I have several years of judging experience in speech/debate "for fun," though I'm not a debate coach. I am by trade a science teacher (physics, environmental, and engineering) so I love logical arguments backed by clever evidence.

I appreciate clear speaking voices and "thought trains" that are easy to follow. I'm a bit traditional in that I prefer debaters to discuss the topic at hand. I hope you will be "ruthless" with your case development, not your attitude. Be respectful!

"Bonus points" for making me laugh. ;)

Hi Debaters,

I have judged elementary and middle school debate last year. I make unbiased decision even if I have some background knowledge of topic and always open to listening and learning. I believe with time information changes and affects our decision. It's always fun to see how new and pro debaters benefit with the rounds.

I will give points based on what you presented , how well you presented, did you have real content or just tried to pass time with some nonintelligent tricks. I will not hold you responsible for what you did not cover about topic.

I am particular about debate rules:

1. Manage time wisely
2. Do not expect me to intervene during crossfire
3. During cross fire do not try to waste opponent time by beating around the bush, ask precise clear questions
4. Use signposting as your strength and also makes judges job easy
5. I will take speaker points off if any arguments are conceded or if new arguments are brought up later than first summary.
6. Come prepared, decide how you want to share the evidence. Do not assume other team may share evidence the same way (ex. google doc vs chat)
7. I strive to start rounds timely and be respectful of everyone's time and effort.
8. Low point wins are possible, but it has happened once only so far for me (so be confident but not rude).

I can follow decent speed but will prefer someone not to rush to put more in given time and not explain their case /argument properly or have unused time on hand. So pace yourself.

I am looking forward to honest, respectful debates from which both the debaters and I will learn debating and the topic. I am fairly easy going person but particular about respectful debates. I am getting familiar with debate jargons but not a master yet. I prefer to give immediate oral feedback as that may help debaters to improve for next round as well as may be looking at all feedbacks later may not give as much clarity and satisfaction. I do not mind debaters asking questions about my decision as long as it's done in respectful way.

I am learning and evolving with debaters. I debated a little during high school and college and love it now also. So let's keep the fun going. Enjoy the topic and debate process do not focus on winning and loosing. Every round you will learn and get better irrespective of outcome.

Last edited in 2023. I have tried to make this as expansive as possible to avoid a slew of questions on my preferences before rounds…though it’ll happen anyway because people have stopped reading these.

Update for Georgetown: As is typically the case with PF, I have decent knowledge of the topic lit, but not fantastic knowledge of the metagame (I can probably understand your arguments, I just won't know which arguments are most/least common). Pls pls pls collapse and weigh and make this easy for me because it's late in the semester and I am tired.

About: Did LD for 4 years @ Sequoyah HS in GA, now a junior at UGA (UGA ’24) studying History Ed and Philosophy. I don’t do college CX but I still actively judge LD.

- I think about judging and related stuff semi-often b/c I work with critical lit and that sort of thing a lot as an educator

- Pronouns: any/all, but avoid saying my name during speeches (still feels weird)

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz (expect boosted speaks if you give an interp text, advocacy text, or standard text at conversational speed – this doesn’t apply to trad rounds though)

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, but if you execute kritikal or philosophical positions really well, or execute a damn good policy round, you can usually earn very nice speaks in front of me

- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: chansey.agler@uga.edu

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability”

- You can bribe me by bringing me either a frozen coffee (original or mocha) from Dunkin' or a vanilla sweet cream coldbrew from Starbucks, or a can of Redbull or Root Beer, don’t bring me food food b/c I have allergies

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K (including POMO), Policy, Philosophy (not trix but like actually understanding Korsgaard): 1

Theory and Tricks: 4

Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)

Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:

- People whose paradigms I agree with: Joshua St. Peter, Joey Tarnowski, Joey Antonelli

- I’ve debated and judged for a decent bit on the circuit, from novice locals to finals at bid tournaments, you do you

- I’ll eval the round however you want me to (barring obviously exclusionary mechanisms) but I need to understand how you want me to eval it

- Yes, I disclose at the end of the round, it usually takes me a moment to get things sorted out (especially if the round was close), but I generally do not disclose speaks

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone

- Weighing is good in every debate event and is usually the best way to earn high speaks

Lincoln Douglas:

K Debates:

- I read a lot of critical literature and these debates are what I enjoy the most these days but this shouldn’t affect how you go for it in-round—you still need to give a good ballot story and explanation (basically: I probably know at least a little bit about your lit base, but you should act as though I don’t) and engage with the opposing position

- I absolutely adore queer and feminist literature but if you don’t know the lit, these positions can also make me v sad

- I enjoy reading postmodernism but you should explain these positions as if I know nothing about them—don’t assume I know the intricacies of your lit

- You also need to do some kind of impact analysis/weighing because this’ll otherwise get messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff

- 1-off FW: the 1NC must engage with the Aff, presumption is a persuasive strategy (K v. K is also welcome but can be difficult to eval w/o effort on your part), clear visions of what an Aff should do and research/clash/DAs to their model of debate are usually a better idea in front of me than limits, TVA matters more if you find cards or a TVA on the wiki but otherwise it’s just another arg on the flow

- Aff perms are getting lazier and the perm double-bind is not a real argument—I need to know what it looks like (how do we ‘do both’), what the net benefit is (or if it’s a test of competition, which is less persuasive tbh), and what ‘methodological pluralism’ actually means when combining conflicting ideologies

- I’m skeptical of usage of K lit as tricks—not my favorite way to wield literature

- Floating PIKs aren’t a thing

Phil/FW:

- Losing influence in the meta but still wonderful debates when done well—I studied philosophy for a decent part of college so I probably can get at what you’re saying, in-round explanation still matters (don’t treat me like a professor of ethics who knows the minute details of every card—I definitely don’t)

- Analytical ethical philosophy is usually easier to explain in 13 min of speech time than continental but if you want to go for the latter, feel free to—just make sure you devote more time to it

- I don’t like it when a phil AC becomes 6 min of nonsense—your syllogism and warrants need to make sense

- Mackie, Nietzsche, Derrida etc. are really fun arguments (moral skep/nihilism), but epistemic skepticism is usually incoherent and somewhat irresponsible as a model of debate

- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)

- TJFs are meh, impact-justified frameworks are kinda meh, and I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash…), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Policy/Util:

- Usually pretty straightforward tbh, weighing and impact calc are key in these types of debates

- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic

- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t

- Extinction impacts are very overused in debate, but I won’t hack against DAs/Advantages that have extinction impacts

- Perm > theory for cheaty CPs, I tend to err Aff on these questions anyway, and if you go the theory route, you have to weigh against 1NC procedurals (people have stopped doing this and it makes me sad)

- Ptx DAs/CPs are fine, just not my favorite when it’s only tangentially connected to the resolution

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (aspec is also fine)

- Great that you found a dictionary definition or grammar rule—how does it apply to the given resolution, and what’s the impact

Traditional LD (Trad):

- These debates are usually kind of easy for me to resolve—they get easier if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but get harder to resolve if you don’t do those things; in general, the more work you put into resolving the round for me, the better you’ll do

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other (impact debates, turns, etc. are often where the best traditional rounds happen)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good (stop reading “democracy” as a value just because it’s mentioned in the rez)

- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)

- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones)

Theory

- Slow down significantly when giving the interp text and please clearly number standards so I can clearly tell when one argument ends and the next begins (i.e., Standards: 1. Ground, 2. Precision)

- 1AC underview arguments need to make sense (i.e., ‘Aff gets 1AR theory’ usually makes sense, but it’s hard to convince me that the Neg can’t make arguments)

- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions

- Weigh between shells and explain the warrants and interactions between standards—T vs. PICs bad or Aspec vs. PICs probably clash, but I can’t do the RFD work for you on my own—in the absence of weighing between standards I usually have a really difficult time resolving these debates

- Theory evidence written by coaches isn’t something I’ll ignore on-face but this is a debate that people need to have more often

- Reasonability is always an option (hint hint)

- Interestingly, I’m not super opposed to RVIs and have voted on them before (only on theory, not on T), but I still do not view these as usually the most strategic option

Disclosure

- I tend to view disclosure (up to OS w/ highlights) as good but I’m not the biggest fan of disclosure theory – if you didn’t ask before the round, read something else pls

- I will disregard disclosure theory read against trad kids without wikis (if it seems v apparent that they don’t have one)

- ‘New Affs Bad’ = sad face

Tricks

- Not a terrific judge for one-liners, “auto-win” claims, or anything that lacks warranting—if you want to read a new paradox or be innovative, I’m game for that, but if you want to read a bunch of nonsense and act like it constitutes complete arguments, that’s lazy

- ‘Ought = epistemological’ and ‘permissibility affirms’ are both hard sells—you need to devote larger amounts of time to these kinds of arguments instead of one line

- External world skepticism is also a very hard sell in front of me—I would suggest Gettier problems instead

- Truth Testing isn’t my favorite

Misc/Defaults for LD

- Theory Defaults: Fairness + Ed = Voters, DTD, No RVIs, Reasonability (the latter 3 are easy to flip, the first two are not)

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence

- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, extremely unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah and Perry High Schools, Dean Rusk Middle School

I am a researcher and so I believe in actual facts if you want to convince me.

Instead of spending brief time on lot of arguments, I would love to hear lot of time on a few arguments.

Be concise and clear in pronounciations as the topic might be unfamiliar to me.

Acronyms are ok as long as you make it clear the first time you use it.

email chain: shamshadali4321@gmail.com

I used to debate in LD and PF and would consider myself flayish.

not a fan of spreading. speech doc for over 200wpm

I will evaluate two rounds of prog arguments a day. If you are the third round, sucks to suck. i will say that it has been a while, so try to be explicit with everything.

no friv theory or tricks. my bar for responses will be much lower, and i will be annoyed.

do not make me intervene for my decision

cards don't beat logic just cuz they're cards

#thepartnership @devonweis

S&D president in high school (PF, variety of speech events), coach+judge in undergrad and now grad school. TOCs/Nats/CA States qualifier sophomore, junior & senior years. Finalist @ Stanford, Harker, Cal / Berkeley RR, Apple Valley, ASU, UCLA invitationals, etc. Still use my S&D skills today in my role as a consultant (Bain) and in product management (Netflix).

Add me to the chain and/or reach out with any questions: lindsayallen@ucla.edu

tech > truth, so long as your arguments are not offensive/discriminatory. I'm pretty tabula rasa, I'll weigh / evaluate the round however you persuade me to, and I enjoy being spoon-fed at the end of the round (in terms of weighing arguments and overall round evaluation). No need to boil the ocean... keep the end of the round focused on the most important arguments and tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Arguments you want weighed must be extended through summary and final focus - with their respective warrants.

I don't flow cross but your cross performance can influence your speaker points.

Above all, be respectful to each other!

I'm a former World Schools debater for Team Canada, and currently an APDA and BP debater.

Main things to keep in mind:

1) I like warrants. From Inko Bovenzi's paradigm: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence" I like this approach for two reasons: a) Evidence on its own is rarely capable of proving an argument. Debate topics are contentious issues with evidence in favor and against — maybe the evidence in favor is stronger in certain contexts and weaker in others. b) In the time constraints of a debate round, evaluating the strength of warrants is a fairer and more achievable objective than evaluating the strength of evidence. The former, done well, requires me to listen to and assess your logic. The latter requires me to read entire studies, evaluate the soundness of their methods, in many cases distinguish between causation and correlation, and ensure that the link between that evidence and your argument is sound.

2)Weigh arguments. Most rounds can be won on weighing. But weighing needs to be good. Saying "only magnitude matters, probability does not" is not good weighing. I guess in some limited cases, that will win you the round. But I can't think of any cases where it would give you good speaker scores. Any evaluation of a utilitarian outcome is necessarily a combination of probability and impact. You can argue that an impact is so great that we should prioritize it despite the low probability, but that is far from saying "only magnitude matters because we can't assess probability" or some line of reasoning like that.

3) Theory: I really don't like theory arguments, and I have no experience making or evaluating them. I will listen to theory arguments, but I won't love them.

4) Speed: Don't do anything outrageously fast. I will not penalize you for going fast. But you run the risk of underanalyzing certain claims or not communicating them clearly enough for them to be round-winning.

5) Calling evidence: I generally won't call evidence, except in some cases if you ask me to. But in general, try not to do that unless necessary. I also have a good sense of when teams are lying about or exaggerating evidence. So do not do that.

6) Be respectful to your opponents.

7) HAVE FUN!

PF Coach @ The Potomac School,

W&M '24,GMU '22

Put me on your email chain marybeth.armstrong18@gmail.com

Policy

*UPDATE for Wake 2022*

I have not researched/coached at all on the personhood topic so pls do not assume that I knowthings.

Online things - pls slow down a lil - I already flow on paper and if you are flying through analytics online there is a good chance I wont catch some stuff

TLDR: I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.

Policy v Policy

Cards: I will read them to answer questions about my flow or to compare the quality of evidence of well debated arguments (this is not an excuse for poor explanation) .

T: The standards I prefer and find most persuasive are limits/ground and real world context. I default to competing interpretations if no other metric is given. However, I err aff if I think your interp is reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp is slightly better. Otherwise, just defend your interp is a good vision of the topic.

Theory

I am generally fine with unlimited condo. However, will be much more inclined to vote on condo if your vision of unlimited condo is 7 counterplans in the 1NC with no solvency advocates. Fail to see how that is a) strategic or b) educational. I will certainly vote on condo if it is dropped or won tho.

I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends.

99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

K v Policy Affs

Specificity of links go a long way. This doesn't mean your evidence has to be exactly about the plan but applying your theory to the aff in a way that takes out solvency will do a world of good for you. Please remember I haven't done research on this topic, so good explanations will be to your benefit.

Make sure the alt does something to resolve your links/impacts + aff offense OR you have FW that eliminates aff offense. (Having an alt in the 2NR is definitely to your benefit in these debates, I am less likely to err neg even if you win a link to the aff without some resolution).

However, I probably tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff, key to fairness, etc are all arguments I tend to find persuasive. I also think a well developed argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will go a long way.

Good impact framing is essential in the majority of these debates. For the aff - be careful here, even if you win case outweighs, the neg can still win a link turns case arg and you will lose.

Contextual line-by-line debates are better than super long overviews. I will not make cross-applications for you.

K Affs v Policy

K Affs should probably have some relation to the resolution. They should also probablydo somethingto resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. If it isn't doing something, I need an extremely good explanation for why. TLDR: if I don’t know what the aff does after the CX of the 1AC, you are going to have a v hard time the rest of the round.

Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Fairness is an impact. However, go for whatever version of FW you are best at. In the same vain as some of the stuff above, being contextual to the aff is critical. If you make no reference to the aff especially in the latter half of the debate, it will be hard to win my ballot.

Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like & why that vision is better. Or if the negative team does not have a superb counterinterp - impact turn the affs model of debate.

K v K

If you find me in these debates, make the debate simple for me. Clear contextual explanations are going to go a long way. Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

PF

Flow judge, tell me how to evaluate the round

Here are a few thoughts:

1. I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. You will probably be rewarded if you just send cases/rebuttal docs before each speech because I will less annoyed. If you are asking for opponents to write out/send analytics, you are self reporting, I know you aren't flowing.

2. Links and impacts need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus. Please do not tagline extend your argument, do some comparative analysis in regard to your opponents arguments. Please go beyond just extending author names as well - most of the time I don’t really flow authors unless it matters.

3. Tech > Truth

4. I don’t flow cross, but I am listening. If something important happens in cross it NEEDS to be in your speech.

5. Theory: I am comfortable evaluating theory, although it does annoy me when debaters read theory on teams that clearly wont know how to answer it just because they think it is an easy ballot, I will tank speaks for this. Either way, theory is just another argument I will evaluate on the flow, so make sure you are doing line-by-line, just like you would on any other argument. However, generally I think disclosure is beneficial and CWs are good when they are actually needed.

6. Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. I think there are ways to run them and be effective, but I think it is extremely hard given the time constraints of PF. I hate link of omissions though. pls stop

Newer lay/parent judge - please speak clearly!

beginner parent judge

I prefer more casual delivery. I care a lot about weighing and sensible, realistic impacts. I don't prefer improbable, far-fetched outcomes -- point this out to me. Quality over quantity of arguments. Quantitative evidence, economic analysis, and clear value frameworks are favorable. Overarching narratives and clear summaries help guide decisions.

I'm a parent judge. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made), and why your side should prevail.

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

Thank you.

Hello debaters,

I am currently a 2nd year Medical Student. I've been actively participating in Model UN, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas for 4 years; I'm currently coaching and judging Public Forum. Likewise, I like to think of debate as an empowering experience for both the debaters and the judges, so be respectful to the activity we all love.

I love clashes between arguments; boil down your arguments and tell me explicitly why you won the round and on which terms. Explain and analyze every piece of information even though I might already know what you're talking about. I deeply enjoy the use of fallacies while refuting evidence. I'm most likely to vote for you if your argument is wrapped around the extensive use of statistics and logic. Furthermore, I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you could read at a leveled speed and tone; the debate is not about throwing arguments at my face, but about connecting them to the resolution at hand.

I understand the frustration of debaters when they encounter biased judges, this is why I completely place my beliefs aside; feel free to run any argument you like, at the end of the day the ballot doesn't depend on your beliefs, but on how you run your arguments and apply your knowledge into the round. I don't like Ks, I think they take away from the value of Public Forum, nevertheless, I will flow them (I just might not buy them). Likewise, I like to say I'm tech> truth, but if the tech is ridiculous, I'm not buying it.

Specifics on speeches:

1. I weigh the round on the established framework and how the speakers appeal to it.

2. All impacts should be warranted, linked, and with In-text citations to be valuable in my ballot.

3. All forms of refutation are good with me as long as they are sustained with factual evidence and quantification

4. Arguments dropped in the summary will not be taken into consideration in my ballot.

5. The Summary should be a weighing machine in the round, weighing done only in the final focus will not be considered in the round.

6. I am very flexible when it comes to final focus, so just tell me why you won, and you should be good to go.

General:

1. CXs can be as aggressive as you want but don't cross the line. Being disrespectful will have effects on your speaker points. (pls make it interesting for me)

2. Time yourself

3. If you are asked for evidence try to show it quickly. (I'll prefer if you say you can't find it, instead of spending 5 mins of the round looking for it)

4. Personal insults, projections against debaters, intentional misgendering, discrimination, or pettiness will be penalized by taking speaker points off (and you'll probably lose the round).

5. Be on time to the round.

6. I don't flow CXs, but I do take them into consideration for weighing my ballot.

7. Please don't add me to email chains or links. Just share the evidence in the round, and I'll be happy.

8. As I said, I've been debating for a long time, so don't try to create PF rules, I know them.

Have fun, debate is a wonderful experience!

(+1 speaker point if you make a Friends or TikTok reference)

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging. I would prefer a slower speaking speed (no spreading). I will allow you to go a little bit over time to finish a sentence, though I will be timing. I will prefer sound logic over an unwarranted piece of evidence. Don't be rude or mean to your opponent. I will evaluate your round based off of how effectively your argument is communicated and the logical linkchain you present (saving 10,000 people with a logical path to that impact is better than saving 1,000,000 people with jumps in your logic). I will call for a piece of evidence if the point is hotly contested throughout the round.

Thank you, and remember to have fun!

Hi ,

I am a parent judge. I would really appreciate if you could speak clearly and slowly so I can judge fairly. Please don't use excessive debate jargon. I will also be judging based on speech confidence and clarity. Be aggressive with your speech but not aggressive with your attitude. Be respectful at all times. I request you to keep track of your own timings. Once your time is up, I will allow you to finish your sentence. Do not go more than 15 seconds over. Do not expect me to interfere during crossfires. Ask straight to the point questions for crossfire. Please do not ask for cards during crossfire. Ask for them after cross. Keep track of your own prep times.

Bonus Points for making me laugh!

Just a quick paradigm that will develop more over the next few weeks.

I am the Debate & Speech coach at Phillip's Exeter Academy and have judged off and on over the last 6 years.

Focus your last few speeches on impact weighing.

You don't go for everything in the round, but tell my why your best arguments outweigh your opponent’s.

Good arguments are well-developed

Clarity and quality vs ambiguity and quantity

Speed is okay once in  a while - I am not a fan of spreading at all - I may ask you to slow down, especially as I am taking active notes during the debate. Don't use speed as a tool for exclusion - in doing so, you may wind up hurting yourself, especially if I can't understand any of your points being made as you speed.

Hello,

My name is Alessandro, and I am an undergraduate college student with four years of high school debate experience. I have not done public forum or Lincoln–Douglas, but I have participated in parliamentary-style and Oregon-style debate tournaments, as well as other public speaking tournaments. In your speeches, imagine that you are talking to your average, well-informed voter. I usually prefer quality of speaking over talking speed and content, so try to strike a reasonable balance.

