My name is Zahira Ambriz-Villela, and I am a third-year PF debater.

My expectations:

- Your case should have uniqueness, link, warrant, and impacts- also, you don't need to say in case "my warrant is..."

- Line-by-line rebuttal makes me keep track of arguments. Always respond to weighing done in rebuttal

- First summary should frontline after that, no new responses or evidence should be mentioned

- Extend arguments in summary and start weighing, final focus should emphasize the weighing more

- Crossfire: I do not flow cross-- important points must be mentioned in another speech. Please be respectful during crossfire and ask questions!

- If you use off-time road maps, follow them

- Have cards ready, time your speeches (I will too and only give you a few seconds of lenience)

- I prefer clarity over speed

- You can read me carded evidence, but I need warrants (tell me why the argument/evidence makes sense and aids your stance) aka don’t just read stuff and expect me to do the work for you

- Carry your points (do not mention evidence from constructive for the second time in final focus if it's been ignored all round)

- I won't intervene AT ALL as a judge in your argumentation (say what you want me to hear) unless something is BLATANTLY untrue (e.g., a climate change isn't real argument will never win me over since contemporary debates aren't about that)

- DO NOT SPREAD AND DO NOT RUN THEORY (I despise LD and Policy tactics in PF)

RFD and Speaker points:

I will try to disclose after round and give a detailed RFD

You will get good speaker points if you’re respectful, clear, and know your evidence (I usually start at 28 and go from there). Try to project too, especially online.

Any derogatory or disrespectful comments (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.) will result in a dropped ballot. No exceptions. Don't be overly aggressive or yelling at any time in the debate, it does not matter if I agree with your points, I probably will not vote for you.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me in round or email me at zahira.ambriz@gmail.com

Have fun!

Hey guys! This is my fourth year competing in Public Forum Debate

In round:

-Please keep your own time and try not to go over

-I can handle speed as long as you are clear but I prefer if you are efficient and collapse. If I can't understand you I can't flow

-Going line by line helps me flow

-Extend your arguments/ Impacts!!!!!!!! (I vote off of impacts)

- Warrant all of your evidence instead of just card dumping

- Explain how you win and explain to me (not your opponents) using ballot-directing language

-Weighing is one of the most important things in a round to me, shows me exactly where I need to vote

Crossfire:

-I won't flow cross so if something important is said make sure to bring it up again or else I can't use it

-Don't be rude (rudeness= lower speaks)

Speaker Points and RFD:

-If you can warrant your arguments and speak clearly, you should be fine.

- I will try to disclose and give an RFD at the end of each round

Have fun and good luck guys!! :)

If you have any questions please feel free to ask me in round or email me at tcook123791@gmail.com

I am a three-year varsity debater. I do flow and will vote off the flow; however, crossfire will not be flowed. Do not try to gain extra preparation time by over-asking for cards and/or delaying the time it takes to send your cards to the opposing team. Both competitors are responsible for upholding the time intervals for each speech and cross during the debate and to time their prep time. If there is an email chain to exchange evidence, please include my email (willfligg23@gmail.com) 

Thanks

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

I'm a 4th-year varsity debater at Sequoyah High School

*Please show up to your round on time*

How I will evaluate the debate/general thoughts:

• You can go as fast as you want, but please don't spread. And one tip I will give: don't sacrifice clarity for speed (I can't flow what I can't understand)

• Please extend all of your arguments

• Weigh arguments and use ballot directing language - you can do this with an overview in the last speech that tells me how you win or with voters; I don't care.

• Both carded evidence and logic rebuttals are good.

• If you can, please number your responses to arguments so I know if I missed anything

Crossfire:

• You can be aggressive; please don't be rude (Rudeness = lower speaks)

• Overall I will not flow cross, so if you make a good point that you believe should be on the flow, make sure to bring it up in your following speech.

Speaker points and RDF:

• As for speaker points, as long as you speak clearly and know your evidence, you should be fine; adding any puns or references from marvel or star wars will boost your speaker points. Or you can follow me at Mg_haggerty on Instagram and send me your favorite meme!

• I will try to disclose and give you a detailed RDF

If you have any questions at all, you can ask me in round or email me at magghagg927@gmail.com

Have a good time and good luck debating

Tldr; Debate like a person with an audience to entertain and convince, not a machine playing a game

1. Why Not Tech?

Before I explain what I judge on, let me explain my background. I used to debate public forum for Columbus High School in Columbus, GA. During my first year of debate, I never debated Aff in competition. I also never ran any sort of “technical” argument - as to do so would have been an insult to not only my experience, but that of every other debater.

Public forum debate is a unique form of debate that has its roots in the traditions of democracy and civic engagement. It was designed to be accessible to everyone, regardless of their prior experience or expertise. As a judge, I value the principles of public forum debate and expect debaters to honor these traditions.

I believe that logic and reasoning should be the cornerstone of any successful debate. Evidence can certainly be useful, but it is not the only measure of a well-reasoned argument. I will prioritize clear and compelling reasoning over the quantity or quality of evidence presented. Evidence may be used to complement a logical argument - not replace one - and I will consider arguments presented without any evidence as long as a clear logical proposition can be established.

