I have judged debates before, but I am more of a lay judge. I don’t prefer spreading and you will get points off if you do so. My RFD will be affected by which side carries through points, rebuttals and refutations to the last speech. Once again, I am a lay judge so weighing is of the upmost importance. Be respectful and debate well!

Ask me about my paradigm in round for more complete explanation of me but basics are below.

I will not weigh any theory. No exceptions. You are allowed to disclose arguments before the round I guess but if the other team doesn't agree you can't run disclosure theory arguments or I'll drop you.

Speed isn't an issue for me but be clear - spreaders will be dropped.

Respond to all arguments in the round even if they are dumb and/or techy. I may not weigh off of stupid technical arguments in the end but they still count as offense so have responses.

I flow so if you have things you want me to weigh on in the end, collapse on them and bring them up in every speech.

If you are giving second rebuttal, frontline your opponents responses because responding to them in second summary is abusive. There is some leeway here but not a ton especially if it feels like you are doing it in bad taste.

Short off-time roadmaps are fine but I'll just start timing if you get obnoxious with it.

You get 5 sec of grace period per speech before I stop listening.

Call your opponents cards if you want to contest them and then explain to me why I should/shouldn't trust them. I'll call for important cards at the end of the round if they had been contested beforehand in the round but if there was no source analysis by the end then I won't call them.

I won't weigh cross in my decisions, if someone concedes something in cross then bring it up in an actual speech so it can be weighed.

Have fun and be polite, its high school debate not a Warzone lobby which is neither fun nor polite.

If you read this and can tell me your favorite kind of fish and I think its cool enough you will get 30 speaker points - if not I'll just grade them regular. If your favorite fish is like salmon because you like sushi that's definitely not cool enough. Be a free thinker not a fish sheep. Be prepared to defend why it is your favorite fish - must be at least two reasons i.e. taste, colors, size, fun to catch, personal reason, evolutionary advantages, generally dope, etc... I might ask you a question about it to see if you really know the fish or if you're just tryna get 30s for free.

Hey everyone!

I'm Vansh, a first-year out. I did congress for 4 years and competed on the national circuit. I hope you all can take away something from this activity that used to be such a big part of my life!

The first and most important thing I'm going to be looking for within speeches is just the fundamentals: make sure you have proper speech structure and outlines. I should be able to tell what your claim, warrant, data, analysis, and impacts are. As a judge, I'm not going to try to figure out your speech for you, be coherent and make sure your speech has a clear sense of direction.

The most important parts of your speech are your warrant and your impact. Make sure you emphasize these parts of your speech the most as these explain why your argument is true, and why your argument matters. Speeches without these are hard to follow or are insignificant within the round. Along those lines, make sure your arguments have clear link chains. If you know that there are logic holes within your link chain, then chances are I'm going to be able to recognize them.

Make sure you understand your position in the round and interact with your colleagues. If you are a sponsor or an early-round speaker, explain the bill and set up a framework for your side. If you are in the middle of the round, extend upon the previous arguments and have rebuttals against the opposing side. If you're a late-round speech, crystalize and weigh the arguments and impacts in the round. The debate doesn't exist in a vacuum, so make sure you address other people in the round! Most of the time when people hear this they immediately think of refutation, but there are so many other ways to interact with the debate. You can set a framework, extend on previous impacts, crystalize, set a burden for a side to prove, etc. The interaction within congressional debate is what makes it unique from other events and is also what makes it enjoyable, so embrace it!

Lastly, have fun! I know this sounds super corny, but genuinely the best debaters in the circuit are the ones that enjoy it the most. I know debate can be sucky at times, prep can be really hard and annoying, and rounds can feel intimidating, but I do think there is some beauty within all of it. Try to appreciate the fact that you all are modeling an actual congress, are challenging your perspectives, and are trying to find solutions to genuine issues that occur in the real world.

Debate was a big part of my life in highschool and I hope you all are able to take away as much as I did from it. I look forward to seeing y'all in round!

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Hi, I'm Aryan Nair. I competed in PF at Cary Academy for 4 years and I'm now a sophomore at Duke. I would classify myself as a traditional PF judge.

I don't flow crossfire so anything you want me to flow should come up during speeches.

Here are a few things I like:

1. Warranting and Responsiveness: If you just read cards don't expect to win my ballot. Give me some sort of analysis and warranting behind your arguments. I like clash in round. Make sure that the responses you make are specifically responsive to case. Once again, don't just read cards, give me how those cards specifically take out their argument.

2. Signposting: Please signpost it helps me flow and gives structure to your speeches.

3. Comparative Analysis: I see that in a lot of rounds two people will have cards saying the opposite things. At that point you need to prove to me why your card is better (warranting, postdating, etc) otherwise you leave it to a 50/50 where I have to decide which card is better.

4. Extensions: Your final focus should bring up the same topics and cards as your summary. New arguments in final focus will not be flowed. If you drop an argument in summary, you concede that argument no matter how bad their argument is.

5. Weighing: Make sure to weigh impacts and links at least in final focus. It is the main way you are going to win my ballot.

6. Be Respectful: There is a difference between being assertive and rude. If you are being disrespectful in any way I will drop you and give you low speaker points. Make sure to have respect for your opponents.

If you have any questions feel free to email me at aryan.nair@duke.edu.

I am a parent of a debater and I participated in Lincoln Douglas Debate in High School. Although the resolutions are very different, the underlying premise in value debate is the same and above all else it is important to so reasoning in either establishing a case or refuting. We NEVER spoke quickly in our time - but that has changed and that is understandable, however I would prefer a reasonable to brisk pace. I do not appreciate 'spreading' as this takes away from the communication aspect of this style in my opinion. Please be thoughtful in your words, establish a repoire with those around you, Please be respectful and tolerant. Like good cooking, some thoughts need to simmer. I want to see arguments for definitions and value criterion linked to reason, evidence, example and carried through the round. This is the base of the pyramid for me. Evidence is applicable when placed in a solid / sound construct. Relax and enjoy your debates as much as I will enjoy hearing your ideas.