I am a cardiologist in the Washington, DC area and I have no background in debate. I am a parent judge. I keep notes however I do not have any background on weird topics, nor do I know debate jargon. I have been a parent judge for 3 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.

Please do not excessively spread or yell. Talk in a conversational tone. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.

I will try not to vote off of cross but if you can’t defend case in cross/generally are not doing well in cross I will take off speaker points.

I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them. If you don't I'll probably be confused.

Be respectful to your opponents at all times. Let your opponents talk in cross please!

Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

Ideally, please time yourself, but I can set a timer if you are unable to.

Feel free to send me cases at helen.barold@gmail.com if you think I might have difficulty understanding.

BACKGROUND: I am a sophomore at Harvard College who competed for Regis High School with moderate success (some bids, a lot of elims) in PF (and very infrequently in LD and Parli) for four years on the National Circuit.

PARADIGM: I used to have a bunch of super-specific technical preferences, but I now tend to think that paradigms are dumb and advance a notion of debate that is overly restrictive and inaccessible to those with less experience/fewer resources. Honestly, just debate how you debate, be kind, be honest, be clear, try to engage with one another in a way that is educational, and try not to do anything that I would likely view as excessively progressive, technical, or inaccessible given that my understanding of debate remains normed to what this activity looked like when I was introduced to it roughly 5 years ago (no theories, no Ks, etc). Most of the time, the team that wins just does the smartest things analytically (great comparative weighing! response grouping! weighed resolution of clash!), and if you have to speak super fast to do that, you're probably missing the point. Also, please keep in mind that I don't do high school debate anymore (obviously), so my knowledge of the topic will usually be that of a reasonably well-read person and not much beyond + my ability to comprehend speed (especially if you don't enunciate!) is not what it once was.

Background: I am a Chief Operations Officer of a food service company. While I myself did not participate in debate, with a son who previously was the captain of a prestigious high school debate team, I have an intimate understanding of the processes of public forum debate. I am a parent judge who will always take every round of debate seriously and will do my best to judge fairly and honestly.

My expectations of debaters: I expect clarity above all else:

Clarity in speech is a requirement for the best points in the world mean nothing if they can't be understood. Speak clearly and in a pace that allows me as a judge to both follow your argument and also to annotate keys points.

Clarity in one's point of view is essential when trying to convince someone of your opinion. If you waver or do not present your argument clearly and concisely, it becomes more difficult to rule in your favor. I want to know precisely what your opinions are by the end of the round. Your goal after all is to persuade me to agree with that point of view.

Clarity for the rules is also important. I do not want to have to enforce timing and prep rules. Know the rules and self enforce them but also be civil to one another and handle all matters as a gentle person would.

Hi! I did debate in high school, have subbed in for debate classes at my school, and judged for the first time last year.

I'm a back-to-basics kind of judge. Demonstrate your skills. Be clear. Be respectful. Listen well. Respond to your opponent. Get creative but not unfounded.Remember we're all here to learn! Every debate where you improve is a victory.

That said, I often learn fromyou. If you're highly skilled, show me what your argumentation style is all about.

With all that in mind, let me reiterate the basic things I'm looking for which you already know how to do:

-First team, define terms and frame the debate.

-Second team, if you disagree with the framing, dismantle it and wrest control over the discourse.

-Make strong claims. Build them out to consequential impacts.

-A few strong pieces of evidence cited properly and interpreted well are preferred.

-Leave none of your opponent's points unanswered.

-Speak clearly. If I can't understand you the argument is essentially non-existent. Go at the fastest pace you can still articulate well.

-Be confident. Don't worry if you 'make a mistake'. I may not know you slipped up!

-Adjust to your opponent's arguments. I like to hear you apply your reasoning skills on the fly. Anyone can read cards. Dismantling your opponent's arguments or using them to further bolster your own claims is your true time to shine!

-Have fun.

Good luck!

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

First time judging

A parent Judge

Would give equal weightage to Content and Delivery

Explain your arguments clearly and not too fast, share data points related to your case and articulate the impact of your argument

Clearly identify which argument from other team are you responding to

Highlight if other team missed addressing any of your argument

Do keep track of allocated time of your and the other team's arguments

I'm a freshman at Harvard from the UK. I did BP and World Schools in high school. Talk slow. Please don't spread.

Hey, my name is Mikaila (she/her), I'm a junior at the Waring School, and I've been debating for 2 years in varsity PF.

I will come into the round with the expectation that you will abide by and follow NSDA code of honor -humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service- and if you don't,your speaker points will probably be effected, and I may consider this in my RFD.

This means: don't be disrespectful to your opponents during prep, or their speeches, don't laugh at something you hear your opponent say, and definitely don't mansplain.

Other things to be aware of:

Weighing is a big part of how I vote, you should do this for me, tell me why you win, but don't say stuff like "Judge you NEED to vote pro for x reason", this is annoying, and I don't like it.I also vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning. Please remember to carry through your reasoning as well as your impacts to the later speeches in the round. I will not consider new evidence that is brought up in grand cross or final focus.

Don't spread, I can try to understand you, but it won't be pretty, and I won't catch everything, if you want a win speak clearly.

Don't run K's or Theory, this isn't policy, PF should be substance based, and not corrupted by these strategies.

I believe that a good debate has a balance of truth and tech. Debate is about a balance of the two. A strong debater can effectively use rhetoric, evidence, and strategy in a round.

Off time roadmaps are appreciated, and if you're not going to give one, please signpost before saying something so I know what you're responding to

Try to make eye contact with me while speaking in order to be compelling, if you can don't just read straight off your computer.

I don't need to be added to evidence exchanges, unless it comes down to a point of contention (pun intended) in a round. That being said my email is mikailab@waringschool.org

When you call a card, any time you spend looking at it comes out of your own prep, your opponent has one minute to come up with the card, or I will consider that they do not have evidence to support.

Remember that debate is about having fun, and learning, and that everyone there is literally just a bunch teenagers dressed up in suits on a Saturday, and that in the grand scheme of things, your High School debate record doesn't matter that much, so don't stress :)

Hello!
I am a first-year at Harvard who has never debated before???? This is my first time judging, so I look forward to hearing you guys debate! Please articulate your arguments clearly and concisely, I will not give bonus points for talking fast or using an unnecessary amount of words. I appreciate logical arguments that are backed by clever evidence. Good luck!!

Email: josefinabiernacki@college.harvard.edu

she/her

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

add me to the email chain brookekb1@gmail.com

I did PF in high school, qualifying to TFA State my freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years. I accumulated 10 total career bids to the TOC and qualified my sophomore, junior, and senior years.

Arguments I would not feel comfortable judging: any explicit gendered violence, explicit mental health depictions

Some general things:

- Strike me if you do not cut cards.

- Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round.

- Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

- Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

- I ran cut card/paraphrasing and disclosure theory in high school so I am definitely willing to vote on these arguments

- Every part of theory shells must be extended in each speech to win the shell

- other progressive stuff is fine just pls explain

- If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

I’m a senior at Boston College who competed in Public Forum and Foreign Extemp for four years in high school (2015-2019) in Houston, TX. I now compete in APDA (American Parli) and BP (British Parli) in college. I'm majoring in philosophy and biology with a concentration in bioethics.

- I prefer cut card to paraphrased evidence. Also have PDFs ready for your warrants so that evidence exchange can be nice and quick

- Quality>quantity when it comes to evidence- believe me when I say card dumping isn’t always necessary and context matters

• Please collapse and extend through Summary and Final Focus and weigh- I love seeing lots of weighing (and even meta-weighing) with issues of scope, probability, etc.

• Don’t bring up new arguments in Final Focus

• I don’t flow during CX, so if something happened that you want me to flow, bring it up in your next speech

• In terms of theory, I’ll only really evaluate it if you’re checking back on real harms in debate rather than trying to trap a less experienced opponent.

• I don't care if your opponent drops your arg if the impact is small anyways. Make sure you tell me why it's more important than the arguments they didn't ignore, and make sure to keep extending that

Speaking:

• I can handle speed but slow down on taglines, authors, and dates

• Signposting and providing short off-time roadmaps is super helpful

Always ask me if you have any questions! :)

boehning@bc.edu

I am a lay judge with no prior judging experience.

Hi! My name is Abby and I debated in PF all four years of high school and dabbled a little in congress as well! I have competed on the local circuit in New York and Iowa as well as the national circuit, so I have been exposed to many different styles of debate.

I am 100% Tech > truth. I will vote for completely bogus arguments if they are not properly refuted, but I will be sad so please don’t make me do that.

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

Speed: I can handle fast paced rounds but if you are going to spread I expect you to send a speech doc to everyone in the room/zoom call.

Framework: I don’t really like framework because it limits the possibility for an interesting weighing debate, but that’s just my opinion. I will not penalize you for running it as long as you warrant it. Don’t just state your framework without telling me why I should prefer it over util.

**Please tell me which side of the flow you are starting on before giving your speech! With that being said, do not give a 5 minute off time roadmap.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost clearly!!

First Rebuttal: just use this time to respond to your opponent’s case and weigh if time permits. You do not need to go back and extend your case since there is no ink on it yet.

Second Rebuttal: you should always frontline in second rebuttal (especially turns!) i also think it's strategic to collapse here! If there are turns on a contention you MUST either concede to any delinks or frontline the turn. Dropping the contention does not drop the turn!

DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK

Summary: I do not require defense in first summary but I do think it is strategic to extend turns! You should also start weighing here if you haven’t already!

Weighing: Your weighing must be comparative! I will be very sad if you just say “we outweigh on magnitude” without any further explanation. Thats not weighing!! I will be very pleased to see metaweighing or at least see you respond to your opponents’ weighing and tell me why I should prefer your’s. Also, I would really like to see evidence weighing. If there are two pieces of conflicting evidence in the debate you must tell me why to prefer your's instead of just repeating your evidence over again.

I have ZERO tolerance for any sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. If i see anyone behaving inappropriately or overall making the debate space uncomfortable i will drop you and report to tab without hesitation.

Cross fire: I will not flow but I will listen. If something important happens it must be brought up in a speech. Mentioning in cross fire does not equal extending!

Please keep a consistent narrative through the round! Do not decide to collapse on a contention and then change your mind. This means your final focus should follow the same format as your partner’s summary.

I will not call for evidence that is not refuted in the round. However, if i read your evidence and it does not say what you say it says, I will be less likely to buy anything else you read. If you feel your opponent is practicing bad evidence ethics, feel free to use that as a voter in the round. Nothing makes me more mad than power tagged evidence!!

Extend claim, warrant, and impact! Do not just extend your impact evidence and expect me to vote off it.

Hi! I debated for five years at Hunter High School. I cleared at the 2019 TOC.

If this is LD or CX:

I don't have any LD or Policy experience; I only did PF in high school. Thus, I'm not familiar with all of Policy/LD's bells and whistles, but I can flow and evaluate a flow to some extent. Don't try to sneak new arguments/responses/ghost extensions in places they shouldn't be though, I'll notice (for example, no new arguments in the 2ar). Here are some more detailed things:

While I don't like progressive arguments, because they're such a big part of these styles of debate, I'll evaluate them like any other argument. Run any argument you want, progressive or otherwise. Please err on the side of over-explaining if your arguments are progressive.

Spread away, but send a speech doc if significantly over 300 wpm. Yes, please put me on the email chain if one exists (inkobovenzi@gmail.com).

For PF novices:

I flow. Go as quickly as you want, and read any arguments you want as long as they are not racist, sexist, ableist, etc.

Also:

1. Be nice

2. Limit the offense you go for in final speeches.

3. Weigh

4. Ignore the rest of the paradigm

Do all of this and you guarantee yourself at least a 29.5.

For everyone else:

***For the charter schools topic particularly, but really for every topic: If you read unwarranted statistics I will cringe. For example: "Charter school students have 50% higher test scores because they have better teachers." WHY do charter schools have better teachers?***

TLDR: I will vote off anything, I don't intervene, but please warrant, extend, and weigh all of the argument(s) you go for.

If you have any questions about any of the following, or anything else, feel free to message me on Facebook or ask me before the round.

I am a pretty standard tab judge, but here are a few specific preferences:

General:

I always disclose, even if the tournament tells me not to :). Non-disclosure is mean.

This should go without saying, but I reserve the right to intervene against unsportsmanlike conduct. This includes but is not limited to misconstruing evidence, intentionally mistagging arguments so your opponents "drop" them, etc.

I don't care if you don't fully extend uncontested portions of your argument in summary and final focus. Save your time for the line by line. Repeating your argument over and over if a certain section is not being answered is kinda a waste of time.

However, I will never, ever vote for an argument whose warrant and impact are not clearly explained the first time the argument is introduced. What this means is that if you're going to dump 15 turns in rebuttal, they all need clear warrants and impacts. You don't get to create a new one for them out of thin air in summary or final focus.

If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

If the round is delayed, we might skip grand crossfire, and maybe second crossfire. I've never seen a round that was decided by grand cross anyway.

I'm tech>truth, a dropped argument is a true argument, and I don't intervene. No -ist/problematic arguments.

I don't flow crossfire. 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).

If defense is dropped, I consider it to be "sticky" until the speech immediately after it is frontlined. In that speech you must extend it. For example, if second rebuttal frontlines half the defense, you only need to extend that defense in first summary if you want to go for it. The rest can be in first final focus.

Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence

That being said, I will rarely call for evidence, even if you tell me to. I'm not going to decide a debate based on what a random journalist from CNN or Fox News thinks, you honestly know more about the topic than they do and are a better authority. Usually, the only evidence that is useful would be a statistic of some sort (ex. the economy declined by 4% this year, or a ___% increase in ___ increases ___ by ___%). When I call for evidence, it usually means that both teams are sort of just repeating their evidence rather than engaging with their opponents' evidence, so I basically look for a way to break the tie on that issue without intervening.

Speed is a good tool for depth, but not breadth. I can flow up to 300-350 wpm without a speech doc. However, if you're going to spread be sure your opponents have a speech doc.

All weighing is good. However, just saying "We outweigh on scope, because we impact more people," is not weighing. You need to fully explain this and flush it out. Bonus points if you can preempt their counter weighing and/or if you meta-weigh. However, if you read nonsensical weighing, like weighing on "strength of link" or "directionality of link," a) it's not going on the flow and b) you're losing 2 speaker points. Those are not weighing, they probably just mean you have defense on the opponent's case and/or you should be doing well-warranted probability weighing. New weighing is permitted in any speech (not delinks disguised as weighing), but I will only evaluate new weighing in 2nd FF if there isn't any so far on that argument.

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.

If no team wins any offense, I presume for the first speaking team. Presuming neg seems as arbitrary as presuming aff, and especially with the three-minute summary, speaking first is much harder.

Crossfire:

Please don't shout over each other. Make the round fun to watch! :) If you make me laugh in crossfire, chances are someone's getting a 30.

Rebuttal:

Weigh disads. Just please weigh.

Summary and FF:

Here's a Haiku stolen from many others:

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

You must, must, must, must (!) extend any offense you want me to vote off of in both summary and final focus. That means a complete extension, with the major links of your argument (your warrants) and your impact. That does not mean you need to go for every warrant and every impact of your argument (ex. if you say in case, this is true for three reasons) and doing so is not a good idea; you only need one to win the argument. I will not vote off of an argument or turn that is not extended in both speeches. Extend, extend, extend. That being said,

Don't extend through ink! Defense is sticky, remember that.

You never need defense in first summary. If the other team frontlined in second rebuttal, it might be strategic to include it, but is never necessary

Defense extensions from first rebuttal to first final focus are fine.

Defense extentions from second rebuttal to second final focus (not in summary) are sketchy, and only really fine if the defense is dropped.

New arguments are not allowed in either final focus, unless they are weighing. This includes frontlines.

Turns extended from first rebuttal to first final focus cannot provide offense, only terminal defense. If you want offense from them, extend them in first summary.

Progressive Argumentation:

This used to say "yes if it's legitimate, no if it's just a cheap tool to win rounds." But then I realized it would probably be unfair for me to decide what's legit or not on a case by case basis. So I'm just going to say no. Whatever your thoughts on whether or not progressive arguments are good for debate (I think they're not and am happy to discuss), I think it's good to have a style of debate, PF, that's completely devoid of them.

People fly to tournaments and put 100s of hours into prepping the topic, not your a priori that says that I should always presume neg because the topic is always resolved.

Reading double 30s theory will result in double 10s.

Speaks:

Bring me food and I will bump your speaks.

I raise speaks for novices (especially if you're debating in varsity because it's tough!).

Note: If tournaments force me to give different speaks to everyone in the round, say that I must round to the nearest .5, ban low points wins, or do anything else that restricts the speaks I can give, I will raise your speaks to remain in accordance with the rules.

I'm also probably nicer than this scale, but here goes:

29.6-30: You showed extraordinary technical ability in your debating, AND/OR you made a very interesting strategic decision that was not abusive, but granted you a great advantage in the round (ex. you went all in for a double turn your opponents made). If you make an interesting decision that turns out to be flawed, it will probably cost you the round, but I will reward the creativity with my speaker points.

29-29.5: You weighed well, covered the flow very well, made high-quality responses, and made the right strategic decisions in the round.

28.5-28.9: You didn't drop any major responses/arguments, you offered some weighing, and condensed the round down to just one (max two) pieces of offense in the final two speeches.

28-28.4: Your flow coverage could have been better, but you addressed the major points of the round and added some new analysis.

Note that if you got below a 28 you probably violated/ignored some part of my paradigm and/or annoyed me.

27-27.9: Very, very weak flow coverage, you failed to address the major arguments of the round.

26-26.9: You failed to speak, or spoke for a very small fraction of your time.

25 or below: You said/did something racist, sexist etc (speaks based on severity).

I am a first year volunteer judge and I did not participate in debate during high school or college. I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments.

I prefer a debate that includes a persuasive style of speaking and debating. I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. Therefore, your speech must be clear and understandable, and your argument should be based on logic and factual evidence.

Please send cases to Christina.brockman@jefferson.kyschools.us

Hello! I am a lay judge and did not do debate in high school. I appreciate when debaters speak slowly and clearly. I am looking for very clear logic, and studies presented should be summarized effectively and potential confounds should be discussed. Please be respectful. Most importantly I want everyone to have fun!

I am a parent of a Public Forum debater. I also have extensive, albeit decades old, experience as a TOC/NatCir competitor and judge in Policy High School debate and NDT/CEDA college debate.

What I love about policy debate is the strategy game. I am a tech judge at heart. I originally looked at PF as policy-lite, but after a year of judging I have grown to appreciate the accessibility and topic familiarity the PF format lends to. That said, I do my best to rely only on the arguments made by the debaters…so…

Win the flow. Debate is strategy. Find the path to the ballot and for me, it is decided on the flow. That means I want to see clash; collapsing; etc. If you want an argument to be accessible to you in the final focus I need ink on my flow through each speech—extend link and impact. Note for novice: I don't flow CX--It's your time to gain clarity or pressure test your strategy...if especially clever or especially rude it may influence speaker pts, but not my ballot.

Weigh the arguments and argue how to weigh them. ;) I’ll vote on all sorts of weighing mechanisms you put before me…but if none are offered I’ll probably default to CBA body count. Pet peeve: extending through ink. Makes for a super messy round. If you offer a framework in your case, lean into it or else I kind of see it as superfluous, bordering tedious. Part of weighing is giving good warrants and implicating arguments throughout.

Connect the dots. Don't assume I'll know the ins and outs of your arguments the way you do and I am happy, if asked, to share my familiarity with the stock arguments for the topic so you can adjust your level of explanations. If I'm not picking up what you are laying down, you'll know by the look on my face, so please make it make sense.

I have no preference on speed, if you spread you would be wise to use signposts and tags to help this boomer keep the flow straight.

I have no preference on types of arguments or strategy. Have fun and be creative. If you can make it make sense, I’ll vote on it. FYI...I have very limited familiarity with most current K arguments and don’t feel like I could confidently evaluate a K debate—especially given the PF time constraints.

I’ll disclose if tournament allows and happily discuss post round-I strive to fairly evaluate each round and to share feedback that will encourage growth all around.

Bring your best strategy, argue it well and have fun. And you do you...I'll flex as best I can!

Engineering grad and IT practitioner; have been judging debate since 2018. I did PF all through high school in Virginia.

General:

1. I'm fine with speed; just speak clearly.

2a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, end your speech by finishing your sentence gracefully

2b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.

3. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whatever works.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about.

0. Cut your cards in advance and be on the ball with finding and sharing them. If you can't find your card promptly we'll assume it doesn't exist and move on.

1. Please indict bad cards. Misleading claims, baseless speculation, "studies" that don't exist, that sort of junk: if you convince me it's bad, I'll strike it gleefully from my flow.

