, don’t use ad hominem because it isn’t good practice. It isn’t equitable, and it isn’t convincing. Please try not to interrupt the other person, and be fair in using crossfire. I look forward to watching you all debate; don’t worry about speaker points. I will be generous.

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 5-6 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - to be very honest, i really don't love spreading and it does make flowing more difficult on my part, but i understand it's becoming more and more common, so if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would STRONGLY encourage you toslow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and pleeeeeaaaase keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

I am a parent judge and new to public forum debate.

During the debate please consider the following:

• Instead of larger arguments that may not clearly reflect the approach you are looking for, try for a few well-developed arguments that prove to be more persuasive
• It is important to include citations in your speech
• Make sure all case arguments are supported with specific and defined examples
• Be prepared to provide evidence during rebuttals
• Try to make eye contact, as much as possible
• Be respectful to each other
• Enjoy the debate

Hello! I'm a professor so I routinely evaluate defenses, debates, and discussions, however, I have never been a NSDA debater and am a lay judge.

In a round, I mainly look for strong and logical argumentation, clear evidence to support your contentions, general eloquence (no spreading please), and decorum (especially during crossfire).

No progressive argumentation like theory, ks, tricks, etc. You will be dropped.

I can't wait to hear all of your arguments. Have fun!

Warrant, weigh, collapse (!!) and be kind, please.

I'll judge like Zoë Kaufmann.

I cap speaks at 29.5 but automatic 30 if you make me laugh.

Please ask me any questions before the round, and have fun!

Treat me like a lay judge. Please be polite, and keep the debate at a conversational speed and tone. Do not sensationalize your case--keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible. Also, weigh and explain your sources so we can keep evidence debates and exchanges to a minimum. As a side note, I will probably be in the room early, especially for the first flight, so figure I'm going to do my best to start a round as soon as possible.

Background: I'm a student at Princeton University who competed for Regis High School for 3 years in Public Forum and 1 Year in Program Oral Interpretation. My Email is bm8142@princeton.edu. DO NOT include me in any email chain, I will not look at any evidence, so you should reference all important cards in case/rebuttal (obviously). However, if you would like to email me with any questions/comments/concerns about literally anything, feel free to do so.

Must Read: I value respect over everything else. Debate fairly and respectfully and you will get good speaker points. This also applies for Cross. I do not want a yelling match. Always respect your opponent when they are speaking. Do not try to intimidate your opponent with any gesture (Ex: eye roll), and NEVER under any circumstance interrupt your opponent. I will keep track of time so you do not need to worry if your opponent goes over, and you will always be given time to respond to an opponent during cross (even if you go over time). With that being said, DO NOT run theory. If you do, you will lose. Case should always pertain to the resolution at hand, nothing else (this also means no Kritiks). If I believe a side isn't being respectful, that will reflect in their speaker points. However, If you believe your opponent is being disrespectful in a manner that distresses you, please let me know.

Debate Preferences: You don't have to do everything below to win a round, but you'll increase your chances of winning by doing so

1. Do not Spread, even if you have a lot to say. If you do, I'll likely miss pieces of your argument.
2. Please don't read a prewritten script (this is different from a block sheet)
3. DO NOT use debate jargon in speech, talk like a person!
4. By summary, please focus on the 1 contention/subpoint that wins you the round. There are certain circumstances where carrying more than 1 argument to the final 2 speeches will benefit you (and I will leave that for you to decide), but for the most part, you'll have a better chance of winning the round if your final 2 speeches focus on the most important argument(s)
5. Provide a roadmap (spoken outlines of your speech before the speech) and signposts (saying what you're talking about before you do during your speech. Ex: "now let's talk about their third contention on...")
6. Please be realistic. You will not win a round by making an outlandish claim
7. Eye contact is cool. Don't worry if you can't do this though
8. Yes I will be timing you, but please still time yourselves
9. Treat me like a 1st grader: the easier you make it to understand your argument's logic/how you came to a certain conclusion, the more likely you'll win. This does not apply to unrealistic arguments. If you notice that your opponent's impacts/arguments are blatantly not realistic (ex: end of the world as an impact), you do not have to waste your time telling us why. Just make sure you let me know what points you believe are not realistic during your speech.
10. I don't flow cross, so make sure to reference back to cross if it pertains to your argument/rebuttal
11. Carry relevant arguments throughout the round if you want them to be considered in my vote