Hello - I am a new, lay judge. I’m still learning my way around the debate world, so please be patient. Please talk relatively slowly. It doesn’t have to be super slow, just understandable. Please state which contention you are on, or are responding to, to help me follow along. Thanks, and good luck! :)

Hi there! My name is Aileen, and I'm a varsity high school pf debater. I also do impromptu speaking!

Things I value and like to judge off of:

- consistent, well-extended arguments

- good, strong, up-to-date evidence

Things I do not want in a round:

- any hate (racism, homophobia, etc.)

- speeding through speeches (please no spreading!)

Best of luck, and have fun!

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

This is my second year as a judge. I have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate events, both at the novice and varsity levels. I have also judged multiple speech events, including Extemp, Impromptu, HI, DI, etc. at the novice and varsity levels.

For Debate competitors:

My preference is for the debaters to speak slowly and clearly. It's better to have lesser but more impactful statements, rather than to cram in too much information all at once that doesn't flow properly. Debaters should also take advantage of the prep time available to them, instead of rushing into things.

Start with an off-time roadmap, in order to clearly describe what you will be speaking about and to keep yourself organized. Also summarize your key points in the beginning... and at the end. "Tell me what you're going to tell me, then tell me, and then tell me what you just told me."

Don't spread, as it tends to put you at a disadvantage with me as a judge and with your opponent who can use your spreading to attack you. Enjoy yourself, and be respectful to your opponent and your judge.

For Speech competitors:

Based on your event, take advantage of your opportunities to show emotion, changing of voice tones, gestures, and overall personification. Use roadmaps when appropriate, and speak clearly and slowly. Don't forget to clearly and accurately state the question / topic / title in your intro and in your conclusion, and summarize your answer / key points in your intro and conclusion.

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.

I did competitive speech and debate for all four years of high school. I competed on the local and nation circuits, so I am well equipped to understand the flow of the round. However, I am still looking for the teams to weigh the round on their own. I do not want to look back at the flow and try to decide which argument was better; tell me. Since this tournament is virtual, I will not penalize you for technical difficulties. To ensure the round runs smoothly, I would suggest making sure you have a stable network and doing a sound test to make sure I can hear you.

Hey! I'm a 4th year high school PF debater :)

Above all, be civil!

Keep the round moving quickly-- if you want to pause between speeches, please take prep!

Preferences:

Speed, jargon, decorum, etc:

I'm OK with spreading if you're speaking relatively clearly. If your opponent asks you to speak slower make sure you slow down though. If you are an extreme spreader please send speech docs beforehand.

Most PF-specific debate terms are fine but please don't use policy or LD-specific terms. In general, I would prefer no policy-specific arguments in PF.

I like off-time roadmaps, and please signpost whenever you can.

Make sure crossfire is not just another speech for your side, even if the other team is being relatively passive. Both teams should be questioning each other! Also- I won't vote based on whether you're aggressive/assertive in crossfire or not. I feel that crossfire is mostly for the debaters' benefits rather than the judge, so I will probably not flow most of what you say in crossfire.

Arguments, weighing, etc:

I try not to extrapolate anything you say in round-- I'll take everything at face value, so if you want me to weigh a certain impact then please say it outright.

I will buy pretty much any argument with good links unless they're problematic/don't make any sense

I won't ask for cards myself, but make sure you're able to provide a card if your opponent asks for it. If you can't I may not weigh it.

Generally, I like to adhere to the principle of "no new evidence in summary, no new arguments in final focus" but I do understand that if a new argument is brought up in grand cross you may want to respond to it. But I won't weigh any new arguments and especially no new evidence in second final focus.

Speaks:

I won't subtract speaker points based on if you stutter or mess up words sometimes- it happens to us all- but I will if you run super over time in a speech or take long (like over 30 second) pauses. Points will mostly be based on the content of what you say, organization, clarity, etc.

This is my third year as a parent speech and debate judge. I have been judging public forum during this time. As a judge I need to be convinced that the resolution (con or pro) needs to be adopted.

In addition these are some additional considerations:

1) Manage your time well
2) No new arguments in the final focus
3) Be prepared with material for evidence - do not search for evidence during the debate.
4) Effective communication, logical reasoning and leverage relevant evidence to strengthen your argument

GENERAL

Hi! I'm a varsity PF debater at East Chapel Hill High School with experience in impromptu.

In rounds I will judge based mostly on who can convince me their impacts are better (in any way, as long as I buy it). Strong links and well-organized arguments are also important, and confidence will factor into speaker points.

Please don't make personal attacks against your opponent, or excessively interrupt.

Trust your knowledge and have fun!

SPECIFICS

Please don't use policy or LD jargon in a PF round, as I've never debated those before and won't understand.

If an opponent asks for a card, just copy-paste it into the chat. If you can't provide it, it won't be flowed and the other team can bring up the lack of evidence in following speeches

I don't like spreading (talking too fast) but can tolerate it- if I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. I also won't flow more than ~10 seconds overtime on any speech.

Cross should be for asking and answering questions, not reading and repeating paragraphs of your own case- in general I will listen, but not flow. Be assertive and polite.

I prefer rebuttals labeled by contention, but as long as everything is organized it's not necessary.

There must be weighing in summary and final focus- make sure you tell me why your team should win the round and let me know what I'm voting on.

During online tournaments, I would recommend staying on a phone call with your partner throughout the round, so it's easy to talk during prep. Make sure to mute yourself on the phone when you unmute in the Zoom meet, or else there's feedback.