2. Be nice to each other in CX; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

Traditionally, I will vote for you if you convince me that your side has the most positive impact on the value-criterion for the value that I buy into in-round.

I am theoretically open to the possibility that you can run a K or (much less likely) T and I will like it and vote for it. Both my exposure and my receptiveness to them has been limited in practice. Generally, if you are accusing your opponent of abuse, the abuse needs to be egregious.

Prefer anonymized doc sharing that doesn't require sharing personal emails like share.tabroom.com if enabled. Otherwise can put me on the email chain - lauren.burdt@gmail.com

she/her

Short version: I coached LD until 2017 primarily on national circuit, have been judging all the debate events more locally since. I'm typically in tab, so my threshold for speed and immediate recognition of new arg trends has gone down. I have no interest in imposing my own ideological preferences about what debate should be, and I will try my best to objectively evaluate any debate you want to have with the caveat that safety and well-being are more important to me than who wins a debate round. My favorite debates are the ones that feature substantive engagement, well-read and passionate debaters, and embedded clash, big picture weighing, and explicit judge instruction.

Below is a laundry list of "things that might irritate me on any given day" and general preferences, but feel free to change them by blowing my mind.

Speed

• My threshold for speed is pretty arbitrary, so I'll yell slow and clear as much as needed. I probably can't follow your top speed these days but feel like clarity is the larger issue.
• Please slow way way down for interps and ROB/standard texts, theory underviews, and any one sentence "a, b, c," analyses in frameworks. I can't flow these and I will not read analytics off your doc.
• If everyone's keeping up, go wild. But I am 100% on board for y'all asking each other before the round/between speeches to go slower + I expect reasonable efforts to be made to accommodate these requests.

Theory/Topicality

• I think that theory debates can be cool, unique, and organic. The more specific the violation the better - nuanced T on a plan aff > "plans bad" theory.
• For the sake of transparency, here are args I struggle to evaluate fairly because I tend to think they're silly: Must read an explicit counterinterp. Competing interps means risk of offense on theory is sufficient. Arbitrary independent voters. AFC/ABC/AEC/APC or whatever else you youngfolk have come up with. Violations I can't verify. New shells in the 2ar.
• I enjoy a good T debate in which there are competing methodologies of what debate should look like. Substantive T debates (T acts as turn to aff method or args of that sort) are more preferable than "fairness first, don't evaluate the K" arguments.

Phil/"Tricks"

• This is how I debated. I think the less-sketchy (sketchy = hidden, one sentence, shifty about it in cx, warrantless, etc.) deployment of things like contingent standards, skep triggers, permissibility, etc. can be cool. However, this type of debate can turn into evasiveness real quick, and I <3 engagement

Plan/DA/CP whatev

• No longer coaching, so fair to assume I am out of the loop on topic research. I'm much less experienced judging a policy throwdown than k v policy or k v k round but I'm down, am impressed by great topic-specific prep.

Critical

• This is what I coached and what I end up judging most often.
• Bummer when y'all over-use your author's jargon, particularly while trying to clarify the position in cx.
• Please establish some kind of framework that allows me to evaluate impacts (role of the ballot, role of the judge, standard, whatever). I do think role of the ballot args are generally poorly warranted, impact justified, and have no explicit appeal to the ballot. Depth/nuance here is welcomed.
• I like role of the ballot/judge args that deviate from the common "you're a critical educator" "combat structural violence" norm, and creativity in this area leads to some of my favorite debates. I particularly like args that make normative or descriptive claims about a part of the world (academia, text, literature) and use those to make implications about what model of debate is best.
• K affs are fine, non-topical affs are fine, and I'm open to different interpretations of what it means to be topical.

Speaks

• I don't disclose speaks. I average a 28.5 and try to make them relative to the pool. I really don't want to hear args about double 30s.
• I couldn't care less what you're doing (sitting, walking around the room on your hands while you read the NC, playing death grips for the first 4 minutes of the AC, etc.).
• I have found that I am touchier about prep stealing than others, particularly in Public Forum. Evidence needs to be readily available, docs need to be sent quickly, reading ev happens during prep.
• No-prep 2ars and speeches where you sit down early do not impress me.
• I have zero tolerance for teams that play games before outrounds with disclosure of the aff, the flip, etc.

Content warnings

• If you are reading a description of violence in your args/narratives, I think it's probably a good practice to give a content warning before the round. If someone asks you not to read it, it should be as easy as removing the part of your case that is descriptive of violence.
• I do not believe this includes a discussion of racism, sexism, etc. I realize that those kinds of things may be triggering for some students, but that is an issue that should probably be handled by a coach.
• I won't dock speaks for failing to do so and I think that there needs to be a more in-depth discussion of how this should work, but I've been in situations that have made me think this is probably a good norm for now.

Disclosure

• You should probably disclose. I think disclosure theory is boring, and there are some good reasons not to disclose. Will vote on it, think more specific interps are more compelling than "must disclose whole res stock aff" (nonT affs, broken plan/advocacy texts, etc.).

Happy to answer questions after the round.

If there was anything I was unclear about, feel free to have me clarify before round or email lauren.burdt@gmail.com (please cc an adult on email).

I am a parents of a debater in my first year of judging. Please speak clearly and not too quickly so I can write down what you say. Please be courteous to your opponents.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. Have been coaching all types of debate (except Policy), but most specifically Public Forum.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Coach at Charlotte Latin School, formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Treat me like a "flay" judge.

I'm a flow judge, but apparently people read that now and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn in the 1AR so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact?

Please just explain your arguments. I'm not going to do all that work for you!

GENERAL:

Please COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key.

If you present a framework, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

IN LD:

I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, K's, phil, LARP, non-traditional role of the ballot arguments, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. If I can't understand what your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.

IN PF:

Please collapse the round!

I’ll vote on theory, but don’t make it your all-in strategy. I’m way more interested in the substance of the debate.

I am a parent judge with no debate experience and it is my second year judging. I prefer for arguments to be laid out cleanly, with the speakers giving sign posts as to where they are in their argument or their opponent's argument.

Stuff my son has written for me but I agree with:

I flow, but I am generally truth over tech.

Don't spread(speak too fast).

No Ks/Theory if you can help it. If you don't know what that means, you aren't using them and it doesn't matter.

Please be quick about card sharing as it delays rounds for you, me, and the rest of the tournament. IF you ask for a lot of cards and don't use that info later, that will be viewed negatively.

I will award higher speaker points if you vary your tone/tempo.

Good luck!

Hi! My name is Anh, and I'm super excited to see y'all debate! In high school, I competed mainly in WSD and attended WSDC my junior and senior years. I now (occasionally) do BP in college. 

A couple of things I look for in a round: 

1. Argument Construction/extension

When I hear your arguments, I should understand why your impact occurs, the extent to which it occurs (the degree of harm/benefit), and why it is unique to your side. 

2. Argument Interactions 

I will feel more compelled to vote for you if you weigh both mechanisms and impacts. For ex, you could tell me why your mechanism is more likely to achieve X than the other team's mechanism. Or why, assuming both mechanisms work, X impact is more important than Y impact. This type of weighing should certainly be in the 3/4s, but I welcome weighing earlier as well. 

GL!

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

Tech > Truth Judge.

I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, or other personal attacks - L26

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). If people cannot follow what your saying, then the argument is pointless.

Crossfire:

Please give the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Respect is key to anyone changing their mind in real life application; I believe that is very important in debate as well.

Rebuttal:

Let me know what argument you are specifically responding to. Signpost.

Summary:

Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. This is a quick way to take back power in the debate for your benefit.

Final Focus:

Tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Confidence and clarity on why your case is the better choice can greatly affect my favor.

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

Specific for Right to Work Topic:

GDP growth is a lame impact

About me:

Former Mid Nat-Circuit PFer. Charlotte Latin class of 2022

The Basics:

– Tech>Truth. Exceptions made if opponents read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

– Fine with speed but please keep it reasonable, if you're spreading email me the doc at dmcary21@gmail.com

– Any offense you want me to vote on should be in summary AND final focus

– Defense isn't sticky for either team, so make sure you're extending any defense you want on the flow

– Carded warrant > Uncarded warrant > Carded unwarranted empirics. My threshold for accepting extensions also follows this rule. Basically I care less about the stats and more about the reason behind them

– I'll call for evidence either if you tell me to or if i think it's *really* suspect, but please have CUT CARDS ready to share and don't ask opponents to command f something. This is annoying so I'll drop speaks if evidence exchange is taking forever.

– Cross is pretty pointless, so I don't really flow it. Obviously concessions in cross are binding though, just remind me of them in the next speech. Also don't just start reading your case is cross idk why people do that

– If you don't weigh, I'll default to strength of link. If nobody has any offense, I default neg.

– Read K's and theory if you want, just know I won't be the best at evaluating them. Also please read disclosure theory. It will give me so much joy to drop you.

Hey guys!

I am currently a student at Harvard University, originally from South Africa.

This will be my first time judging pf, and my debate experience is primarily with World's Schools and British Parliamentary styles.

I will judge your debate to the best of my ability and will base my decisions on a team's arguments and content, rather than who is loudest. I also think engaging with the other team's content is important, so respond to the best of your ability. Be nice, be clear and have fun!

Best of luck for the round.

Note: I will flow to follow the debate.

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'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

I have 30 years debating experience and competed at three World University Championships (Octo-finalist 2005). The weird accent in which I speak is Australian. So my experience is mostly in Australian-style debating, which is a little different from the various US styles.

I care much more about argument quality and relevance than the evidence supporting the arguments. I prefer that speakers avoid speaking too quickly: quality of argument presentation is important, and deliberate fast speaking detracts from it.

I am a Lay judge, but I have judged 5 tournaments, so have experience. I will base my decision on the competency of the topic, your oral presentation as well as whichever side has convinced me the most. I promise to assuage any bias.

I am a parent judge. For the past few tournaments that I attended, I immensely enjoyed the experience, particularly for the well prepared cases, arguments with well supported evidences from solid research. Students with the patience of letting the others finish their points impress me the most. A lot times, it is not just about what you argue, but equally important is how you argue. Because of the age and the passion, students sometimes spread, which in my opinion shows that you started to lose focus. Listening sometimes is more important, which is the basis of 2 way communication as supposed to just stressing your point of view.

Nonetheless, debating skills are highly regarded and critical in schools and work places. The tournaments provided an excellent forum for you to develop those skills. I wish that I had that when I was attending high school in China.

1: I prefer debaters speak slowly

2: I prefer clear logic over lots of statistics and evidence

I started debate judging in 2020.

Hi Everyone!

I’m a mom of Freshman, this is my first time judging. I prefer debaters to explain their arguments slower and clear and respect each other’s time.

Wishing you all the best!

Deepshikha

Hey! The number one thing for me is I want everyone to have a good time debating. To make sure this happens here are a couple things I want everyone to do

1. Please be respectful to everyone
2. Wait for people to speak. Do not cut them off. If they are talking too long, it is okay to ask to speak but this shouldn’t be something you do very often.

Experience: This is my first time judging at a national competition. I was a PF debater in middle and high school but I haven’t debated in a while.

I understand a lot of jargon but may not be familiar with any new rules that may have come up. So feel free to let me know if I’m getting a timing wrong or something.

Knowledge on topic: I haven’t done any research on this topic so it will be more helpful for you to explain things rather than assume I understand a specific nuance related to this topic

Speaking: Please speak slowly so I can flow everything you are saying. I prefer clarity over speed. Before every speech, please give me an offtime road map to help with my flowing.

Additional notes: I will flow the speeches but not crossfire. However, I will listen to the crossfire for clarification of arguments or other things as they come necessary. Do not introduce new arguments into final focus. I will not consider them.

If you could send me your speech docs to dasomdasom920@gmail.com, it would help me with flowing. Completely not necessary but would definitely help me!

Hello,

Good luck in the round.

Please send me your speech docs to dasomi04@gmail.com

Just a little bit about me. In terms of background, I debated PF in high school. I am okay with speed, but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. I will flow every speech, but not crossfire. If an interesting point is brought up in crossfire, please bring it up in your other speeches or it will not be relevant to the debate.

I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts. Why does your impact matter more than your opponents?

For clarity, I prefer an off time roadmap before your speech, and sign posts during your speech.

And finally, please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.

Tech > Truth Judge.

I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, or other personal attacks - L26

I do keep track of time and flow on my own. With that said, every speech ought to meet or be as close to the allotted time.

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). No spread. 

Crossfire:

Please be respectful in giving the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Don't read evidence pls. I will drop you if you don't respect the cross rules. 

Rebuttal:

Sign post, sign post, sign post! 

Summary:

My favorite part of the debate. Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. If you don't impact weigh, then you concede.

Final Focus:

I pay keen attention to what claims the opponent(s) dropped as well as emphasizing most of the FF on weighing cases and impacts. This is the speech to which I prefer to have the speakers tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Persuasion is key!

If you ask what the powerhouse of the cell is during cross, then you get +1 speaker points :)

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time (i.e, 2 minute rebuttals.. yes I have heard these at nationals before), and overall did not present debater skills.  

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner (ie, grand cross and flow of debate).

28.1-29 You did well. This is what I usually give and you barely dropped anything. 

29.1-30 Horrah! You did amazing. Had no flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

Parent/lay judge familiar with other types of debate; have judged PF several times. Speaking briskly is OK, but if you speak too quickly for me to understand / take notes, it will be difficult to place weight on those points. Easier for me to understand if you minimize debate jargon. Both sides should be civil -- for instance, crossfire questioning time should be roughly equally distributed between both teams. Prefer fewer high quality arguments / crystallization to a smear of random cards or impacts that require suspending disbelief or logical leaps. If you strongly emphasize a piece of evidence I will probably ask to read that card. Please make sure it says what you argue it says. I don't understand "theory" arguments and believe that the debate should be about the stated resolution. If you exchange evidence you can include me on the email chain using apchuhome@gmail.com.

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018), Debater at Eagan (2010-2014).
She/Her Pronouns
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky- with an additional minute in summary, defense that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. Do not yell. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger warnings appreciated when relevant
- I really don't love theory as a norm in PF. I never want to see disclosure theory. If there is a HUGE violation and theory is the only way to deal with it, I'll tolerate it but speaks will likely be lower. Otherwise, I'd rather have you discuss it in a more accessible and traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Hello!

I am an ex-public forum debater from the New Horizons Debate Team in the Dominican Republic. I am now a debate coach and a business student.

I base my decision on the established framework. If no framework is presented, I’ll just choose my own.

I can keep up with fast-paced reading, but if you spread I will not flow. Slow down when reading your impacts or any important statements you want to emphasize.

Take your time and fill your time. DO NOT leave time in your speeches or go over your time, otherwise, I will take speaker points off.

Use taglines and make sure your speeches are organized.

Use a line-by-line approach in rebuttals if possible and beneficial.

Use impact calculus in summary and final focus. Also, everything not mentioned in summary I consider dropped.

CX can be aggressive but don’t be disrespectful. Otherwise, I will take speaker points off.

I don’t flow crossfire but do take them into consideration.

Both speakers should speak in grand-cross.

Don’t take too long looking for evidence. Don’t add me to any link chains, just show your evidence in the round and it’ll be fine. Also, don’t argue with your opponent when asking for or showing cards.

Have fun and good luck!

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I know what you should be doing, but am much more of a lay judge than a tech judge. I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way.

I'm not super familiar with the topic, so definitely use plain language and explain things pretty well in the early rounds until I catch up. If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

TL;DR I'm a past high school PF and congress debater who flows and values weighing

Experience: I did PF 2018-2021 and Congress 2021-2022, and I competed on the local, state (Ohio), and national level.

Preferences: I can handle a faster speaking speed, but please no spreading. I will flow the round, so if you are going to bring something up in FF, have it in summary too. When presenting a card please be able to explain its warrant/don't just name-drop it in summary or FF. Weighing is v important to me, and I'm a lot more likely to vote for your argument if you tell me why your impacts are better than theirs. meta-weighing is also pretty sick, but not as necessary as regular weighing. Be respectful in crossfire-no one likes to be interrupted, so don't do it. I don't believe in disclosure theory, so don't run it, and I'm also not super well-versed in other types of theory, so run it with caution.

Have fun in the round! I'm always a fan of a good pop-culture reference (especially a Taylor Swift one...)

email is frances_c@icloud.com for email chains or questions post round

Debate is a game so have fun

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is. Feel free to run wacky arguments as long as they have good warranting though.

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns otherwise they are dropped

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

- I presume the first speaking team if no offense is generated in the round

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- Going new in the 2. Don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

I'm a lay judge, I did some Public Forum in high school, but I'm not familiar with theory. Thus, if you use it, I might be lost. Please no spreading. Weigh your arguments and be reasonable with its impacts. And please be nice and respectful to your fellow debaters!

I competed PF for 4 years in high school, can track most arguments (flow judge). Preferably no spreading but other than that I will follow all arguments. I don't believe theory has a place in PF, use it only if absolutely necessary. Debate is educational and inclusive, no ad hominem attacks. Attack the argument, not the person. You get +1 speaker point if you put a Kendrick Lamar quote in speech (kidding, but try if you’re brave).

Email: grahamjcummings@gmail.com

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions: nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

- C A D E N  D A Y

Second year out from Bronx Science debated all four years and was pretty successful (bids, broke at TOC). I don't know much about very tech argumentation (Ks, theory), but feel free to run them (just explain them well). I am very compelled by comparative and uniqueness weighing and detailed warranting!!! All offense should be responded to in the next speech and turns (esp if ur going for them) should be fully extended with warranting and weighing. I will not vote off blippy extensions.

I did Lincoln Douglas debate, DI and original oratory in high school.

I am looking for clear delivery, sound reasoning, and credible evidence.

I really don't like yelling or fast talking; to me, debating is about learning how to speak persuasively and become a leader.

Just remember: you are learning an incredible life skill and in the end, who wins doesn't matter. Really, debate tournaments just create an artificially stressful situation so you can practice speaking. It helped me tremendously and I know it will help you too!

My background: I am a registered architect and have my own firm. I have a BFA and BARCH from Rhode Island School of Design :)

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

I am in my first year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I guess I did some PF

If you give me snacks (good ones!) everyone in the round gets 30s

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

I competed in public forum for Acton-Boxborough.

Rebuttal

I have little to no tolerance for new frontlines in second summary (if you’re second speaking team and didn’t frontline at all in rebuttal)

Theory

I don’t know how to debate theory and honestly don’t understand it. Don’t run paraphrase/disclosure/other theory in front of me; I won’t vote off of it. That being said, if your opponent is being sexist/racist/ableist/discriminatory in any way, call them out on it; clearly warrant and explain what they are doing and why it is harmful (if you are the one being offensive you’re getting auto dropped and lowest speaks I can give). In general though, no theory.

• Don’t hesitate to ask if you have questions or if there is any way I can make the round more accessible for you.

• email is ashleydawn@college.harvard.edu for evidence chains

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye on the screen for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.

About Me:

I'm a 5th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum for the last five years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence is more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity!

I am aware NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020" but if I need to weigh evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure is a terrific life skill- this is a worthwhile activity!

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

I am a speech coach. I don't normally judge PF, but I competed in speech between 2012-2016. I have done PF a few times and have watched numerous PF rounds. I was a poli sci major and currently work in contract law. I would consider myself a lay judge.

Be clear, be concise. I do not enjoy source wars and taking lots of time to send sources to each other, read over, etc. Especially outside of prep time. Unless a source is absolutely untrue / making ridiculous claims, it is not effective debating to be overly scrutinizing over evidence.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude.

Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread, I do not flow.

I am a speech AND debate coach for Milton Academy, I am not a lay/flay/whatever weird designations people have. I have been judging PF (and interp) since 2011, and I debated in Public Forum (and competed in interp events) in high school 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Don't use an off-time roadmap if you are not doing anything wildly different than usual, do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, that sort of thing. Also, a very small note, I don't even love that PF has moved towards scouting judge paradigms.

I vote primarily on comprehensive analysis, on well-supported AND well-reasoned, "real-world" links, which are the logic building blocks to your impact, no matter how large (or larger than your opponents) in scope they may be. I do not enjoy source wars and taking lots of time to send sources to each other, read over, etc. Especially outside of prep time. Unless a source is absolutely untrue / making ridiculous claims, it is not effective debating to be overly scrutinizing over evidence.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them"

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Please weigh and crystalize in a comprehensive way. You can't say "we outweigh on scope" and move on. You have to elaborate and tell me why I should prefer this! I hate solvency, and when it is burdened on the Neg it is unfair/abusive. Most of the time it isnt specified in the resolution AND it is a Policy term.

Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. Any dishonest tactics will not earn you my vote.

It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwards. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue.

Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread I do not flow. I do not believe that PFers should spread AT ALL, even for a “flow” judge. If you cannot speak well and argue well, then you are not competing in this event to the best of your ability.

Coached (and still coaching LD,PF,CX, CONGRESS, ALL FORMS OF SPEECH)

for 18 years

Welcome to metro finals

I coach pf to many lovely children.

PF:

Kritiks

I mind if you run a K unless it is so clever and used without abusing the resolution, I listen with a slight ear to fem K, queer K, etc.... But if you have a different case that is not a K I would rather hear it. If you get hit with a K, and run stock K blocks and stock K Bad and they say K good... I mean... I just vote off the flow.

Speed

PF should be any speed except high-velocity spewing and spreading. I can still flow any speed. Just send me your doc if you're going to be fast. Jdotson@potomacschool.org

Evidence

I favor evidence that is current or at least evidence that has not "changed" since published. Cite author, date or if not available source and date.

Watch out for biases.
Most likely know most of the evidence you are using anyway

You do not always need evidence for common sense or common knowledge so just because your opponent says you did not have evidence does not mean you automatically lose.

Impacts

Use them

Weigh them

Analyze them

Cross Fire

Partners If you have to save your partner by talking during the crossfire that is not yours, go ahead. Better to have a round that is saved than a nightmare. But that will ding speaker points.

Also be nice but not passive aggressive. I don't like that. Chummy debate is kind of annoying so if you know each other from camp, or RRs etc, still take the round seriously.

Frameworks

are not 100% needed.

Overviews are cool. If you know what to do with them.

Front lining

Mostly a must... unless your opponents were trash and frontlining was impossible

Theory

Not a huge fan, especially when you are abusing it. Disclosure should be reserved for those who are on the wiki or those know are in out rounds.

Email is downesc@sidwell.edu — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

The stuff you probably care about:

Speed is fine, to a point. My threshold for intelligibility is certainly much higher than a layperson's. But NB that I wont check the speech docs to reconstruct whatever it is you said if you're unclear—this is an oral advocacy competition. Unfortunately it's hard to provide a clear brightline to debaters on this, so all I can fairly say is you can go faster than conversational but you should probably be conservative about speed. Don't say you weren't warned and complain about me on the way back from the tournament if your RFD says I couldn't understand you. This is particularly important if the round is online: you're just less clear than you'd be in person.

I was a continental philosophy nerd in college. Ks and K affs are fun and fine, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. My students run a mix of policy and k positions. I don't have doctrinaire views on the role of the rez in debate or the purposes of the activity and can be convinced of a lot in the space of a round. But just like with more conventional policy arguments, you need to break down the concepts you're using enough to make them contextually intelligible and meaningful—a detached and uncontextualized claim that "blackness is ontological," for example, isn't going to have a lot of consequences in round for me unless you explain what the claim actually means and impact out the significance of winning that claim, no different from a detached and uncontextualized claim that "Russia is revisionist."

I think I have a pretty middle of the road set of attitudes on theory. I'll vote on it but like a lot of judges I find it most persuasive when there's a credible in-round abuse story. That said I find disclosure theory particularly eyeroll inducing.

The stuff I care about:

Cross ex is a speech. I flow it. In my view, it should be given by the students to which it is assigned: i.e., it should be closed. If your 1N/1A can't answer questions about your position in the round, that's a problem, and one that will be reflected in your speaks.

Eye contact, gesture, and similarly elegant weapons from a more civilized age work on me. Make me want to find a reason to vote for you. I flow carefully, but I judge pretty holistically and care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions really tend to turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me some "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line.

The most important things in the round are your ability to remain organized, to leverage the internal warrants of your evidence, to clash with your opponents arguments, to convey to me your mastery and understanding of the subject matter of the round, and to speak in a manner that is persuasive and poised.

Powertagging and failing to highlight/read warrants are pervasive practices and I take a very dim view of both. But the burden is on the other team to point this stuff out. I generally will not read evidence unless you tell me to or there is an in-round dispute about what it says. On the other hand, I really like when this kind of thing is pointed out, I find arguments about how the warrants of a card don't support the tagged claim or cut the other way very persuasive, and I *will* read any cards you tell me to.

PF

I am newer to this event than CX. But I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack. To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege fast, technical, evidence-driven styles. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

If you're running a K, you had better be ready to articulate a defensible theoretical basis for what an alt even means and how it functions in an event where many resolutions don't contemplate hypothetical action.

Practically, please have a speech doc email chain and promptly exchange evidence proactively. Ideally, immediately prior to your speech. I will be unhappy if you are starting and stopping prep repeatedly to satisfy requests for evidence that should already have been shared and delaying the round as a result.

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF. Compared to some judges, I have a relatively low threshold on this stuff. In particular, be advised that for a tournament operating under NSDA evidence procedures, inaccurately paraphrasing a piece of evidence is "distortion" which should result in an immediate loss of the round. Paraphrase at your peril.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School ('06) in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS ('10) doing mostly Ks and K affs and learning everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty. Following a hiatus from debate I was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia from 2018 to 2022. I have been the debate coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022.

Greetings Debaters, I am a current high school history teacher who works with multilingual learners. I have not judged a a debate in close to a decade, so for the purposes of this tournament, I am viewing myself as a first time judge. I never debated in highschool or college, but I did compete in mock trial competitions which helped me understand the needed skills to make an effective oral argument. I appreciate arguments that have a clear overall message and use effective evidence and logic to support the overall argument. Roadmaps to show your argument are greatly appreciated. It is helpful that you speak at a clear conversational pace (i.e don't try to spread). It is important that I am able to hear all your points, so that I am able to fully weigh the impacts and implications you present. Please keep to your time (I will allow going over a second or 2 to finish a SHORT sentence but that is it!) and please settle all housekeeping matters before the round begins. If there is anything I need to review before the round please send it to my email edoyle@cpsd.us. Finally, the best debaters have great sportsmanship. Everyone wants to win, but it is important that all participants of the round are respectful to each other. Make sure you address and critique your opponents arguments and not the speakers themselves. I wish you all good luck this weekend and I look forward to listening to your arguments! ~Emma

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

Harvard Update: Get to your rounds on time and have preflows done by the start of round-- if you are late I won't have time for feedback and might get annoyed.

If you are sick, don't come near me please, or at least wear a mask.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar@wisc.eduPlease add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly a fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (ie, don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be avoided). Disclosure, paraphrasing, and misgendering theory are all fair game.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything, just be aware of my personal beliefs. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you wouldn't extend case there either)-- I don't care about extension outside of FF and Summary

Ks

- I've voted on Kritikal args several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim please.

Progressive weighing

- Prog weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing, link weighing, and structural violence framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing .

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that.

- READ CONTENT WARNINGS PLEEEEEAAAASE. Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it isn't strategic.

- Politics Disads/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't objectively offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

I am a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Refrain from using jargon. I enjoy lively, spirited debate when participants support their arguments with evidence and persuasive claims. Make sure to weigh your arguments carefully. Tell me why your impacts are more important than those of your opponents. 

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like with the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2014 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste. I will not drop you, but I'll very easily buy the block, and probably even want to. So strategically probably not ideal.

I believe communication is key. If you spread, it will probably hurt your round. Your speaker points are based on your ability to communicate and that doesn't always go well with speed, in my view. Debate is not throwing a lot of A1s, and brute force your opponents into submission. Debate should be about clash of ideas, from which ideally truth comes out.

I really enjoy a civil CX.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end. So make sure you drive your debate and don't let me be the one to do it for you. Crossfires should be civil but I don't mind some fire. In novice rounds I rely heavily on performance.

I'm not in love with Ks or theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I rarely buy arguments that are not topical, and I feel that they are a form of cheating. Iusually go with my flow, and sometimes it hurts. So make sure you carry your arguments to the end.

Also, no cheap shots. You want to win your round? Win it with smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, arguments, and strategy. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

I did PF in high school, but if you speak too quickly I'll probably miss something. Also, please don't misconstrue evidence. Have fun and be nice!

I'm a freshman at Harvard, studying Philosophy, Lingusitics, and Maths.

I'm also from Australia, and don't respond well to spreading (I want to be able to hear what you are saying).

Arguments made with coherent and strong mechanisms/warrants, and which are well-impacted with good weighing are a plus.

I have extensive high school debate experience in the Australs format (similar to Worlds format), and college-level experience judging and debating in APDA.

+Lay Judge

+Graduate Student

+Previously an IPDA debater (three years in undergrad)

+Novice Coach

+Adjunct professor

Note: Email me your case if you want me to see your cards (jadaf789@gmail.com)

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.

I am a first-year at Harvard competing in APDA and British Parliamentary. I primarily did WSDC and BP in high school. I have no affiliation with any school in the US.

Rules

1. Be respectful. This doesn't just mean "don't be rude", it means do your best to create a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of debate experience or identity, can feel safe, comfortable, and empowered to perform to the best of their capabilities.

Paradign/General Preferences

1. I do not have major PF, Lincoln-Douglas, or Congress experience - this means that I am not familiar with common buzzwords/jargon. Please ensure the way you are expressing your arguments takes this into account because I will not be able to credit what I don't understand.
2. I am okay with responses that go in the order of the flow - I am also okay with responses that are sorted into themes or that go in any different order. As long as I can comprehend the point you are responding to and the point you are making, I will credit it.
3. As a judge, I will attempt to position myself as the "average voter". This, for me, describes a person who is moderately informed about the events in the world but does not know their nuances/details. This means that any reference to articles/papers or assertion of details about the situation will not be credited, especially if the other team is able to provide robust argumentation.
4. Please weigh. I will DEFINITELY keep an ear out for weighing and take it into account in my adjudication.
5. I do as a person believe that human suffering should be minimised. In the absence of alternate weighing, I will default to "which side causes the most benefit/least harm to humanity as a whole". However, I am always ready to listen to and be swayed towards other ways of judging the debate.
6. I adore puns. The worse the better.
7. I do not think human extinction is likely to occur. I have a slight preference towards arguments about higher probability impacts as opposed to arguments about nuclear war.

I'm a former WSDC debater for Team Canada. No spreading or theory. I like weighing, logical & reasonable arguments, and stylistic debating. Be respectful to everyone in the room and try to have fun!

1. Keep Calm.
2. Speak Loud And Clear.
3. Maintain Proper Body Language.
4. Keep The Topic On Track.
5. Respect your Opponents

I am a parent judge; you may send me cases to jules@floristsreview.com if possible before the round to help my understanding of your arguments.
I am a lay judge; here are some guidelines for success:
1) Please do not speak excessively fast. It is not helpful information if I cannot understand you.
2) Just because I am a parent judge does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is valid on all levels of responses not just your case. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy them.
3) Be respectful to your opponents and judges; any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss.

Hi! My name is Cam (He/They) and I'm the captain of the Waring Debate Team from Beverly, MA. I'm a senior and have been debating since my freshman year.

I come into the round with a fair assumption that you are following NSDA code of conduct rules. Essentially, be respectful and attentive. If you are offensive in any way in regards to race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, etc., I'll give you a loss, 24s, report you to tabroom and contact your coach.

Just because I'm also a debater doesn't mean you should disregard the premise of public forum: that every round should be comprehensible to everyone. Public forum is meant to be accessible, and when it's filled with jargon and spreading, the round is thus made inaccessible and the premise is defeated.

Specifics

-Spreading is a no-go in my book. PF was formed as a direct response to it, and to how arguments and research got lost in rheotoric and speed. In PF we don't spread, we make our rounds accessible. If you have any questions about speed, please talk to me.

-I will not vote for one team just because they have more ink on the flow. I'm not tech>truth or truth>tech, debate is about a balance of them both. Debate is evidence and rhetoric, not one or the other. I'm tabula-rasa, as each round should be.

-Use your knowledge of the topic. Trust yourself, trust your partner. You know your stuff, now let me know that you know. As my coach says, use the Kansas Rule of Three: "tell me what you're going to tell me, tell me and tell me that you told me." In short, use off-time roadmaps and signpost. Please sign-post, tell me where you're going. If I don't know this, I won't know where to go on my flow and the ink will get messy.

-In terms of taglines...don't expect me to remember who Jones18 is in your summary, when you brought the card up once in your case. Explain your link-chain, don't simply name drop evidence. Otherwise, I'll be focusing on trying to find out who Jones18 is, and not on your arguments. You want me to pay attention to your arguments. That's why we're here, isn't it?

-Cross fires are for your own sake. I will not flow them. If your opponent makes a concession in cross, bring it up in your speeches if you want me to consider it on my flow. If I look like I'm ignorning you during cross, I'm not, I'm tracking things on my flow and trying to figure out elements that I'm confused about.

-Please me to evidence exchanges cam.gimbrere@gmail.com

If you have any questions, please ask me! If there is anything that I can to to make this round more accessible for you, please let me know. Post-round, if you have any questions, or believe that I made the wrong choice, I am open to conversation. PLEASE talk to me!

And for real, have fun. I know this is super stressful and we often don't want to wake up at 5am on a Saturday to get a van to a tournament to spend all day as anxious wrecks drinking too much coffee, to get home late, but we can make the best of it :)

About: I debated at Lake Highland in PF for four years and currently do LD at FSU. Now, I'm a sophomore studying finance and economics.

Email: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine (just send a doc), weigh, warrant, signpost, just try not to be blippy.

Overall Specifics:

• Speed: I am fine with speed. However, I find speed unnecessary; good debaters can win arguments and frontline properly without the need to spread. Plus, for the most part at least, the faster you speak, the blipper your arguments get.

• Weighing: Weighing is the first thing I evaluate on any flow. However, if the weighing is not comparative and warranted correctly, it will just seem like an extension of your argument. If you are going to weigh, please use: pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, start weighing responses in rebuttal.

• Progressive: My logic is that I never understood theory or K’s while debating in high school; thus, I will not evaluate those arguments in a PF round. However, if both teams make the round a K or theory debate, leaving substance behind, I will evaluate the K or theory. With that being said, please know what you are doing. I do not understand these arguments super well.

• Extensions: Many teams think that if they frontline case, that just counts as an extension, I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made, and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions. Good extensions extend warrants and internal links.

• Collapsing: Collapsing arguments early makes your narrative so much cleaner, and also I don't have to spam extensions and card names all over my flow.

• Evidence: I will not read evidence unless explicitly told to. I aim to minimize judge intervention via evidence

Things I do not like:

• Overviews: I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments, but I will have a super low threshold for responses, and your speech will likely reflect this.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Things I like:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfjeGfX_5I&ab_channel=Tay-K

Message me on FB here for questions

I would describe myself as a traditional debate coach with a passion for argument and craft. For Public Forum Debate, this means I look for the strength in your argument, validity of your evidence, and its organic structure. While eloquence of speech is appreciated, I lean away from performative debate. Clarity often gets lost in jargon and pageantry. The ability to continually learn and hone your craft makes debate a beautiful sport. Please do not be alarmed by the amount of notes that I take. I enjoy helping debaters grow and being as specific as possible in my final deliberation.

I did 4 years of pf at stuyvesant in nyc (2016-20)

how i evaluate a round

- usually i only be look at summary&ff unless i have a reason not to (e.g. the impact to this turn wasn't in rebuttal, evidence from case, etc.)

- who wins framing? if there is a framework debate i look there first to decide how i should evaluate the round. usually whoever has better warrants + compares their framework to the alternative and explains why it's better wins.

- i look at the offense that each team has extended in summary & ff. extended means that the entire argument is present-- uniqueness (if it's weird or contested), links w/ warrants (all the way from the resolution to the impact, e.g. rtw --> fewer ppl in unions b/c they don't have to pay dues if they're not members --> weaker unions b/c their power comes from collective bargaining which requires union members to effectively strike/negotiate b/c there is no leverage if a corp. barely loses any workers --> less of the benefits they collectively bargain for --> impact). then, i look if there is any terminal defense & if so has it been responded to? this goes beyond justa response and requires a response that engages with the warrant/evidence of the defense: does the frontline make this response untrue? if there is terminal defense i don't consider the offense, if it's handled i then look to mitagatory defense and factor it in (it helps if the team who reads mitagatory defense tells me what that means in the case of me evaluating the round)

- if there is unresolved clash at the link level, i see if either team has compared the links (e.g. is it more important for unions to have money or members for their effectiveness?) and if they have whose comparison is better (if you compare the comparisons and tell me why your warranting is more true i'll vote there). if it's at the impact level again i look to see which team has given me better comparisons. if you metaweigh and compare your weighing i'll evaluate it how i'm told to.

- if anything is not compared i have to independently decide how i treat the clash/weighing. this puts your fate into my hands! pls don't do this

stuff

- if you say "time starts on my first word" or "time starts in 3, 2, 1" etc i reserve the right to dock speaks

- frontline in second rebuttal (necessary for offensive responses, recommended for defense)

- warrants matter more to me than impacts but i'm never really comfortable voting on an incomplete argument (missing a link, warrant, etc)

- blippy extensions aren’t compelling — you don’t have to pretend i’ve never heard the argument before, but you do need to re-explain it in its entirety. fontlining does not mean you're extending your case! feel free to extend while you frontline, but make sure the necessary warrants that don't have any ink on them and are not being frontlined are also extended.

- a lot of summaries try to do too much, you don’t need to win every arg to win the round. i rarely end up voting for teams with multiple pieces of offense, time trades off with extension quality

- good warrants > evidence with warrants > warrants > evidence

- extend cards for emperics

- if you want me to vote on a turn it needs to be warranted, implicated and impacted when you read it and it needs to be weighed in summary & ff. happy to vote for a turn & dropped case if you do this, though!

- if i call evidence it means the round is closer than you should let it

- tech over truth but it’s not absolute. the more ridiculous an argument, the more leeway i give for responses

- weigh, and not just with buzzwords ! do the work to compare the offense and convince me to vote for you in spite of defense. if the clash happens at the link level, i need explicit reasons to prefer your warrants/evidence

- most of the rounds i’ve judged are decided by (1) which team extended a complete argument through ff with links or (2) which team weighed better

- i don't love to judge evidence debates, and it's unlikely i will call for evidence if there is a way for me to evaluate the round without doing so. i will accept any indict as true unless it is responded to in-round

- assume 0 topic knowledge if it's my first tournament judging the topic

- in person email chains are weird

progressive argumentation

- my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

- i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of the technical aspects of a theory debate, i probably won't vote on it. if there is an abuse in case that you genuinely think is bad for norms, make the argument in rebuttal. if there is an in-round safety violation, say something in a speech and i'll be pretty comfortable dropping the debater.

Hello,

I am new to judging, this is my first time. I am very attentive and a great listener.

Please speak clearly, annunciate correctly and maintain good voice projection.

I look forward this event. Good Luck to all the participants! ????

I am a parent judge. This is my second year of judging local and national tournaments.

I base my decision off of my flow. Here are some things that I look for:

1. Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.
2. No spreading, please speak slowly and clearly.
3. No theory or kritiks please.

Have fun!

Looking for good argument, not technical wins. I.e. I don’t care about dropped contentions if the dropped contention was weak and other, stronger contentions were addressed well. Intellectual, evidentiary, and logical domination wins over tit-for-tat flow.

Technical losses are stupid. You’ll never see my ballot say “You didn’t frontline, therefore you lose.” Debate is still about persuasion. Don’t get me wrong; frontlining, collapsing, etc., are all good persuasive techniques to be used in debate. But the failure to use them won’t necessarily or automaticallylose you the round… it just might affect the persuasive effect of your argument. If you can still persuade that your side wins without using all the specific techniques, even against a team that does use them, you’ll still get my ballot.

LD- know your VC. Understand how, e.g., utilitarianism works or what social contract means in the context of your argument before hanging your entire argument on it. Do the actual analysis using your VC. Also do the analysis using the opponent’s VC if you can. Cross is good for discovery, but also for points.

Hi everyone! My name is Tenzin Gund-Morrow (he/him), and I'm a first year at Harvard, planning to concentrate in Government Public Policy or Social Studies. In high school, I did Parliamentary Debate for all four years, serving as Captain of my school's team, an Equity Officer for the New York Parliamentary Debate League, and host of the Tournament of Champions Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Debaters Forum. In 2020, I ranked #1 in New York State and, before stepping back from debate halfway through my senior year, I ranked #1 in the country. I championed the Ivy League Parliamentary Debate Championship, the Vassar College Debate Invitational twice, and various regional tournaments.

I am a lay debater and discourage spreading and overly technical flow. If I or anyone in the round says slow twice and a team doesn't significantly slow, I cannot ensure the completion of my flow and may even stop flowing. I default to the flow when it comes to final speeches, and I expect teams to call out new points or violations. Signpost, signpost, and signpost some more––in fact, try to take a breath when signposting to make transitions in a speech clearer––I will be challenged to flow if debaters don't self-enforce structure. Unstructured speeches bring down the quality of everyone's debate. I won't intervene unless I see bullying or discrimination in the round. I love a debate with strong links and terminalized impacts so make sure to spend time doing that, but I will generally defer to better links over unweighted impacts.