Speaker Preferences (Debate):

1st Speaker

1. I do not care if you look at me when reading your case, please just be coherent. Of all speeches, you should not spread in case
2. For summary, the more you weigh the more likely you are to win. Tell me why your argument, your evidence, and your impacts are better than your opponents. And again, collapsing on 1 major argument will help you win the round!!

2nd Speaker

1. as a former second speaker, I understand how hard it might be to follow every rule on a Judge's paradigm. Debate how you debate.
2. If you turn an argument effectively, you'll get tons of speaker points
3. During final focus, write the ballot for me. The more you convey why/how you won, the better

Speech Preferences

he/they

Email: david@notiosolutions.com

Experience: Debated in LD in high school and Moot Court in college, now I'm and English teacher and debate coach.

Paradigm: Persuade me. Warrant it.

...no really, that's it. Persuade me. You can persuade me using any number of techniques, but whether I'm voting off the flow, on theory, or topically on a well impacted argument, I'm still just voting on what I find the most persuasive.

I'm ok with speed. However, If I can't understand you, I'm not being persuaded. If you are going to spread, share your case with both me and your opponents.

If an argument is important, make sure you've clearly communicated it. If it's an online debate, make sure you repeat or slow down when making important points. I will not vote on arguments not carried throughout the round.

If only one side in a PF debate gives me voting criteria or framing, I will most likely be voting for that side.

In LD, do not expect me to vote on 1 line from the 1AC that you never bring up again till the last 30 seconds of the round. I assume that if an argument is important, you will actually take time to develop it. Just dropping it in in the last seconds is, in my opinion, a fairness violation.

I will highly favor debaters who actually interact with their opponent's case as opposed to simply reading a counter card and not addressing substance.

A few other things:

-Nazis equal Nazis. If you are going to link to Nazis or the Holocaust, do so carefully and avoid trivializing Nazis or the Holocaust by comparing everything to them.

-if you have a preferred pronoun, please let me know how you would like to be addressed prior to the start of the round.

-If you are reading a case that might be upsetting/triggering to your opponent, please provide a content warning at the beginning. If your opponent requests you not read triggering content, I will seek guidance from Tab and see if a side switch or other accommodations can be made. However, just because content is uncomfortable does not automatically mean it should not be read.

I've been judging PF debate for two yea and have taught in both middle school high school. I deeply appreciate clarity of argument and for debaters to speak slowly enough that I can understand what is being said. I flow on the entire debate including cross

This is also my first year as a LD judge. Likewise, clarity is essential. Please don't speak too quickly!

I encourage debaters to have quality over quantity with clear logic and evidence to substantiate their arguments that lead to logical conclusions. Please avoid speaking at a super-human pace(less than 150 words a minute) and in general keep it simple.

As I would like to focus and listen to the debaters, please be prepared to time your team and that of your competitor's.

I would like to emphasize the importance of professional decorum. Please do not be toxic or exclusionary in any round as this will lead to dropping you or your points. Please avoid speaking over one another during CrossFire.

I would request the teams to time each other and let me know if there is violation.

Best of Luck and have fun!

I'm Cole Presten and I'm currently a junior at Princeton. I did public forum debate for all of high school, so I'm familiar with general terms and jargon.

With that being said, I would prefer a round that would be understandable by a lay judge, or for that matter someone completely unfamiliar with debate. Remember the point of public forum debate. I would especially stress that you clarify your impacts. Telling me that you "win on scope," for instance, without a clear explanation of cause and effect may be true, but making me look at my notes and deciding for myself where you "win on scope" is far less compelling than a clear argument and explanation.