I strongly disapprove of technical arguments. Such arguments often prioritize form over substance, and can be used to obfuscate the true issues at stake. As a judge, I will not be impressed by clever tricks or gimmicks. Instead, I expect debaters to present clear and convincing arguments that can be understood by all. There is a topic that we came here to debate, and I expect to debate that topic alone - not some entirely irrelevant subject that:

1. Fails to demonstrate any understanding of the topic at hand;

2. Shuts out debaters from less advantaged schools that don’t have teams of coaches to concoct contrived and baseless arguments;

3. Makes the debate mind-numbing, boring, endlessly repetitive, and infuriating to watch or judge.

It is important to remember that public forum debate is not a purely intellectual exercise. It is a form of civic engagement, designed to encourage individuals to engage in meaningful dialogue and to learn from each other. As such, I will prioritize respectful and productive discourse over grandstanding or showmanship.

I want to stress the importance of honoring the history and traditions of public forum debate. This form of debate was designed to be accessible, engaging, and informative for all participants. It was not intended to be a technical or evidence-heavy exercise. By staying true to the original vision of public forum debate, we can ensure that this important tradition continues to thrive and serve its intended purpose.

And, in case any doubt remains, let me clarify my position on technical arguments once more. I will not vote for them. That does not mean, “I will not vote for them unless they are overwhelmingly better than the opponents”. It does not mean “I will not vote for them unless you use really fancy words to convey your points”. It means that I will, under no circumstances, vote for an argument that is unrelated to the topic, or a meta-critique of debate itself. A technical argument formulated by every professor at Harvard Law would lose to a team that did not show up, and the team that ran it would be awarded 25 speaker points for their efforts.

II. Flows, Speaking, and Spreading

As a judge, I expect debaters to speak in a clear and concise manner that is accessible to the average person. While I will be flowing the debate, I expect debaters to speak as if I am not. I do not want to see a 4-minute speech with 800 words that is delivered too quickly for the average person to understand. Remember, public forum debate is primarily about public speaking and persuasion. I do not want to see an LD or policy-style debate, nor do I appreciate jargon or buzzwords. If you decide to run a case that consists of spitting out dozens of pieces of barely developed evidence at a pace that leaves me out of breath just from listening, I will stop flowing your case entirely and judge you based on what I can retain in memory alone. This will not be good for either your case or your speaker points.

I want debaters to speak in a manner that is engaging and easy to follow, without resorting to technical terms or obscure references. Terms like "weighing," "dropped," "flow," "extend," "card," "impact," "tech," and "truth" are not useful in public forum debate and will not impress me. I prefer clear and straightforward language that is accessible to a general audience.

I understand that some teams may have attended debate summer camps that emphasize the aforementioned “technical” jargon and buzzwords. However, I expect all debaters to prioritize accessibility and clarity in their speaking style. Teams that fail to do so will not receive high speaker points from me. Remember, the goal of public forum debate is to create a public discourse in an open atmosphere, not to impress other debaters with indecipherable buzzwords masquerading as “technical” debate.

II. Calls, Crossfire, and Time

Crossfire is the most vital piece of the argument. It is the most intense interaction of the debate, and I expect both teams to be able to take advantage of it. I do not want to hear any requests that boil down to restatements of the argument that do no nothing to encourage interaction or critical thinking. You are given the chance to ask your opponents anything and demand an immediate answer. Use it. Done properly, crossfire should be more than informative - it should be entertaining. It is my favorite part of a round and I would appreciate it if you would humor me by providing a crossfire worth paying attention to. In recognition of its importance, I will value points made or concessions earned during crossfire as highly as I would if they were brought up in any other segment of the round. Crossfire should be the most stressful time of the debate for you as I will hold everything said against you, as will your opponents. In a real debate, would your audience forget the concessions you made just because they happened in a magical 3 minute window? No - so neither will I.

During grand crossfire, I expect participation from every debater. You are all allowed to talk - so I expect you all to use that ability. If I see a single person on a team dominating the conversation, both members will be penalized speaker points - for either shutting out your own teammate or for not actively engaging in the least scripted portion of the debate.

I expect you to think critically and call for evidence (if any is even presented) during crossfire. To promote a judicial choice of evidence, I will allow untimed calling for and review of the opponents evidence. I do not want to see evidence used that relies on flashy titles, abstracts, or the professional affiliations of the author. If evidence is used, tell me WHY it is valid. Tell me WHY the methodology is well suited to exploring the problem at hand. Tell me WHY I should trust in the study’s ability to be replicated, or why the authors’ conclusions are justified from the results they observed. On that note - PARAPHRASING IS NOT PLAGIARISM. PLAGIARISM IS PLAGIARISM. If you want to read the authors’ ideas word-for-word, feel free as long as the author is credited.

I will expect you to time both yourselves and your opponents. You are mature and skilled debaters and should not need someone to shut you down when you start going over time. If your argument can’t fit into the time constraints of the speech, that is an excellent indicator that your argument is overly complicated and likely to fail regardless.

IV. Deportment

While my paradigm may come off as harsh and restrictive, I assure you the intent is quite the opposite. I want debate to be lively, fun, educational, and entertaining for all. The preferences I have listed out help keep it that way. With that being said, I want to see emotion in your arguments - not machines reading off laptops. Humor is well appreciated and highly regarded. Joking insults are welcome, as long your opponents do not take offense to them. Sarcasm, wordplay, and good attitudes will take you far in life, but especially with me as your judge. Conduct yourselves well, don’t take yourself too seriously, think through your argument - and I can guarantee we all will enjoy the experience. I look forward to our round.