We're all here to learn and have fun, so take a deep breath and enjoy yourself!

Hi all,

I am a new judge to debate. That being said, I would greatly appreciate debaters who introduce the topic and their arguments in a narrative way. Do your best to explain the topic as if I have no prior knowledge about the subject, but please don't feel that you have to over simplify your evidence or arguments to appease me. I'm interested in cases that bring something different to debate and help keep the rounds interesting.

I can follow decent speed but will prefer someone not to rush through their speech and clearly articulate their points so I can have a clear understanding of what is being said. So pace yourself.

Be respectful to one another, please.

I am a lay judge.

Logical articulation.

Affiliations: Middleton High School (WI), Tufts University

Background: I debated PF for three years and Congress for fours years in Wisconsin, with limited experience on the national circuit. I'm a history and political science double major, so I love seeing historical examples/political theory (not to be confused with debate theory) within cases :)

General Paradigm (PF): I'm definitely more of a traditionalist, but I’m tech over truth as long as you aren’t blatantly lying. Don't spread; talking fast is fine, but speak at a rate that a non-debater would be able to understand. (If you have to take giant gasps of air when speaking, it's a sign you're going too fast) I'm not the best with too much speed, so I might miss arguments. I will not read speech docs. If I do not hear the argument, it will not be a factor in the round. Use all the PF jargon you want, but please don't use any disads, Ks, or anything rooted in Policy/LD. If you’re fiating something, please make sure your explanation is clear.

Also, please extend (this means your warrant and your impact) your arguments with their card tags, signpost, give me a brief road map (signposting > roadmap) and weigh. Weighing is extremely important for me. Saying that something pre-reqs something else means absolutely nothing if you haven’t given me a warrant, and I don’t see it as a form of weighing. I will vote for a bad argument weighed well over a good argument weighed poorly. Meta-weigh if you have to. If your opponents are weighing on probability and you're weighing on magnitude, tell me why I should prefer probability over magnitude. These things will both elevate the round and make judging it way easier, so it's a win-win for all of us.

Lastly, if you're going to read triggering arguments, read a trigger warning and make sure everyone's okay with you running that kind of contention before case/before the round.

Theory/Prog Arguments: I don't like theory, but I am willing to keep an open mind.

Evidence: If there's an evidence conflict in the round that's serious enough or a card that sounds too good to be true, I'll call for the card. If it's an online tourney, send evidence to hebaemail618@gmail.com.

Speaks: Please don't be overly aggressive. I won't flow cross, but I will note disrespectful behavior, so make sure everyone gets enough time to speak, and be aware of implicit power dynamics due to race, gender, age, etc.

Other Stuff: Have fun with it! There's far too many debaters who walk in stiff-postured and stony-faced. At the end of the day, this is a performance. Loosen up, crack some jokes, smile a little, anything that will make your side more compelling and more interesting to watch. There is a fine line between being funny and being mean, though. Don't cross it.

I'm a lay judge, currently doing my first year of APDA in college. Be kind/respectful of the other team, avoid spreading, and properly warrant and weigh arguments. If there isn't much explicit weighing going on in the round, my default is utilitarianism and I'll evaluate on those terms.

No K's or theory please.

As a debate judge, my primary responsibility is to assess the arguments presented by each team and determine which team has made the most convincing case. In order to make an informed decision, I will be looking for the following qualities:

1. Clarity: I expect each speaker to present their arguments in a clear and concise manner, using language that is easy to understand. If a speaker is not clear, it will be difficult for me to follow their arguments and evaluate them effectively. I do not like spreading.

2. Logical coherence: I expect each team to present a logical argument that builds from one point to the next. The argument should be grounded in evidence and should avoid logical fallacies. If a team presents a coherent and logical argument, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their position.

3. Evidence: I expect each team to support their arguments with evidence. This evidence should be relevant, accurate, and persuasive. If a team presents strong evidence, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

4. Rebuttal: I expect each team to engage with their opponents' arguments and present effective rebuttals. This means addressing the key points made by their opponents and demonstrating why their own argument is stronger. If a team presents strong rebuttals, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their position.

5. Delivery: I expect each speaker to deliver their arguments in a confident and engaging manner. This means using vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact to capture the attention of the audience. If a speaker is engaging, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their argument.

6. Cross-examination: I expect each team to engage in cross-examination in a respectful and constructive manner. This means asking relevant and probing questions, and responding to questions in a clear and concise manner. If a team engages in cross-examination effectively, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

7. Respect: I expect each team to show respect for their opponents and for the debate process. This means avoiding personal attacks and staying focused on the issues at hand. If a team shows respect, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

In summary, I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

khasenbeck-meyer@fenwickfriars.com

In sum, first-year out who will vote off the flow. Please weigh.

I debated for four years for Horace Mann (class of 2019) and attended TOC in my upperclassman years.

While I will act as a tech judge, I also value some truth in arguments—the more far-fetched your argument seems, the more likely I am to buy simple, logical responses. However, I do vote off the flow as much as possible, so in the second half of the round, please fully extend all arguments you expect me to include when deciding.

Please weigh—otherwise, you'll be unhappy with my decision. Please also interact with your opponents' weighing if they provide any.

Technical things: I discourage but can handle speed, prefer fleshed out logic over blippy card dumps, don't require defense in first summary unless second rebuttal has frontlined (which is also optional), and have minimal to nonexistent experience with all types of progressive arguments (but am open to voting off substantive theory shells for actual in-round abuse).

I have no knowledge about the current topics as I do not coach; please do not assume I know anything about stock arguments or topic-related acronyms.

Small things: Set up before me and do the flip if you are able; no need for handshakes; I think speaker points are very arbitrary and try to inflate them a little (shh).

Last of all, please let me do if there is anything I can do to make your life easier—debate is about learning and having fun fun at the same time, and I believe everyone in the round should work towards making that happen.

For further reference, please check out this paradigm written by my teammates Sajan Mehrotra and Ethan Kim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fw2VpOyJbxFPYGz2jseTGfbbZiUgIRQJqh5LvCgbahw/edit?usp=sharing

Hello!

I am judging with no previous debate experience. Please speak slowly and comprehensibly and make your points very clear (summarizing is helpful). Please, no racism, sexism, homophobia, or bigotry of any kind.

My name is Lukas Hemmer. This is my first time judging debate. I have received judge training, but please go easy. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered slowly and carefully. Treat me like you would a "Lay" judge.

Debater for Rutgers University-Newark.

Debated for University High School in Newark where I received 3 bids in LD my senior year. I was top speaker at the Tournament of Champions and made it to semifinals.

Ranked #6 in the country as a collegiate debater my junior year. Qualified to the National Debate Tournament every year of college.

Please read what you are most comfortable with. I will evaluate every and any argument.

I would like to be on the email chain: ryanhemnarine@gmail.com

LD

K's/Performances: I mostly run Ks and performances on both the aff and neg. On the aff make sure there is a coherent story that I can follow from the 1AC to the 2AR. On the neg make sure there are specific links and examples that prove the aff is a bad idea/advocacy/policy/action etc.

FW v K affs: I will vote on whoever is winning a terminal that outweighs any costs. Clash > limits on the neg. Accessibility/Education are the best impacts on the aff. I default to competing interps, but can be persuaded to err towards reasonability.

DA's: Prove to me why the DA outweighs and turns case. Do meta-weighing.

Framework: LD is beginning to shift towards creative, and at times arbitrary framework shells. I'm down, but please prove a violation on a well thought framework shell. How will debate change and/or what will debates begin to look like under the interp/counterinterp and why is this better than debate in the squo?

PF

New to judging PF.

Please extend.

All arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Weigh and meta-weigh.

Please be respectful of each other at all times and practice proper decorum during the debate.

I will be judging this debate based on how participants directly address the topic, provide clear and concise arguments in support of their position, skillfully acknowledge and react to the other side's critique, and provide evidence to support for their arguments and counter-arguments.

I'm a freshman at Harvard with limited experience in APDA and BP. I did not debate in high school, so I don’t have much experience with PF, but here are some general thoughts. Some of these are borrowed from Matej Cerman’s paradigm, and I generally align with his philosophy.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Research can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh and weigh explicitly. If there is no weighing at all, I am left to resolve the issue through my own intuition. That’s frustrating for you. If there is weighing from one side that was dropped by the other side, I will evaluate it even if it isn’t well explained.

3) I will listen to and evaluate high-impact, low-probability impacts like nuclear war, but I don’t like them. I think it’s a much better use of everyone’s time if you give me an argument that’s plausible and interesting. From Matej Cerman’s paradigm: I’d rather hear a well thought out argument than “how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.”

4) Please don't spread. I am German, so I appreciate the efficiency, but speaking at a quick conversational pace will do the job. Being concise is a skill, too.

5) I don’t know anything about theory, and have a strong bias towards arguments that are actually about the topic. If you do use theory, I will listen, but I won’t understand anything unless you really over-explain it. Though, at that point, your time is probably spent more effectively on the actual argument at hand.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it).

Harvard Tournament - *I'll be in Tab - Don't waste a strike on me*

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2020 when theirs is from 2019...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

Hello, I did pubic forum debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School. I am now a fourth year student at NYU who has judged a little here in there in college. I have a very standard circuit pf paradigm (if you don't know what that means, ask). I don't mind some speed as long as it is clear. Please ask me any other questions before the round. Please have a fun and relaxed round, thank you!

The most important thing to me is that a warrant gets extending through final focus. Otherwise I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU!

I usually won't know the topic well so make sure to explain anything topic specific but I would like to think I have a pretty decent understanding of international politics and basic, debate relevant, economics.

Keep track of your own prep time and if you care, your opponents prep time, because I will not be timing either.

If you are gonna run theory or Ks, ask your opponent before the round if they are ok with it. I don't really like those argument styles but I'll vote for them if they are cleanly won.

:)

My email is bsh298@nyu.edu if there is any questions after a round or anything else (hopefully no death threats).

I debated for four years at Lexington High School, and am currently not debating in college. I have little to no topic knowledge.

Please add me to the email chain: justinh4033@gmail.com

PF:

- Disclosure is extremely important.

- Debate whatever style you are comfortable with. I'm experienced with speed but do what you are comfortable with. Seriously. I just want a good debate.

Top Level

I'm a firm believer in the strategic aspect of debate. My favorite part of judging a debate is watching what kinds of unique strategies you can have come up with, the research you have done to support it, and how you execute it. I'm pretty open-minded and enjoy pretty much any type of debate, so run whatever you want. I would much rather you run what you're comfortable with, rather than trying to over-adapt to me.

I will not accept any discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). I generally believe that you are good human beings and will be respectful to each other, so don't prove me wrong.

Tech over truth. How well something is debated determines how much truth I assign to it. While the truth level can lower or higher the threshold of tech required to persuade me, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. That means it must have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Draw comparisons. Explain why your impacts are important outweigh those of your opponent. This also goes for every part of an argument, like uniqueness, the link, etc. Compare evidence and warrants. Draw a distinction between the alt and the perm. Explain how each argument implicates your opponent's arguments and the rest of the debate. The best rebuttals will break down the core issues of the debate and write my ballot for me. Debates that lack comparison make it difficult for me to write a decision, which will probably make one side unhappy every time.

Evidence quality. Evidence is incredibly important, but it can also be trumped by sound, logical arguments. I value good spin of your evidence. That being said, I strongly dislike when people highlight words out of context or jumble together random words to form an argument. So many teams get away with reading bad evidence, but if you don't mention it, it will continue.

T

I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but this is totally up for debate. Reasonability can definitely be persuasive in the right circumstances. Lots of impact calc needs to be done on both sides, and the internal links to your offense should be clearly explained.

DA

Have good turns case analysis at each level of the disad (link, internal link, impact). Make sure to have good, recent evidence because these debates often come down to evidence quality. I don't have any strong opposition to the politics disad – the internal links may be silly, but it's probably a necessity on this topic and I will evaluate it like a normal disad.

CP

While it is very helpful to have them, CPs do not need carded solvency advocates, especially if they are based on some of the aff's internal links. All CPs need to have a clear net benefit and must be competitive. I would like an explanation of the perm and how it shields the link to the net benefit, and this explanation should be happening early on in the debate. PICs are awesome, especially ones that are specific to the aff.

K

I enjoy a good K debate, as long as there is good analysis and explanation. I will typically allow the aff to weigh their impacts. That being said, what does it really mean to weigh a fiated extinction impact against your epistemology? I believe affs should have a stronger framework push than just "weigh the aff" because most neg framework arguments will implicate this very process of impact calculus. Specificity to the aff is extremely important, but not necessary. However, generic link arguments without sufficient analysis will make me much more receptive to the perm. Don't read super long overviews - put the explanation of the K's thesis there, maybe an impact explanation, but the rest can go on the line-by-line.

Planless Affs

I think fairness is an impact, and probably the most convincing one. However, you still need to explain to me why that matters. Impacts that rely on some spillover to institutions (i.e. Lundberg 10) are unconvincing to me. If you are going for T, you should answer relevant arguments on the case page. I think TVAs are strategic and don't have to be perfect.

The aff should have a mix of offense and defense to defeat framework. Most of the time, the impact turn approach is a lot more convincing than trying to win a counter-interpretation, but this depends on the aff. Leverage your aff against framework – impact turn the aff's model of debate or read disads to it based on the thesis of the aff. Defensive arguments can also mitigate a lot of the risk of the neg accessing their impacts.

Theory

If you're going for theory, in-round abuse is extremely important. I think the only the thing that can rise to the level of a voting issue is conditionality. 3 condo is fine with me; 4+ is pushing it. Counterplan theory objections are much less convincing if you have a good solvency advocate. I will lean neg on agent cps and 50 state fiat because of the lack of great neg ground on this topic. I lean aff on consult cps, word pics, and certain process cps. Unless there is a 2NR argument for it, I will not kick the CP for you.

A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. 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

I am not a formally trained debater. Please do not spread, and explain your logic clearly. Refrain from using fancy debate terms, I will not understand them.

I prefer debaters who articulate clearly instead of word speeding.

I prefer debaters who reason not only logically but also have factual data to back up the reasoning, instead of only having factual data.

I prefer debaters who use common logic instead of convoluted reasoning.

I prefer debaters who understand not only your own contentions but also your opponents contentions.

I prefer debaters who can come up with good counter arguments to their opponents contentions using pertinent evidence and reasoning instead of going in circle.

I prefer debaters who are respectful to their opponents. Aggressively interrupting your opponents during cross should be avoided.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Up to date for Harvard 2/18/23

Please time yourselves I will forget to start the timer and we will all be sad.

I did CX for several years in high school, but I have little judging experience since and I am not familiar with current topics. That means I know what is going on in the debate, but you should not assume I know positions/abbreviations/jargon for this topic.

As for voting: I do not have a strong and consistent framework. I am willing to write an RFD on almost* any well-argued, well-supported, and reasonable position. One of the best things you can do for yourself is tell me how I should vote. This requires more than just stating harms and watching me write them down. Why should I be more concerned by pro's X than by con's Y? Give me good reasons (and evidence) to care about your claims. The caveat is that you shouldn't tell me I should prioritize {insert something horribly unethical}. I won't and you will be wasting your time.

*My only hard requirement is that the debate is approached by everyone in the room with the goal of creating a respectful, equitable, enjoyable, and educational experience. This goal can and should coexist with wanting to win the debate. This is both a hard rule (if you are blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, I will stop the debate and follow tournament procedures and be sad and be mad at you) and a guiding principle (I will value highly a team that is kind. It won't win you the debate but it will make me like you more).

Also, don't cheat.

I am a first year volunteer judge and I did not participate in debate during high school or college. I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments.

I prefer a slower debate that includes a persuasive style of speaking and debating. I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. Therefore, your speech must be clear and understandable, and your argument should be based on logic and factual evidence.

I competed in public forum debate and congress at Shrewsbury High School for four years and competed on the national circuit during my senior year.

How I Vote: I vote by resolving the weighing debate and then looking at who best links into the weighing. If both teams weigh, please use meta-weighing to help me resolve the round. I presume for the neg/squo.

Preferences:

1. Well-warranted, analytical arguments are better than unwarranted, blippy card dumps. Well-warranted carded arguments still trumps all.
2. Start weighing early.
3. Most speeds are fine as long as you are clear. Do not use it as a tool to exclude.
4. Theory should only be used to check back egregious abuse in the round. If you plan on reading theory, please read standards.
5. Paraphrasing is fine but do not misconstrue evidence.
6. I usually only call for evidence if it is really important by the end of the round and the interpretation is contested in the round OR if an indict is extended all the way through the round.
7. Just tell me where to start before speeches from rebuttal onward. Roadmaps are fine but not too long.
8. Overviews are fine in either rebuttal but don’t make them too long (<30 sec), especially in second rebuttal. The exception is weighing overviews, those rock!
9. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all turns- I would be happy to see teams frontline defense as well but it is not required.
10. All summaries need to extend full link chain and impact, just frontlining an argument is not extending.
11. 1st summary only needs to extend offense but not defense, as long as it is not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal
12. 2nd summary is required to weigh, no new weighing in 2nd FF
13. Consistency between summary and final focus is important
14. Clarity of impact weighing doesn't exist
15. Yelling a bunch of buzzwords like scope and magnitude is not weighing

Speaks: I give speaks on how strategic a team is during the round. Make good decisions and you will get good speaks. If you are overly aggressive or rude during the round your speaks will take a significant hit. If you have completely lied about evidence, your speaks will tank as well. Expect a L0 if you make any ___ist arguments

Hi, Here are the some facts abouts me as it relates to judging debates.

• Have 22+ years of experience in Information Technology including 15+ years in leading large programs for delivery.
• Public Forum Debate judge started - 2/18/2023. Have judged 10 rounds so far in this tournament and 2 triples.
• I like the pro team to sit on my left and con team to sit on my right. Within the team, the member speaking first (Case outlining) may be seated close to me and member speaking (Rebuttal) second.
• Would love to see arguments summarized at the end of case presentaions and rebutting section.

Parent judge.

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

For your email chains: jatikohn@gmail.com

Tldr;

NonT & Performance: 1

Kritiks: 1

Phil: 2

LARP: 2-3

Topicality: 2-3

Theory: 3 (Friv=4)

Hello everyone, I’m Kati (she/they). I am a lead PF coach for Bergen Debate, and I regularly teach LD at various summer camps (NSD every summer since I graduated high school: 2019, ’20, ’21, ’22 & War Room in 2020). As a debater, I competed primarily in LD, clearing at every nat circ tournament I went to my junior/senior year, reaching the bid round at all but one. I was the first freshman to qualify to TFA State & Nationals at my school, amassing over 60 state points compositely & was top 30 in extemp debate nationally. Throughout undergrad, I continued coaching LD and Policy, and upon graduation began working in PF. All of this is to say that I’ve been in the activity for a while and really love it, and I very much look forward to judging your round:)

If you have any paradigmatic questions for me, feel free to ask before we get started.

General Prefs:

-Speed is fine/good! But don’t sacrifice your clarity & be sure you aren’t yelling into the mic if we’re virtual.

-Good Extensions clarify warrants. It’s not a real extension if you are just restating the tag; spend time flushing out the argument and clarifying how & why it deserves my ballot.

-Weigh everything, even your weighing! Not referring solely to those mechanisms, you need to be comparing all of the arguments on my flow and telling me what is the most important to vote on & why.

-Overviews are awesome / Final Speeches should be attempting to write my RFD. This means take me through each layer of the debate and tell me how/why you are winning (framework, contentions, link or alt, the RVI, etc.). Go through everything that matters, identifying independent voters for your side.

-Lastly, Don’t read radical arguments that you don’t have the agency to. An L 26 is the most likely conclusion of a round like that.

Hi! I’m writing this for my dad (who doesn’t believe in paradigms). A couple things you should know:

He’s a parent. Treat him as such; you know what to do.

He’s a professor who gets paid to evaluate students. You’re debating in front of someone who definitely can tell a good and bad link chain apart.

He says he understands speaking quickly. However, he doesn’t think that fast speech is persuasive. I wouldn’t go fast, and definitely not spread.

He doesn’t know any debate jargon. Use at your own risk.

He is a historian, and knows a lot of history. Same for public health -- be careful that what you run would be accepted by an academic in the field.

Be polite & fairly formal. He just spent 15 minutes complaining to me about informal paradigms.

He wants debate to be fun. I'd recommend smiling.

He doesn't believe in off-time road maps. He says that he has never seen them in the rulebooks, and that debaters simply say "first I will rebut the opponent's case, then I will make our case" -- which isn't either surprising or helpful.

Overall, debate like you would in front of a teacher ready to edit your case. Good luck and good debating!