Although it's within your right as a debater to use information so long as it's backed up by a source, I will be skeptical if something sounds fishy, and I hope your opponents will be too. Because of this, I find it useful to say "X of New York Times" when noting your source rather than just "X", because "X" could be a writer from any random blog for all I know.

In general, winning the round ultimately comes down to convincing me that you won the round, not some esoteric system of points here and there. So keep that in mind and good luck.

I used to be a LDer for 3 years while in high school. However, I have not done much speech-type work since then except for judging for JVPF in 2021 and judging speech in Oct 2022. I can follow probably up to JV-level arguments and speed, however I advise not spreading even if you're willing to provide the doc.

I'm specifically looking at main tags/arguments, important sources and their connections to the main tags, main counterpoints to your opponent's arguments, and if you actually analyze your source in a way that shows proper justifications for your side.

I'll disclose the standings, and unless there's no time, I'll try to add a little feedback at the end as well as proper feedback in the comments and RFD.

Couple of things that are really appreciated:

1. Signpost. It's really important to both have a good crossfire as well as make sure I know the main point of the argument and can then link it to the supporting information. Make sure to clearly state at least the names of sources so I can make an indicator for it.
2. Be clear. An argument is only as good as what I get from it. Even if you mention multiple parts, if your opponent adequately responds to what I think the argument's main purpose is then I'm more likely considering the whole argument contested. Of course if it's higher level with sending the doc this is less important, but still really helpful for me to make sense of what the core values your case is trying to get across.
3. Be respectful. This is an environment where we try and responsibly debate and try to both win and learn. Properly answering questions(a little nuance is fine but not too much), don't interrupt your opponent, and try to be as civil as possible.
4. Obligatory have fun! since this is a pretty stressful environment unless you're THAT confident. Make sure to listen properly and write notes so that your next round may be a little better each time.

Hey guys! I'm Solai Solaiyappan and I'm a Senior at Lexington High school and I've debated PF for 4 years.

I have a few things that i'm picky about.

1) Don't Spread (Speed reading) during any speech and speak CLEARLY.

2) No K's and theory and anything that is not PF.

3) Pls weigh. Weighing is very important and if you don't weigh I won't really know what your impacts are at the end of the round.

4) Try and go down the flow. This is a pretty hard thing to do but it is very rewarding because every judge can follow you and comprehend your points.

5) Do not be mean in cross. If you see that your opponent is struggling please do not bombard them with questions. Let them have time and let them try and respond. If I feel like you are being mean I will dock speaker points. The max I'll deduct is 3 points.

6) If your opponent dropped a contention or point that is important in the round don't just say it. Explain why it is important that they dropped it.

7) Same with extending points. Don't say "extend the johnson 18 card". Extend it and explain what the card is briefly.

Also, I'm fine with complex language as long as it doesn't go overboard. If it does I will ask you to explain after your speech. I really want to express my concern about spreading because when you spread I won't be able to catch all your points. I want you guys to focus on diction. Try and have fun y'all.

P.S. I'm a pretty chill person and I will be giving y'all good speaks as long as y'all don't say anything racist or mean.

I am a parent judge who prefers concise, factual arguments that are well-warranted, with the debater exemplifying a complex understanding of the topic and their arguments.

I prefer quality > quantity and precision > meandering. A good sense of humor would be an added bonus.

I am a varsity PF debater who's been to both NCFL and NSDA Nationals for PF debate. What I look for in a round is a bit of structure. You should absolutely funnel your points and contentions down throughout the round. You should not have to mention every single contention and point that was brought up throughout the round in your Summary, and especially not your Final Focus.

With regards to speaker points, you will never get below 25 unless you are blatantly offensive. To get 30, you should be a good speaker who is audible, comprehensible, and smooth. Spreading is not preferable. I am fine with a quicker speaking pace, and I will be able to keep up, but when it becomes so fast that it's difficult to follow, I will deduct speaker points.

Overall, I believe that a debate round should be respectful. Be kind to your opponents. Also, feel free to crack jokes or put a comedic twist to your speeches. Jokes in round are a great way to bring more enjoyment to PF and it is absolutely welcome. Some of the best rounds I've ever had were light and funny. Just have fun!