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

Hi! I used to do pf and now do apda. tldr: debate is a game, tech > truth, and warrants > evidence. Add me to the email chain at samjones@college.harvard.edu.

In general, respond to offense and concede defense as soon as possible and please don't give roadmaps - just tell me where you're starting. I'm a big fan of second rebuttals which get full coverage on both cases. I'm (almost) always going to prefer a warrant over a card, but I'm willing to intervene of evidence misrepresentation.

Wear whatever and say whatever you want. Cross usually makes me very sad because people talk over each other and aren't productive or funny. I'll vote off anything I can understand.

Rather than appealing to emotional words, I would definitely prefer arguments with evidence.

Contentions and their validity are important; however, I put more importance on how you can address rebuttal posed by opponents

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

This is my third year as a parent judge for Public Forum.

A few tips:

1. Enjoy the experience and have fun.

2. Deep breaths are helpful.

3. Stay hydrated--it helps your voice and your brain.

4. Please don't be afraid to ask questions--I'm always happy to answer them.

5. Be respectful towards one another--you've all worked hard to get here.

6. I'm excited for you--best of luck!

I am a parent/lay judge who is learning "flow" for public forum debate. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

Don’t run a Theory argument - I’m not interested.

I am a flow parent/lay judge who prefers clarity over speed.

Please avoid spreading so that I do not miss an argument or response.

I appreciate respectful disagreement and appreciate when you are being directly comparative with your opponent's arguments to demonstrate how you are winning the round.

Keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible.

I expect the debaters to present evidence in their arguments and will only look at it if there is a conflict.

I am not particularly supportive of theory arguments and would prefer you stick to the topic at hand.

Although an experienced PF judge, I am also an LD judge.

I have little to no debate experience, and will not have an appreciation for very technical terms or strategies.

Hello everyone,

I am a parent of a sophomore attending TJHSST. I prefer debaters to explain their arguments slower and more clearly. I will be taking notes on the debate.

Wish you the best!

Mrs.Kanjarla

Hello, my name is Anchal!

I was a policy debater in HS and I am currently an LD/PF coach.

Treat me as a flay judge.

If you are sharing evidence you can add me @ anchal.kanojia@ahschool.com If you call out a card or would like me to look at evidence- make that evident in your speech.

For prep and your speeches time yourselves and your opponents. For speeches I usually keep a timer and I don't flow anything after my timer goes off.

Don't use debate jargon in place of explaining args.

Tech>>Truth

I'm cool with speed but your opponents should be comfortable with your pace. Always be polite and respectful.

For PF

It's a public forum- I'm not a fan of theory. Frameworks are fine.

WARRANTING - please explain your arguments. Do not say "extend this" without explaining why. And please refrain from claiming that you already proved something earlier on without explaining what you did.

As a strat- give me voters and essentially write out my ballot.

For LD

Theory, Ks, etc. are totally fine.

I'm a fan of Ks and cool frameworks :)

Debated PF throughout high school, now a freshman in college. I'm pretty out of the loop since stopping and definitely not up to date on jargon/topics.

1. Include lots of analysis with your evidence (i.e. don't just read a card I want to know why it matters)

2. Voters! Please give me clear voters, it will make it easier for me to weigh the debate and more inclined to give you the win if you neatly lay your points out.

3. Please do not spread.

4. I used to be tech > truth but it's been a little bit so take that with a grain of salt.

I am a father of two kids - my son is a sophomore and I am here as a parent judge on behalf of TJHS.

My judging style is ‘team work’. I admire a group working together and listening to one another.

I award points on how the individual and group speaks together, and also how you conduct yourself in cross debate. I also look for logic to refute the arguments of opponents, and ability to focus on crucial issues -while being respectful to one another.

Be confident, speak loud and clear, and most of all have fun!

I've debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years. Speech-docs shld be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

IMPORTANT:Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when literally everyone still does all of the pet peeves in round.

Debate is a game so have fun

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is. Feel free to run wacky arguments as long as they have good warranting though.

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Totally new Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- Make your weighing comparative, don't just use buzzwords like "we outweigh on scope" — that means nothing to me; there should be comparison and actual warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns otherwise they are dropped

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

- I presume the first speaking team if no offense is generated in the round

-Theory: You can read it, just understand I might spend the round being grumpy and miserable. That being said:

• Read theory to counter actual abuse, if you read frivolous theory I will drop you.

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- Going new in the 2. Don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Pet Peeves

- Saying "My time starts on my first word". No really? I thought it started on your fourth word.

- Saying "We're gonna take some running prep." As opposed to walking prep? Where's the prep going? Just take prep, and tell me how much you took after.

- Giving a really long off-time roadmap, and then not even sticking to it. PF rounds are often pretty linear, you can just tell me what side of the flow you're starting on

Fun Stuff

If you do a 360 jump and call it a massive 180 when you read a turn: +0.5 speaks

The Office jokes in speeches: +0.5 speaks

Annoying Erica Lung (PLEASE SPAM HER elung30@stuy.edu): +0.5 speaks

-You have to weigh it has to be comparative and I prefer specific warrants based on in-round argument vs general ideas on how two impacts interact in a vacuum

-I wont accept new weighing in first final unless no other weighing is done before and 2nd can respond but can't read their own weighing

-in 2nd rebuttal two things you have to frontline and dont read disads if theres a legitimate violation/issue I'll evaluate a new off but I don't recommend doing it on a ticky-tack violation

-Im fine with progressive arguments but you cant kick it you can collapse on specific warrants but any argument you read should make it to final and i wont evaluate no RVIs or must read competing interps

-im fine with any speed in the front half of the round but in the back half the faster you go the more I'll miss or not get which makes it hard to vote for you so make a judgement call

-warrants and contextualization are more important in the back half than the front half that doesn't mean you can make up new warrants in the back half it just means dont forget if your argument doesnt make sense I wont vote for it because I dont know what Im voting for

-Ill give block 30s if I can so if you dont get a 30 its because of your behavior in the round so I would call on you to reflect a little on what may have happened in the round to warrant it

I debated in WSD in high school for Greenhill ('22)

Paradigm:

1. Assume I am reasonable but relatively uninformed. Explain what you want me to understand.
2. Comparative arguments are almost always the most compelling.
3. Both impacts and links should be weighed.
4. Extreme burdens and frameworks are generally uncompelling.
5. The prop 4 should not attempt to go for everything in the opp block, but they must respond. I have a high bar for what counts as new material.
6. I like principle arguments but they should be weighed and ideally be intuitive.
7. Regrets motions: prop must both define what the counterfactual is and defend why that is the likely case. Opp defends squo.
8. Speed: you can be quick but please do not spread.
9. Please be respectful to your opponents and to the topic you are debating. Also feel free to post-round me to your satisfaction.

Hopefully you debate because you enjoy it. In that vain, have fun :)

- I would prefer that debaters not go too fast.
- Be organized in both presentation and thought.
- Do your research, make strong arguments with evidence, and present them in a compelling manner.
- Having the ability to provide a strong line-by-line response is effective.

A debate is a forum to present opinions based on facts to inform judgement. Respecting opposing positions and the weight of arguments is valuable.

I am a parent supporting my daughter in middle school debate. I have observed numerous debate tournaments. I have very limited experience with judging debate, but I do understand the rules of debate. I like my debaters to be polite to each other. I will be impartial and unbiased in my judging. I will make my determination based on how well the debaters present their evidence and make their argument.

PF 2022/2023:

I debated in PF competitively for 6 years and graduated from Tufts University, majoring in Economics and Community Health (take that as you may). If you have any other questions, feel free to email me at nathankim925@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

General:

• Signpost throughout so I know what's going on.
• Dropped arguments are critical. Dropped arguments are near-impossible to recover from (given the argument is reasonable), and if a team weighs and extends the argument effectively, consider the round over.
• I enjoy creative arguments that show you researched the topic well. I always expect stock arguments to be the focal point of a round, but innovative arguments that allow me to analyze the round in a new way will be rewarded. However, there is a limit to truth & reality in all arguments.
• If you have any advice that would make me a better judge, let me know after I disclose.
• Pre-flow before you enter the room, especially if you're flight 2.
• If you want to email me your case before the round starts so I can pre-flow, that would be very helpful.

Evaluating the Round:

• You should do the work of telling me what to prioritize when voting.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH
• If you want to email me your case before the round starts so I can pre-flow, that would be very helpful.
• I evaluate impacts on both magnitude and likelihood so I’m not going to let bizarre stuff dictate a round, even if it’s dropped.
• It'll be difficult for me to evaluate theory/Ks as I have no experience using them. That being said, I’m open to different types of argumentation so if you explain it well then it’s to your benefit.

Notes on Second Rebuttal:

• No offensive overviews in second rebuttal.
• In second rebuttal you should frontline first rebuttal. I understand there isn't a lot of time, but at the minimum, respond to turns.

Summary/FF:

• Summary & FF should mirror each other – consolidate all offense you want to use in summary & FF.
• Defense that's frontlined in second rebuttal should be addressed in first summary.
• Defense is sticky but if you want to collapse on sticky defense, quickly bring it up in summary & FF to remind me.
• MAKE SURE TO WEIGH!!! If you're weighing is ambiguous/unclear, I'll have to evaluate it on my own. You don't want that.
• During FF, please give me voters - don't do a line-by-line.

Cross:

• I don't flow cross but I think it's an important part of the debate. If something round-altering happens, make sure to tell me in your next speech.
• If both sides agree we can forego grand cross and add an extra minute of prep to both teams.
• No leading questions!

Cards & Explaining Evidence:

• Read cards in constructive.
• Explaining evidence is part of extending evidence. "Extend Goncalves 19 from our case" is not an extension. "Extend Goncalves 19 because it explains..." is an extension.
• I dislike evidence wars. Don’t go back & forth on the validity of a source
• I will call for cards if: 1. you ask me to; 2. it's critical to my decision; 3. the card seems "too good to be true" and I want to verify it.
• If you intentionally alter info about a card in any way to help your team, speaks will be deducted and/or I'll give the ballot to the other team.

Speed:

• I have never been a big fan of speed but if you want to go fast, slow down for authors & warrant taglines
• Don't compromise clarity for speed. Pick up on non-verbal cues to slow down if necessary (not flowing, looking visibly confused, etc.)

Speaks:

• I usually will give 26-30, anything <26 is reserved for anything offensive/spreading after many signals not to do so.
• Avg. speaks given by division: Varsity: 28.33; Open/JV/Novice: 27.03 (smaller sample); Middle School: 28.21

minkoko@college.harvard.edu

Hello! My name is Min, and I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard studying government, economics, and social theory. I competed in debate all four years of high school, where I focused primarily on World Schools-- but am familiar with PF and IE events as well. I currently am a member of the Harvard College Debating Union, where I compete in American Parliamentary.

General norms

• Please be respectful and reasonable. High school debate can get really nasty at times, and we're all here to have a fun and educational experience. Don't use personal attacks against your opponents, use prejudiced language, or make sweeping generalizations (all of which are signs of poor argumentation as well).
• I am not a huge fan of spreading. However, I understand the need to get all the arguments in for formats like PF and LD, so I can definitely listen to fast-paced speeches.
• Dislike theory

Public Forum

• It's been a while since I've done PF, so I might not be as familiar with the timing/prep/showing cards aspects.
• Speed is okay if you need it to fit in quality arguments.
• I dislike evidence wars. Don't nitpick at the validity of one source back and forth.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
• Roadmaps are helpful. Anything that makes my life as a judge better will help with a flow, which will help with a ballot.
• I come from World Schools, where reasonability is king. However, in PF I have to consider all points on the flow especially if the other team drops it. That being said, just because you manage to link your tiny policy change to nuclear war or climate change or AI or whatever doesn't mean I will give you the win automatically (well, if the opposing team actually does its job). Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily mean the biggest impact in the round. In these instances, weigh probabilities as well.
• CX is mostly useless for me.

LD

• Truth be told, I have never debated in LD. I have seen a few rounds, but am far from an expert at the format. I am somewhat familiar with the vocabulary such as "criterion"
• Speed is fine, full-on spreading might mean I miss a few of your points during a speech.
• I have a background in political philosophy and social theory, so feel free to utilize those constructs when discussing values.
• Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily imply automatic win--weigh probabilities and magnitudes as well.
• Standard debate procedures apply- weigh impacts, consider the two worlds, give roadmaps etc.

Congress

• Never competed in Congress but have judged it before
• I will rely on the PO to keep things orderly, not too familiar with parliamentary procedure
• A good speech can be many things--keep it organized (typical intros, arguments, conclusion)
• I enjoy rhetorical flairs and style--it keeps things interesting in an otherwise very long session
• One thing that annoys me if the speeches keep saying the same thing or same argument over and over again. Be creative and come up with some novel arguments (even if it's nonstandard, it's better than you regurgitating a previous speaker's points)
• I expect later speakers to respond to the statements earlier speakers have made

World Schools

I absolutely love World Schools and it's my favorite format of debate because it's accessible, current, and meaningfully engages with real world issues--so I hope rounds continue to operate in that way! I mainly operated as a First and Reply speaker.

• I think tabula rasa judging is a bit vague at times, and this paradigm opens up the potential for a lot of weird stuff said in the round to stand. For the most part I am tabula rasa, so YOU should do the work of telling me WHAT to prioritize when voting. But because reasonability is an inherent part of WSD I'm not going to let really bizarre stuff dictate the round, even if a team drops that argument. I'd rather a team makes an argument on reasonability than me intervening.
• Assume that I as the judge am a moderately well-informed member of society (like a New York Times Reader). Explain anything requiring specialized knowledge out to me, but there's no need to tell me that India is a country in Asia or that the U.S. invaded Iraq.
• Try to adhere to traditional norms of speaker roles--aka first speaker offers the first 2 substantives and potentially a model, second speaker focuses more on line by line rebuttal, third speaker on collapsing and weighing. However, I'm not going to penalize you if you buck the norm and have innovative argument construction.
• Ideally, POIs should be offered around every 30 seconds and each speaker takes 2.
• Use global examples if relevant to the topic.
• One of my pet peeves is when people try to fill up the whole 8 minutes of a speech by repeating stuff they already said. If you find there is nothing more to be said, please just end the speech.
• This isn't a huge problem in WSD but I also hate evidence wars. Nitpicking on a particular warrant isn't particularly helpful to me as a judge, and focusing on bigger picture ideas will most likely be a better use of your time.
• Be mindful of actors/stakeholders and voters. Look at clashes in the round. Clarify the different worlds of Prop and Opp.
• Be mindful of both practical and principle concerns, and smart WSD teams will focus on the area that is stronger to their side.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
• I enjoy creative arguments that suggest that you researched well and thought about these ideas deeply. Of course I will be expecting stock arguments in a particular motion, but an innovative argument that makes me see the round in a new light will be rewarded. On the other hand, arguments can get TOO creative and have no basis in political or economic reality.
• Ballot: Content will focus on evidence-based reasoning and whether your impacts outweighed the other team. Style will focus on well-structured arguments and clarity. Strategy will focus on how well the three of you work as a team, good POI strategy, and the ability to capitalize on your opponents' weaknesses as they appear in the round.

Experience:

Hello everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for 5 years doing a mix of congress, extemporaneous speaking, OO, HI, etc. My main event in high school was Public Forum on the local Arizona circuit and national circuit.

Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)

General:

I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, sedona.e.korzay@gmail.com

Speed:

- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something

- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.

- Don't extend through ink.

- Please roadmap/signpost.

- Collapse; if not you might not like how I vote

- If your rebuttal "overview" is a hidden contention I will not evaluate it.

Weighing:

- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...

- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.

- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you

Speaker Points:

- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE

- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks

Notes on Progressive Arguments:

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or frivolous Theory, I will become annoyed and drop you. We both know that there are better debate venues for this.

- Arguments with critical and/or pre-fiat impacts not in K format can be ok, just make sure to give your opponents a meaningful route to the ballot.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.

Misc.

• I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)

- Have fun!

Pls talk slowly that's all I ask, makes for a better RFD. Not too familiar with PF, mainly do APDA stuff. Lay judge.

I am a lay judge and I do not have previous tournament judging experience.
Please send your speech doc to srini_kovi@yahoo.com as it will help me follow along.

I am familiar with some of the norms of PF debate, as my daughter has been debating for the last 2 years.
Be respectful to your teammate, opponents and judge, especially in crossfire and let them talk; Do not interrupt them.
I would like to see strong evidence that supports the argument directly.
Any new arguments in final focus will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so that your opponents can respond.
Comparatively weigh; make it clear for me why your argument is more important.
I will be taking notes on the debate.
I am ok with collapsing, but make sure to re-explain the argument.

Speaker Points:

<26.5: Rarely given and only when very poor OR offensive.
26.5-28.9: Average. Most people will get somewhere in this range
29-30: Amazing!

Greetings to All,

I am a fairly new parent judge to the Public Forum debate. Few things below:

- Keep an eye on the time.

- Present in an orderly fashion.

- Speak slowly and clearly. If you are too fast I will miss what you are trying to say.

- Respect each other.

- In case you are planning on sharing your evidence please share them with me too.

- Relax and have a great round.

I wish each one of you all the best for todays tournament.

Wishing each one of you a Great Round and Happy Debating!

Hello Debaters,

I am resuming my debate participation after a long break. I enjoy Public Forum judging and coaching.

I don't have speaker preferences and will judge based on flow, established framework, and the overall case. I weigh the round on the established parameters, each team's framework, and how the speakers appeal their case. I accept spreading as much as anyone in the field. Please don't include me in emails/text chains. Have fun, debate is a wonderful experience!

I am a parent judge and have been judging PF for a year now. I like to hear arguments that are clear and logical and relate directly to the topic. Just a few well articulated points will go long way in making the case for your side. I'd say that I prefer moderate speed but ok if you have to go a bit faster to make all your points.

Speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments; if I don't understand them, I cannot vote for you. Use only realistic arguments.

It's helpful when you frontline and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus with consistency.

Do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to listening to your round!

I do American and British Parliamentary on the Harvard team but have no familiarity with any other formats so you may want to treat me as a lay judge.

I am probably biased in favor of the most reasonable sounding team in the round. I tend to dislike arguments where the impacts are massively overblown (e.g. world-ending extinction events) unless you've warranted them really well.

If you spread, I will not be able to follow your arguments as well, so speaking slower is to your benefit.

I will not read any cards and will not flow crossfire. If something important comes up, you must mention it during a speech for me to vote on it.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

I don't know anything about theory or Ks, so run them at your own risk of me not understanding what you're talking about.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

Hello, I am Andrew. I did congress for a bit, but the vast majority of my experience is in PF, so this paradigm is mostly only applicable to PF.

In general, I'm pretty flexible when it comes to style. I don't mind too much speed and won't immediately dock speaks for it, as long as it is comprehensible. I do flow, so make sure to warrant and extend any offense that you want me to vote off of. Equally, extend any defense to arguments that make it through the round (including weighing. Weighing is important, but make sure to contextualize your weighing and do some comparative analysis between your world and that of the opponents. If neither team really provides this comparison and both have valid offense at the end of a round, I'll generally default to a utilitarian framework.

The comparison rule also applies for evidence battles. If an argument comes down to my evidence vs my opponents, I'll side with the team that explicitly explains to me why their evidence is to be preferred (whether it be corroboration, postdating, or some flaw in their methodology).

Time your own prep and don't stall between speeches unless you're using prep. I don't usually flow crossfire, so if something important happens make sure to reiterate in a speech, but it is a good place to indicate how familiar you are with the topic and your own case.

Other than that, I don't generally like theory, particularly in PF, particularly against inexperienced opponents.

Of course be nice, have fun, don't take it all too seriously. Good luck!

I am a former (pretty lay) LD debater who was mostly competed in local tournaments and a few national tournaments (Princeton, Penn, etc.) per year. Now a junior going to school at Harvard (and thus judging this tournament!). I did PF for a few tournaments so understand the general format and strategies.

I am not too picky by debate style but will definitely advise against any sort of spreading.

Let me know if you have specific questions in round and good luck!

This is Public Forum Debate. Look over what the description of PF is:

In contrast to policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate, there is little focus on extreme speed or arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory; instead, successful public forum debaters must make persuasive and logical arguments in a manner that is accessible to a wide variety of audiences. Public forum debate also focuses on not only logical, but research based arguments.

If you want me to look at evidence, tell me, but don't overdue it.

Rudeness will be penalized. Doing things in PF that are not supposed to be done in PF will be penalized.