Good afternoon competitors.

My name is Andrew Strucek, and I am a seasoned judge with dramatic presentations and a lay enthusiast for debate. I did not enjoy the opportunity to participate in speech and debate in my high school days and therefore count it a privilege to witness debate from the talented and intelligent youth of today.

In debate, I ask for a clear articulation of points and strong evidence. If this evidence is irrefutable (or is unrefuted), then the case is generally won. If not, the point must be won on a matter of degree, or in the case of Lincoln/Douglas, on strictest adherence to stated philosophical principals. I do not subscribe to any specific school of philosophical thought, and welcome clever argument steeped in many varied traditions. Some points can not be won on degree or by strict philosophical means. In only these cases will I default to a more general gestalt.

Arguments must have some running common thread within a clear framework that persists throughout the entirety of the debate. Arguments that are clearly abandoned, undermine your framework, or stray from the resolution at hand will be lost.

I welcome, but certainly do not require, some degree of speedy pacing, so long as there is no loss of articulation. Your pace should be set by how you practice and from input from your coach. These pacing strategies should carry you farther than advice from one judge on one round of one day. I also welcome some degree of passion, so long as there are no ad hominem attacks, and so long as there is no loss of respect for others.

And don't forget, a paradigm is worth 20¢

Hi! Some basic info about me: My name is Esmé Talenfeld, my pronouns are she/her, and I'm a captain of the debate team at The Masters School.

If you need to contact me, my email is esme.talenfeld@mastersny.org.

I'm a varsity public forum debater but a brand-new judge. I want tournaments to be as fun and stress-free as possible, so I'll keep this as simple as possible! Here's my "do not" list:

No spreading (talking super-duper fast). If you're speaking so quickly that I can't understand you, there is no hope for you. JK! But speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I'd rather you go a few seconds over your allotted time for speeches than be incoherent.

On a related note, let's keep the debate jargon to a minimum. It's not cool to use fancy words to confuse your judge or your opponents. Please, just say what you mean!

Don't use intimidation tactics. It's rude and undermines your actual knowledge and debate skills. You can do great without being unkind!

Moving on to the "do" list:

This should go without saying, but be kind. Blatant disrespect towards me or your opponents, personal attacks, or any bigotry (racism, homophobia, etc.) at all will not be tolerated. The ballot will reflect your ability to debate in a considerate and appropriate way.

Also, ask questions! I don't want you to be confused or freaked. Remember, we all start somewhere!

Pro-tip: weigh, weigh, weigh!

And that is all! Thank you, and make sure to have fun!

Esmé <3

Experience Level:

I have 9 years of combined experience in debating and judging. While I started as a debater, I’ve been actively judging for several years and have coached intermittently. I’ll share further details about specific experiences before the round if needed.

Topic Familiarity:

I stay engaged with current topics and have judged several rounds on this resolution. However, I approach each round without preconceived notions, letting the arguments dictate the outcome.

Rate of Delivery and Jargon:

I’m comfortable with both fast-paced delivery (spreading) and the use of technical jargon, provided it’s clear and warranted. Clarity matters—if I can’t understand or flow the argument due to speed or poor enunciation, it may be disregarded. For jargon, ensure definitions or context are provided for anything complex or niche.

Note-Taking and Flowing:

I maintain a rigorous flow, tracking key arguments, responses, and impacts carefully. I expect debaters to provide clear signposting so I can accurately follow the structure of the debate. Dropped arguments will be noted, and I expect debaters to call them out if significant.

Argument vs. Style:

I prioritize argumentation over style, but that doesn’t mean style is irrelevant. Persuasive delivery, strategic framing, and speaker ethos can elevate good arguments, but they won’t save flawed or unsupported claims.

Delivery Styles:

I’m persuaded by confident, logical delivery. Overly aggressive or dismissive tones can detract from your credibility. Balance professionalism with passion.

Criteria for Assessment:

• Framework: Does the framework/criterion presented effectively set the lens for evaluating the round?

• Clash: How well did each side respond to and engage with their opponent’s arguments?

• Evidence & Logic: Are arguments well-supported and logically sound?

• Impacts: Which side provides the clearest and most significant impacts, and do they outweigh those of the opposing side?

• Weighing Mechanisms: Did debaters explain how their impacts interact and why they matter within the framework?

• Conduct: Respectful and professional conduct is expected at all times.

Persuasive Arguments:

In previous rounds, the most persuasive arguments were those that combined solid evidence with clear logical analysis and effective impact framing. I value strategic weighting and comparative analysis—tell me why your argument is more important or relevant than your opponent’s.

In-Round Conduct Expectations:

• Maintain professionalism and respect toward opponents and the judge.

• Avoid unnecessary interruptions or hostile behavior.

• Signpost and organize your arguments clearly to aid comprehension.

Ultimately, I aim to remain an “all-around” judge, focusing on who made the most convincing arguments within the round. My ballot reflects what happens in the round, not my personal opinions.

I did World Schools debate in High School in Singapore, and now do Parliamentary debate at Princeton.

Make sure you keep everything clear (i.e. reasonable speed, signpost when it's appropriate)

If you reference a card, make sure to put it into the context of your argument/speech -- I will call for a card if I find something unclear

Please be respectful during cx

Avoid making generalizations in your arguments and please do not make sexist, racist, etc. claims.

I’m a parent and a new first time volunteer judge. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

Public Forum Debate:

As Public Forum Debate is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument.

Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Given my inexperience as a volunteer judge, your Final Focus will be most impressionable by convincing me that you have won the round.

Looking forward to a spirited competition!

sophomore in college & I debated in PF during HS as second speaker - happy to give advice/answer questions at the end of the round.

for evidence- 1) add rv2529@barnard.edu to the email chain w this subject line: tournament name - rd # - school team code (side) v. school team code (side), 2) please send docs in the form of pdf (preferably)/word doc -- really don't like google docs/sending directly into the email chain bc it makes centralizing everything worse.

from there, these are things to keep in mind:

--while I can follow speed, please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. that being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

--TIME yourselves. I beg.

--for elims-if there's a lay on the panel, please please adapt speed to the lay and not to me. please make the debate accessible/understandable for them. but it’s your choice

--in both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

--for 2nd rebuttal, frontline terminal defense & turns.

hint: I like link-ins from case & preq. args a lot. BUT I don't like when teams use their case args as the only response ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate. interact w the individual warrants and links.

--make it SUPER CLEAR what you're going for in summary & do all the necessary extensions (contentions, blocks, etc). weigh weigh weigh. meta-weighing is also great (tell me which mechanism is better).

--not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.

--tech or not: the final focus speech is a good time to SLOW DOWN and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.

--I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

--clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

--I prefer topical debates but I'm OPEN to theory and progressive arguments when ran well. that said, I'm not super familiar w a lot of these so run it to me like you're running it to a parent (make your points VERY clear & accessible).

-Speech Coach, NFL, Plymouth High School, Plymouth, IN (1993-1995)

-Speech Coach, (founder of Woodson Speech Team) Woodson High School, Fairfax, VA (1995-1997)

-Speech/Theatre/English Secondary teacher certificates. Graduate of Indiana University School of Education (BS Education)

-Public Speaking teacher, theatre arts teacher (acting, tech theatre), music teacher, English teacher, theatre director, speech coach (IN, VA, TX, NJ)

-Public Speaking teacher and English teacher, Cherry Hill East High School, Cherry Hill, NJ (2017-present)

-Speech Coach (founder of Cherry Hill East's first ever Speech Team) December 2021. NSDA members.

-Debate Coach, Cherry Hill East HS (Sept 2021-present)

-Cherry Hill East Speech and Debate (combined team) (Sept. 2023-present)

I am a lay judge.

Please be respectful and courteous to your opponents and always watch your time.

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Signposting will help me to remember and follow your points.

No spreading. I might fail to catch your words thus not be able to understand you.

Enjoy your debates!

Email: spencerzh@gmail.com