• I will buy any argument that is clearly articulated with logical links, warrants, and impacts; good warranting is especially critical and must be extended throughout the round if you want me to vote for it
• I prefer arguments with a clean narrative
• I am generally fine with speed, but please don't spread and do enunciate well. I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. Also, the later it is in the day, the more tired I will be, so I will likely miss some info. Please treat me more as a flay judge then.
• Cards are great, but if they aren’t warranted clearly or weakly linked, I won't buy it
• I'm fine with paraphrased cards as long as it's not misconstrued; I will drop the card (or the entire argument if it's really bad) for any misrepresentation
• Second rebuttal should frontline offense; at minimum, you should respond to turns. Otherwise, I consider it conceded
• Summary and final focus should mirror each other; I will not buy a point that was brought up in final focus but not discussed in summary; I will not extend arguments for you
• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison; tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's; the clearer, the better and more likely I'm going to vote for you
• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments; I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision were I to evaluate them
• Please read content warnings for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument-- you must have an alternate case if they aren't; I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space
• Add me to the email chain at laurynlee.may10@gmail.com

Qualifications: I have some PF debate experiences before college. I am currently a Model UN member at Boston College.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the speed of the speeches, but please make sure it is clear and articulate.
2. Although providing sufficient evidence is essential, please do not construct the entire speech out of statistics.
3. Give enough time to each other to ask during the cross-fires. Do not spend so much time elaborating on the questions or asking further questions in detail.
4. Please keep track of time. I wouldn't interrupt you when you go over the time, but it may affect the speaker's points.
5. Organize as much as possible. I will try my best to reorganize myself but you need to try your best to organize them for better flow.
6. It is quality over quantity—please present quality evidence than presenting clumps of data.
7. Respect others, including other students and the judge. Extreme facial expressions or reactions towards the other may lower your speaker points.

I am a lifelong speech and debate person. My judging is informed by a policymaking background but not determined by it. I don't believe I have a particular paradigm per se. My ballot pen responds well to clash and specificity.

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Debate Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain/Doc: levind@stlukesct.org

tl;dr: Clarity>Speed. K Debate is good for PF. No problem voting on theory, but I like case debate more.

Public Forum

General:

Speed is fine, just prioritize clarity and please give a road map/sign-post your arguments.

I'll vote off the flow, so your speech organization will make my job a lot easier and will benefit you on the ballot and speaker points. I've found that this grants more significance to link and solvency work in the summaries.

On that note, I love specific, even niche link chains, within the realm of plausibility.

On topics with stats-heavy evidence (including RTW), well-warranted, qualitative weighing - "paint the picture of the aff/neg world".

Warrant out the causal relationship between fiating the resolution and the impact.

Kritiks in PF:

Engaging with critical literature is good. It exposes debaters to non-hegemonic discourses, which are more sparse in PF. There's some understandable hesitancy with regard to the time constraints of PF, but you should be able to explain a critical argument to the same level of depth and nuance as you would a more conventional case - you won't be able to unpack all the minutiae in 4 minutes, but that goes for just about any contention/case. To this end, the framing and link debate is crucial for both pre and post-fiat approaches.

Theory:

I'll vote on theory no problem, but if you're winning on a more substantive argument, go for that instead. Your speaks will thank you.

Ethics:

There is a line between witty snark and being a jerk. Stay on the correct side of it.

Don't use racist, sexist, ableist or otherwise offensive rhetoric. Gender is a product of language, not biology.

Things that will boost your speaker points:

-Transferring evidence quickly, ideally before speeches

-Helping me flow you (namely sign posting and organizing the line by line chronologically)

Policy

Clarity>Speed. Specific acronyms might need explanation.

Rounds involving policy affs:

Specifying your agent is especially good on this topic, as the procedural implementation of the plan sets the groundwork for many core negative strategies, including T, which is probably good for the education we get out of the round.

I tend to view doves>hawks, though I will vote on US hard power good if you win the tech side of the debate.

Structural violence impacts are generally the most compelling to me.

T is a really good point of contention on this topic. Procedural implementation and the ambiguity of "security cooperation" make these debates worth having. Generally, I prefer affirmatives winning a competing interpretation over reasonability, as it sets a brighter line for what the topic should encompass. I tend to view fairness as an internal link, rather than a voter on its own.

Plan-specific DAs and counterplans are a delight. I'll evaluate and vote on generic DAs but will have a high threshold on the link level.

This goes for generic Ks as well. Explain how the aff is worse than the status quo, otherwise I will grant more credibility to the perm's ability to solve back the K.

I find performative contradiction arguments more salient than "time/strategy-skew" conditionality args.

Rounds involving critical affs:

These are my favorite rounds to judge.

Warrant out why USFG action is/isn't tenable. Generally speaking, I think radical demands of the state have good explanatory power and probably do a good job of creating a DA to USFG action - this goes for both TVAs and perms on the TVA.

In K v K rounds, some of the most compelling arguments I see are on the perm/mutual exclusivity level, and can present a fantastic educational opportunity.

Generic Ks need considerable work on the link level, but I will vote on them.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I majored in business and math so you would benefit from bringing up methodology for your evidence. I'm tired of hearing endless statistics spewed at me. If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about the causal reasons for why the world works the way it does. Warrants are better than just a statistic.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents.

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. If you're spreading faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

Summaries: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I do not extend anything for you. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. If for some reason the round is cut short by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round.

Citing Cards: I care tremendously about the credibility of the source so stop saying just the last name. I'd rather hear the affiliated organization or academic journal the study was published in. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation up to me. I will call cards out of interest.

Calling Cards: If you argue over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

Less serious stuff:

I want to hear more one-liners than a Marvel movie.

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate. Don't be excessive and don't interrupt by being louder.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Everyone is tired of hearing "Outweigh on magnitude, we have the largest number in the round."

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct.

I'm down to hear meme cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds. The danker the better.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

for harvard: pls come to round flipped, pre-flowed, and with an email chain/evi sharing doc set up. if you take a super long time to find evidence, i won't start deducting that time from your own prep (because i'm too lazy to keep track) but your speaks will definitely take a not-insubstantial hit. conversely, don't be that guy and call for like 10 cards in someone's case or rebuttal.

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west for four years. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or the round is so messy that i absolutely have to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi (in other words, don’t blow up a turn in the second final focus and pretend like the warranting was in rebuttal)

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or i else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin, and click here for 4 minutes and 8 seconds of brain off music while you wait

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

I'm a parent judge but I do have some experience as a policy (CX) debater from when I was in high school a loooooong time ago. A couple of pointers that I hope will be useful:

• I think I could handle some spreading but check with the other team first and be articulate.
• Make sure to signpost. Please list your contentions and impacts.
• When rebutting, please reference those signposts, I use a ridiculously large flow sheet but need your help to keep it organized!
• I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, harassment, or discrimination. Be courteous and professional with one another, especially during cross-x. You will be dinged if you are rude or abusive.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is a great experience that provides valuable skills and wonderful memories.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

General thoughts:

• I care about warrants much more than evidence. You cannot just extend Liu ‘23 and say “this proves unions decrease wages” without explaining WHY this is true, because certainly the authors have a reason behind their conclusion. This means 1) I would MUCH rather hear good analytics than bad evidence, 2) you need to extend warrants to get the impact, and 3) I do not care about your cards as much as you think I might.
• Please please please collapse and weigh. Otherwise I will have to do this for you and you may be upset by what I think matters most.

——

circuit LD thoughts:

Prefs shortcut:

1 - traditional, k/performance
2 - larp, some theory
4 - friv theory

Miscellaneous thoughts:

- I won't vote on arguments I don't understand
- please collapse by the 2n/2a
- disclosure is probably good
- good analytics > bad cards

I'm a parent judge. Fluent in English but not a native speaker, so slow down, I don't evaluate what I don't understand, including jargon. I vote for the cleanest argument extended through the round, and I care most about logic and argumentative reasoning (that's not to say that I don't care about anything else, however).

As a parent judge, I value clarity, commitment, and collaboration. Please don't speak too fast as a steady pace with clear pronunciation and articulation can always make your presentation better understood and more effective. The logic should also be clear and sound. Each member of the team also needs to show full engagement with and devotion to the debate and to their respective position, and they need to support each other to make the team strong. Please remain respectful throughout the debate.

Judging Criteria

Clarity of the speech: Not too fast (please don't do 300 wpm), not too slow. I am flowing the entire session with all of you, so I appreciate everyone do not miss any important contentions.

Facts and figures: Whenever you cite a number, please include the source. Reputable sources command a higher winning score. Your interpretation of the source is required, don't just quote it without explaining how it validates your position.

Professionalism: I pay special attention to all speakers' eloquence, being aggressive is okay, but not personal insults. Confident speakers usually come with well-prepared speeches, and I am looking forward to an educational exchange of rebuttals and crossfire.

Points: All speaker points start from 27, extra points awarded for logical links, extending good warrants, and impacts.

I will not call for cards unless I need it for my flow verification.

Content warnings for sensitive topics need to be disclosed at the very beginning.

"I have little to no understanding of theory, run it at your own risk!"

My name is Eliza Loring (she/her), and I am a junior at the Waring School in Beverly. I am in Varsity PF. So I come into the round with a guarantee I've done research on the topic and an understanding of the in and outs of Public Forum Debate.

> If you are offensive in any way, even if it's a "joke." I will report you to tabroom and you will lose the round.

> Respect Public Forum in it's essence. What I mean by this is that PF is supposed to be accessible and should be understood by any person from off the street. Therefore if you spread (talking so fast that your words blend together), I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but just know you've lost some of my respect (and speaker points). Additionally, don't overuse debate jargon, because you are actively making debate less accessible.

> Please signpost, I'm begging you. What I mean is that tell me what you are saying. If you are responding to a contention please tell me that so I can flow it.

> In terms of tech over truth. I've begun to evaluate tech more. However I think debate should be a balance of both evidence and rhetoric not one or the other.

> Refrain from running Theory of Kritiks. I will listen to them but just know I very much dislike them. I think they are a cop-out for actually debating the resolved and I will think less of you. If you love Theory or K you should join Policy or Big Questions, because that's not what PF is about (PF actually emerged as a response to this!).

> Evidence ethics are important. Don't make up information, you should always have evidence.

>Don't mansplain and let your opponent answer in cross please. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When someone asks a question in cross and then proceeds to answer it themselves rather than letting the opponent actually answer. Just be respectful and kind, it's not too much to ask.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or about the results of the round please ask me.

Add me to evidence exchanges: elizal@waringschool.org

Have fun!

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

Policy:

On T be persuasive, this will serve you well. Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate, however I have judged plenty of policy rounds on other topics. As a debater I have debated the kritik explicitly. I say this not to make anyone think I am biased, but because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. That being said I enjoy policy rounds and would love to judge some.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar. Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I do not harbor ideological biases. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

Public Forum (Updated for TFA State 2023)

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it. Do not try to spread.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum this year. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): I like these debates. Reading a framework IE structural violence or explaining via an observation how the debate should be framed is helpful because it clarifies for me how to evaluate the debate. I like this in debates, it makes things easier for me. If you are reading a framework be sure to extend it in every speech and use it as a lens to explain your impacts in the debate/weigh your impacts against your opponents.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: This is silly. Disclosure theory is silly. Do not read it in front of me. Do not read any theory arguments in front of me. I will not vote on them. With that being said arguing that your opponents are not fitting within the bounds of the resolution is a good argument to make if it applies. If you make this argument and have warrants and impacts do not be afraid to go for it in final focus.

Non-traditional stuff: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. That being said avoid jargon. You can make a lot of creative arguments in this event, do so while avoiding weird debate jargon. No this does not contradict the "theory" section above. I will weigh claims about someone not fitting within the bounds of the resolution vs explanations about why a team is satisfying the burden of the resolution. Whoever does the better debating will win this question in the debate.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I do not harbor ideological biases. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Congress

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

For Feb 2023:

Hello,

I am a college student new to judging debate. However, I am familiar with the right-to-work PF topic.

I will not understand debate jargon, but I will evaluate rounds based on logic and clash in the round. In general, I would appreciate a respectful and clear round. In other words, do not just read me a bunch of cards and expect me to make the analysis for you. Public forum is made for the public, therefore, please just try to make things simple and as straightforward as can be.

Hi! I’m a 5th year parent judge. So while I have experience judging I am still a “lay” judge.

Please do not speak too quickly, or else I won’t be able to take complete notes to give all the credit you deserve.

I will vote for whichever side convinces me the most based off their evidence and argument.

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years on the local and national circuit at Kennedy High School (2017-2021).

email: lamackey@usc.edu

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact (don't forget links or you lose impacts and have nothing to weigh)

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh!!! It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Please signpost. At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I really like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- Please collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I do not like theory and would prefer if it stayed out of the PF space. If you do choose to run theory, please make sure you dumb it down for me and your opponents, otherwise debate becomes an inaccessible space.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- rude or disrespectful comments of any kind will not be tolerated and will surely result in a loss for your team

- Have fun, debate doesn't always need to be so serious!

I am a past debater (Parliamentary, not Public Forum), and current debate coach. I judge based off of what I see on the flow. I will (try) not to make any assumptions on what you are saying, nor will I include anything that I may know into my judging.

I will be looking for clear communication of arguments, evidence, and impacts. I want to see how your side of the ballot is going to best solve for the problems proposed, and have the strongest real world implications. I also want to see effective weighing.

I can take notes somewhat fast, but if you spread I will lose track of my notes and your argument. Do with that what you will.

I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!

Hi! My name is Jillan (she/her). I competed in PF for 3 years with Cardinal Gibbons High School and now I'm a junior at the University of Florida, where I am studying political science and philosophy.

PF and its associated norms have changed a fair bit since I last competed, so I encourage you to make me aware of any new norms (i.e. case sharing, docs, etc.) that might come into play during your round. Here are a few notes on my judging preferences arranged by topic area:

1. Warranting:

If you want me to vote on something, make sure you warrant it clearly and extend it through the round. Explain your arguments fully. Extending an argument through ink does not count as a full extension in my book, so please extend the warranting and links that you're going for as well as your taglines all the way to final focus. This necessitates strategic argument selection starting in summary- I would much rather hear you collapse effectively than go for all 157353747 turns you put on your opponent's case and your own impacts.

2. Weighing:

PLEASE weigh! If you don't weigh, then I will have to weigh for you, and you might not like the outcome. In fact, you probably won't. When weighing your arguments, please actually weigh them. By this, I mean that you should compare your arguments to those of your opponents and tell me why I should prefer yours, i.e. greater scope, magnitude, timeframe, etc. "Our impacts outweigh because they are true" is not weighing, nor is simply restating your impact and tacking on "so we outweigh on *insert weighing mechanism*" without analysis.

tl;dr: weighing=comparison and analysis. no comparison or no analysis=no weighing.

3. Theory:

Just a heads up, I'm not especially familiar with it, and I don't love it in the context of PF. If you are running theory, please explain it as clearly as is humanly possible or I will probably not understand it, and if I don't understand it then I will not be able to vote on it. I am aware that theory has become more pervasive in public forum in the past couple years, but I still believe that the heart of PF as a debate event lies in its ability to reach all people- not just those with years of experience on the national circuit. So, please make any theory you use clear and accessible.

I will absolutely not hold it against you if you are running theory or any unconventional arguments so long as you do it well.

4. Evidence:

If you want me to call for evidence at the end of the round, tell me during the round and I will happily do so. If you miscut or misrepresent your evidence, I will dock speaker points, will not evaluate the evidence, and will most likely drop you, so please practice proper evidence ethics!

Additionally, it's not easy for me to keep track of every single card name in a round, so if there's evidence you want me to prioritize, then extend the content of the card as well as the name.

5. Speed:

I can handle some degree of speed, but nothing too crazy. If I can't flow your argument by hand then I probably won't end up weighing it.

6. Some additional notes:

- 1st summary and 2nd rebuttal should frontline turns and other offense.

- PLEASE signpost, it makes the entire round much tidier

- if you want me to flow something from cross, bring it up the first time you speak following that cross.

- I will not flow or evaluate new arguments in final focus!!

- I will automatically tank your speaks if I see hostility or disrespect towards your opponents or teammates, or anyone else for that matter.

- If you have questions about something I did not mention here, feel free to ask me before the round.

- please keep track of your own prep time

Good luck!

Hello!

I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Mercyhurst Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I've been coaching and involved with speech and debate since 2017, and primarily work with my school's debaters. I enjoy judging Public Forum due to it's clear and pragmatic discussions.

When judging, I, above all, desire to hear clearly delivered speeches. Without clarity, it is difficult to give consideration to your position and evidence. Also, I listen closely for a well-organized speech that clearly states contentions, evidence, and impacts.

I approach PF as the event was originally intended. As judge, I am basing my decision on who was most convincing in their argument. I am a regular guy pulled off the street, so you must clearly explain things and convince me!

Finally, debaters must remain courteous and civil in debates. Rudeness will be penalized!

I look forward to judging your team!

lay judge

I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

I consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical).

Frameworks should always be extended.If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(...card) means we outweigh on...,” then move on to the next point. I love details and context, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and impact that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side.

Hello everyone,

Please send me your speech docs to jaysily_martinez_rivera@brown.edu

I am a first year judge and have no previous experience in debate. I prefer if you speak slowly so that I can understand. I am not familiar with debate jargon.

For clarity, I prefer an off time roadmap before your speech, and sign posts during your speech.

hi! i'm cale

this email works: cale.debate@gmail.com

i also rock with SpeechDrop

i've been coaching & judging since i graduated 7 years ago. the past two years i've mostly been in LD rounds, before that PF.

i'm cool with anything you read and any speed you go as long as you're clear and kind. big fan of clean, well delineated lbl debate. i appreciate if you slow down for tags and any analytics/shells you extemp.

--------------------

arg prefs:

• i'm not prejudiced against any argument form: these preferences are just an expression of what i'm most comfy judging. do what you do best, just keep in mind i may not be the best for it.
• i am definitely most comfortable in policy, theory, T, cap, and setcol debates (even the most goofy/friv versions of these provided they aren't about your opponent's appearance). if i have to default: t testing, competing interps, yes rvis, but no strong opinions about paradigm issues, just try to centralize them if there's 4+ off. prob lean neg on most cp theory, but read w/e. 3 word perms aren’t arguments.
• i'm inexperienced in phil, tricks, and K debates that aren't cap or setcol. i find myself most lost in rounds with a bunch of one-line pieces of phil offense, and K debates where the 1ar and 2n have humungous overviews that are cross-applied everywhere. if you want to read funny stuff in front of me, i recommend it be a shell or a cheaty counterplan instead of like phil trix.

pf:

i'm cool with whatever, just fl in 2nd rebuttal and extend defense the speech after it's answered. plz send docs efficiently and if youre gonna 'preflow,' do it before round :)

Manchester-Essex High School Debate Coach

No preference in terms of speed.

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.

2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal – no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. I know not everyone agrees with this but I honestly think it is pretty unethical given the already significant advantage of speaking second. Defense is sticky in first summary if not frontlined in second rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it

3. I’m fine with speed. If you are doing anything crazy (which you shouldn’t unless we are in very particular circumstances) you should send me a speech doc. Otherwise, I don’t need to be on the email chain.

4. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point

5. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable

6. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist

7. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)

Honestly, I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

I am the parent of a Varsity Public Forum debater at Bronx Science and am an intellectual property attorney and former university professor of sociology and education. I hold degrees in biology, sociology, and the law. You should consider me a flay judge.

I would appreciate your speaking at a reasonable pace to better enable me to understand your contentions and rebuttals. I value logical, well-warranted reasoning and analysis presented with clarity and precision. Please stick to arguments for or against the resolution as I am not presently qualified to evaluate any theory arguments. Signposting at the beginning of your speeches is also advised, especially during Summary and Final Focus. This will help me follow where you are going. Tell me clearly and precisely why I should vote for your side.

Finally, respect your opponents. Allow them to speak without constant interruption during Crossfire. I appreciate spirited advocacy but expect civility and decorum during the debate. Have fun!

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay judge, but I will provide the following guidance:

Please consider the amount of evidence that you need to present to support your contention or your refutation of your opponent's contentions. Being able to clearly and logically present your arguments is as important as the volume of data that support your argument.

Being able to present your data without rushing too much is a fine balance.

Good luck and have fun.

Ram Miller

I am an Engineer with several tournaments experience at Varsity PF judging. I like a narrative approach where you lay out the framework of your case even if it comes down to a technical RFD. I rely heavily upon evidence-based arguments and impacts. Don't argue that 100's of millions will die by nuclear war if it is a non-unique argument or you have not even presented a good probability we are headed in that direction.

If you have not won me over by the start of Final Focus, you better layout all the reasons why I should vote for AFF or NEG. Lead me to a decision.

The narrative isn't the only thing I consider, but try to be cohesive... i.e. connect the dots.

A few notes:

- You will never lose the round for being a JERK in cross, but I will give you low speaker points. Rudeness or excessive sarcasm is not rewarded here. Equity in all forms is expected.

- Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! I'm not going to catch everything so I need you to give some sort of weighing mechanisms and have valid probabilities for your impacts.

- I can take speed but do not spread. I will say "clear" or "Speed" twice and then I stop flowing altogether.

- If you go slightly over time that's OK, but keep it under 10-secs.

- 2nd rebuttal must front line.

- Speak up a little, I can't hear well (no, I am not kidding). I will miss most of what you say if you speak to me from behind your laptop. Beware of over-sized lecterns if you need a stand for your laptop.

- Time yourselves, please. Don't steal prep time just because we are ONLINE.

PS: Don't get too comfortable entering the room. After the coin toss, I prefer PRO on my left. Yes, I realize this does not apply in an ONLINE environment.

I am a traditional flow judge who was president of my high school debate team. I vote based upon the flow but require warranting and extending your arguments to inform my decision. Include impacts in your argument and weigh/meta weigh during rounds. Be sure to collapse on your arguments before FF. It is difficult for me to reach a favorable conclusion if you base your argument on theory, counter interpretation, or disclosure theory.

Other things to consider: Please signpost. PLEASE. My decisions are influenced by which individual/team more clearly, concisely and factually presents and supports their case. You can speak quickly but don't spread (220 wpm +). Try not to fall into "debated speak" as it makes it more difficult to understand/relate to your arguments. It is much more important that I can understand and follow your line of reasoning and how you build your argument. Building a logical case supported by a well thought out argument with supporting evidence is much more important to my decision than how quickly you can rattle off information. It is very important that you can support (or cite evidence for) "statements of fact" in your argument. You can off time roadmap but limit this to less than 15 seconds. Please don't laugh at, belittle, or otherwise show disrespect to your opponent or you will be docked individual points. Most importantly have fun, be nice, and we'll all have a great time. If you have questions please feel free to email me at trmoffitt@yahoo.com.

I debate parlimentary at Harvard.

emokski@college.harvard.edu

Key principle:

Utilitarianism is functionally the only objective framework to evaluate the impact of your arguments, which is especially important for weighing. If you don't tell me why your claims matter in that framework, I won't be able to evaluate them correctly.

Two other principles:

Don't read theory.

Don't speak fast.

PF Speaks:

29.5-30: Great job, you should be in the top speakers.

29-29.5: Nice job, solid argumentation. Focus on more nuance, but you've mastered the fundamentals.

28.5-29: Keep going, you're on the right track! Generally good grasp on the fundamentals.

27.5-28.5: There is some work to be done, focus on the fundamentals of debate.

27.5 and lower: you were mean, offensive, rude, and generally not fun to watch.

Nora Moses (She/Her/Hers)

The Brearley School '23

I am a senior and student leader of the Brearley debate team. I have experience in parliamentary and Public Forum debate and am familiar with the structure of Lincoln Douglas. I keep a flow but prefer a round with clear crystallization and voting issues and clear succinct speaking style.

I am currently a student at Harvard College. I dabbled in debate while in high school (if it matters to you, I debated under University Irvine Independent or University High School, Irvine Gupta & Moudgalya).

I would certainly not consider myself an incredibly technical judge. To that end, however, I will do my best to flow the debate; you'll give your side of the debate the greatest presence on my flow if I can write down everything and hence, I recommend speaking either slow or only moderately quick. You win my ballot if you can: 1) explain your arguments clearly and with strong evidence and warrants and 2) explain why your opponents arguments are wrong and explain why your arguments matter more than your opponents arguments. I am very expressive – if I agree with what is being said, I will likely be nodding along and if I am confused, I'll likely express my confusion.

In regards to weighing, I think that weighing is an incredibly important aspect of debate. However, simply throwing around buzzwords like 'magnitude', or 'risk of offense' will not carry you far in the debate. Weighing is best delivered when it is early, warranted, reasonable, and contextualized.

Since I am a few years removed from the activity, I am unsure about what the 'meta' of the activity is; when I left, theory was starting to gain steam and paraphrasing was commonly frowned upon. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and hence, I do not have any preconceptions about rules or norms in debate. Apart from an argument (and of course, behavior) that is discriminatory or hateful, I am open to hearing any argument, provided it is clearly explained and well warranted.

Lastly, I love snark/sass but hate disrespect. The line is incredibly fine. Be careful, respectful, and most of all, have fun. Debate is not worth it otherwise! You are welcome to post-round me (respectfully); I view my job as a judge to adjudicate debate to the best of my ability and to that end, I don't mind questions.

As a new parent judge, I haven't formed opinions or preferences yet. The only exception would be that I have trouble understanding rapid speech, and so would prefer a slower presentation.

Experience: Debated in high school and college, now coach.

Paradigm: Persuade me.

...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.

If I can't understand you, I'm not being persuaded.

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.

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

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.

Experienced PF judge, First time LD judge

I value the quality of presentation and reward things like eye contact, slowing down when highlighting impacts, weighing/organizing in later speeches, and persuasive rhetoric.

I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good warranting and sound reasoning. Explain your evidence rather than just stating it.

Bring any meaningful cx points into your main speeches.

Be respectful to one another.

Slow down, I have to be able to understand you to flow. If I can't understand you, that is bad

Rounds should NOT have any theory arguments.

She/Her

Marist '22 | Northeastern '26

Debated for 5 years on the national circuit

Include me on email chains nahasmaggie@gmail.com

I'd say I'm a fairly typical flow judge. Extend and weigh your arguments clearly. No new arguments in final focus. Make sure you are signposting in your speeches. I'm fine with some speed, but please don't spread. Please don't read me framework unless you actually plan to weigh under that framework. The second speaking team should absolutely be frontlining in rebuttal. That being said, the first speaking team does not automatically gain access to all unfrontlined responses during first summary. I want to see your arguments being extended fully, meaning extend whatever links/internal links/warrants/impacts/frontlines/etc. that you're going for. If you just tell me to extend your *enter last name* card, it will probably mean literally nothing to me, so focus on the actual arguments. I will always prefer cut cards over paraphrasing. I generally think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good for the activity. Stealing prep is really annoying and so is taking excessive time to produce called cards. If something important happens in cross, tell me about it in a speech, otherwise, it won't be on my flow and probably won't affect my decision.

The reason I love debate is because it is inclusive and educational. If anything happens in the round which goes against these values, I will dock your speaker points.

I am a parent, lay judge.

Important:

1. Don’t spread. Please speak slowly and clearly
2. Be respectful to each other and don’t be too aggressive in cross

Hey there! I debated PF all four years in HS on the texas and national circuit, graduated from Plano West '21. Put me on the email chain: alynie@wharton.upenn.edu

• An extension is a (brief) explanation of what the argument is, what the link from the resolution is, and what the impact is. You must do all three for me in both summary + ff to evaluate this argument at the end of the round. You don't have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Speaking of offense, here's how I vote: After the rounds over, I look for remaining, withstanding offense for both sides (this means any offense extended in both summary & final focus with no terminal defense on it). Offense needs to be compatible (ie. i don't buy two arguments simultaneously if they fundamentally contradict; I'll resolve it otherwise). If both sides have offense, I'll then vote based on whatever weighing/framing you have done; otherwise, if there is no comparative weighing, I'll make my own judgment. If neither side has offense, I'll vote on the closest thing to offense I can find. I'm pretty receptive to whatever weird strategy in the back half you go for (dropping case for turns, etc)!
• I'll disclose if I can. You can ask for feedback, and post-rounding is totally fine. I think it's my responsibility to articulate an RFD everyone understands, and I'll drop you with 30s if you can reasonably convince me I was wrong (ofc, given it's a productive discussion).
• I care about making the round a positive experience for everyone! Just don't be a terrible person and you should be okay in this regard.

I debated for an embarrassing amount of years. Too many years. Over seven years, I did nearly 100 tournaments and probably over a thousand debate rounds. Nevertheless, debate was a critical part of my formation.

I have one preference: please god, have fun! Otherwise it's not worth it.

This is your debate round, not mine. You or your team are paying to be here and you have (hopefully) been putting in the work to prepare for this round (we, judges, largely just show up). So this round and tournament are rightly yours. Make it what you want to be.

In my seven years of debate, I wanted debate to be both an intelligent and intelligible but laid-back conversation grounded in reality.

You may want something different. Do it!

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for 8 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

Experience: I am a parent judge, and have judged Congress and PF debates.

Please send your cases to saumilpandey1@gmail.com so I could follow your speech better and assign speakers points accordingly.

My expectations as a judge:

1. Speak clearly (speed is okay, but you must be understandable)
2. Layout your links and impacts clearly.
3. My vote would be based on well laid out links and their impacts.
4. Dropped arguments will be considered conceded.
5. A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

I value the structure, data, and analysis. Use examples or qualified opinions and then give me your analysis of the evidence...why does your evidence matter...how does it fit.

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

First time parent judge. Please time your speeches and speak at an understandable pace.

Hey, I am a parliamentary debater from Harvard. Please be respectful at all times to both me and the team you are going against. Please don't run theory. I am fine with any speed of talking and I do not value evidence that highly.

I'm a 4th-year debater, with this being my Third year in varsity at Sequoyah. For qualifications, I have been a semifinalist at second year state for PF and a Quarterfinalist at State.

*Please show up to your round early, so tech issues can be fixed if they come up*

How I will evaluate the debate/general thoughts:

• You can go as fast as you want, but please do ask both me and your opponents if you are choosing to spread. 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, especially any arguments you want to collapse on, as Final focus should be the main points of the debate. When extending, please refer back to your case and signposting, Ie. “In contention 2 Sub-point A, we state…”

• 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. Logic rebuttals should be fleshed out though, so that everyone can understand the logic behind the rebuttal.

• 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) Cross is a two sided portion of the debate, so it should not be completely dominated by one team.

• 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.

RDF:

• 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 mcgregor.pfitz@gmail.com

Have a good time and good luck debating

Hello, I am Mary, a parent relatively new to judging.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I am looking forward to hearing all arguments and speeches!

The best debates are those with clash. Any case can have good clash with another case and I want to see you actively trying to create that.

The winning team will have had multiple attacks on each point. Multiple attacks on framework, multiple for each contention, subpoint, card etc.

I will be primarily voting on the voters you give me. Voters are extremely important. Tell me why you won the round.

I do not have to see your cards. If you want to share them I will accept but I will not ask unless I deem it necessary. Additionally, be reasonable when asking to see cards in round.

Fast talking is fine with me but keep spreading in policy.

Finally, be respectful. I understand how passionate debates can get but that is never a reason to be mean. If you are disrespectful at any point it will be an automatic loss.

The state of PF has compelled me to do the unthinkable — write an actual paradigm. Here we go!

I debated for Walt Whitman High School for 3 years in PF.

I WILL NOT FLOW OFF OF A DOC.Read fewer arguments, don't try to dump your way out of clash.

NEW WARRANTS ARE NEW ARGUMENTS. If your argument didn't have a warrant or an impact in rebuttal, I will evaluate it without one, even if it newly appears in summary or (god forbid) final focus. That being said, GOOD WARRANTS > UNWARRANTED EVIDENCE.

RESOLVE THE WEIGHING DEBATE. If nobody tells me definitively which impact is more important I will decide based on vibes. This is probably a BAD THING for you. I really like pre-requisite and short-circuit analysis — if you don't butcher it I'll probably vote off of it.

Ks ARE GREAT, THEORY BETTER NOT SUCK. To be fair, your K better not suck either. I have fairly significant experience with K debate, but definitely make my role as a judge clear in your advocacy. If you run a frivolous or weirdly nit-picky shell in front of me, the best-case scenario for you is an LPW. Disclosure good, paraphrasing bad whatever. I don't really care about niche theory jargon; "paraphrasing is bad for X reasons" is the same thing as "A IS THE INTERP HEWJKHFJQKHJK" to me.

I AM LITERALLY BEGGING YOU ON MY HANDS AND KNEES TO COLLAPSE. I won't hack against you if you don't, but I will definitely assume that you hate me and want me to suffer if you extend 5 args in the back-half.

BE SILLY AND GOOFY AND HAVE FUN. Having a toxic, venomous round is such a headache. We will all feel better if you chill. To my guys and dudes specifically, bulldozing female debaters in cross isn’t a slam dunk. It makes you look like a loser.

DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. My Facebook is my name (Sophia Polley-Fisanich) and my email is sophia43762@gmail.com (don't put me on the email chain tho).

[last updated 2-19-23]

I'm a senior at WKU, where I do NFA-LD . I also competed in college parli (NPDA) for three years.

Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com (although I would prefer you use speechdrop to an email chain).

28.5 SPEAKS MINIMUM IF YOU USE speechdrop.net INSTEAD OF AN EMAIL CHAIN

TLDR: Slow down a little if its not in the doc, make sure you HAVE a doc, I'm fine with theory and the K. Lay debate is also ok.

PF Only:

1 - I have the expectation that both debaters are on the same page about what kind of debate they'll be having. If you want to be really fast and really technical that's fine, as long as your opponent is okay with that. I will vote on speed bad.

2 - Evidence sharing: If I don't have your evidence, I cannot evaluate it, and if you don't have each other's evidence I can't trust your and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easy way to resolve this is to send your docs to eachother.

3 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few stipulations around tech in PF: Firstly, PF is a lay event. The norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will lose even to awful theory or Ks because they don't know how to respond. You can still read these args, just know I will be much more likely to intervene if I think the argument is badly executed than I would be in LD or Policy, even if it is conceded/poorly responded to by the other team, simply because I think there's no educational value to bad technical debate in a lay event, and I don't want to incentivize that.

Secondly, a lot of technical args just don't translate well to PF, largely because of the lack of plan texts. T doesn't work, and neither does a significant amount of (the most compelling) theory. The lack of plan also means you can't have a competitive counterplan or alt. Without alts the k loses all uniqueness and no longer functions. I'm not saying that you can't read any technical arguments but you also can't just read old LD or Policy backfiles as-is and expect me to vote on them.

How do you feel about speed?

On carded stuff/analytics in the doc I have a higher threshold for speed, if its not in the doc slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.. You don't need to guess, I will slow you if you're too fast for me. I won't drop you for being too fast but I also won't pretend to have stuff written down that I don't have written down.

I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something not in the doc you should probably slow.

Disclosure

I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading.

CPs

I really don't buy consult or delay counter-plans. The perm solves for me 99.99% of the time.

K

I'm afraid I'm not super familiar with all k lit (if that's even possible) so you have to explain the alt pretty well. I'm fine with you reading them though. I myself am fond of reading the k.

To vote aff I need you to win: offense against the alt OR a perm

To vote neg I need: the aff to not win that stuff

Also, make sure that there are clear, ideally carded, links to the aff. I probably won't vote on just a no link, but it's a pretty good justification for the perm, which I will vote on. Links of omission are generally a no go for me, unless you have a well warranted (ideally carded) explanation for why not considering X in policy making is bad.

Can I read non T affs?

Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. I do need you to win T, and as a default T FW comes before the aff.

T

I like T. You can read T and not go for it. You can read multiple Ts. I don't care. I don't need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact on the round/debate in general (ie link to fairness and education).

Theory/Procedurals -

I don't mind theory debate, and I don't need proven abuse. Again, default competing interps. You also have to win that kicking the arg doesn't resolve the offense. I am probably the most tab when it comes to evaluating theory (ex. I have no issue with condo in debate but I'll vote on condo bad if you win it). I think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read.

I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.

I am an Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at Montville Township High School. In high school I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I've been involved in speech & debate for over ten years as a competitor, judge, and now coach.

My debate paradigm is simple. I ask that you provide me a clear explanation for why your side is winning based upon the resolution. I prefer topical cases. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity and I value the educational experience above all else.

That being said, I will certainly listen to whatever framework, paradigm, or theory you plan to throw at me so as long as it is well articulated, warranted, and explained. Context is critical for me to evaluate your arguments and understand why your side is winning in the round based upon the stated resolution. Assume that I have not researched the resolution at hand.

I prefer clear overviews that explain what you plan to do in the round and how you plan to win. I want this to continue throughout the round. How and why you are winning? Interaction with your opponent is a must. The more clash that exists in a round, the easier it is for me to adjudicate. I'm not interested in inserting myself into the round as the judge. I need weighing mechanisms.

Word economy is a valuable asset. Speed is not. I will not yell clear, even if I cannot understand you. The communication aspect of this activity is not dead. So why take the risk and spread?

Please let me know if you have any questions before a round. Good luck!

Hello! I am a LAY parent judge from Newton South. My name is Darya Priklonskaya. It’s a pleasure!

Because I am a lay judge, I would appreciate it if you guys would speak a little slower and clearer so that I can understand. Pretend like I know almost nothing about the topic.

Warranting and explaining specific terms relating to the topic would also be nice.

Also, do not assume I know debate jargon; therefore, please put it into simpler terms if possible.

In general, just keep in mind that part of my voting will depend on how well I understand a team’s argument. Even if a team might have had great points, they will not go into my final decision if I do not understand them.

Moreover, PLEASE signpost to make flowing for me easier. It will only benefit you.

Also, please do not weigh on morals. You can have different impacts obviously, but as an example, if one team had an impact of 15 billion dollars and another team had an impact of 1 billion lives, don’t say something like, “you would be saying a life is 15 dollars if you vote for them judge”, instead just say “lives are irreplaceable, therefore our impact is more important”, you guys get the point.

Lastly, please be courteous to each other and show respect.

I know I said a lot about my criteria, but at the same time, if the feeling that someone is judging you stresses you out, try to at the same time pretend like you are debating each other, and I am just a bystander.

That’s all! Have fun debating guys and do not stress it! There are plenty of tournaments to come!

I am a parent judge representing Hunter High School in New York City. This my first time judging debate.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very experienced judge. Please be sure everything you say is understandable. I prefer a normal speaking pace and you must be clear. If I can't follow you it will be harder for me to understand connections between your contentions, warrants, and impacts or challenges to your opponent's arguments.

When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking.

I will vote off the flow.

lay judge

Hello Debaters!

I am excited to be your judge today!

I'm a parent judge, and below are a few things I'll be looking for in your debate

• Clear articulation
• Team balance
• Convincing arguments
• Respectful language - I don't like aggression

Treat me like a flay judge.

All the best and looking forward to your debate!

Hello!

My name is Dina Rama, and I'm a junior at Columbia University majoring in financial economics. My pronouns are She/Her/Hers. If you have come across this page, it is most likely that you are wondering about my debate experience. I had competitively debated public forum as a sixth grader until my sophomore year of high school. I became a judge for the NYC Urban Debate League during my junior year and have judged both public forum and parliamentary debate. So, I have at least five years of experience as a judge and few years of experience as a debate coach for middle schoolers.

In order to determine the winning side of a debate round, I look for several things:

• If the team had refuted each of their opponent's arguments in a consistent manner throughout the debate round (not only in rebuttal).
• If the team had utilized statistics and evidence to support their arguments (this won't be the final deciding factor; however, evidence can significantly strengthen your arguments).
• If the team had consistently discussed the impacts of their arguments/contentions.
• If the team had consistently discussed magnitude, scope, and probability.
• If the team had weighed their arguments against the arguments belonging to their opponents.

It is important to understand what exactly does the resolution state and what is being debated. For example, if the resolution is, "The benefits of the International Monetary Fund outweigh the harms", it is important to understand that the resolution isn't asking whether or not the International Monetary Fund should be removed, nor is it asking for alternatives. Instead, the resolution is solely asking whether or not the benefits outweigh the harms. Always try to make sure that your speeches and arguments are targeted towards proving your side of the resolution.

I debated a bit in high school and was considered to be pretty lay. Don't take that to mean that I don't care about your evidence. Tips: Make your contentions clear. Don't go more than 15 seconds over time; I'll probably cut you off. In your final speech, make it abundantly clear why you win the argument.

Have fun!

I am a first time lay debate judge. I am a high school math and science teacher who responds to logical deductive reasoning and science/facts used effectively over passions and emotions. I am an immigrant of Pakistani origin and identify as a person of color. I am married with two children and have been teaching for more than 25 years. I stay up to date with current news and events and have an extensive background in science.

I competed in public forum between 2012-2016, as well as in extemp and group discussion. I flow when I judge debate. Part of being an effective speaker is knowing what points are most salient, and therefore I prefer that you don't spread or speak too quickly - just focus on your strongest points.

In college I studied finance, accounting, and macroeconomics, and competed in a monetary policy debate competition called Fed Challenge. I'm currently a financial analyst for an auto company.

Hi y'all! My name is Tilly (she/her), and I'm excited to have the opportunity to judge your debate and/or speech rounds :)

Background: I'm a first-year student at Harvard College and currently debate in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats. I attended Bloomington High School South in Indiana, and during high school, I competed most extensively in LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Informative.

Lincoln-Douglas: I debated for all 4 years of high school, primarily in LD, and I was competitive on the Indiana circuit, where I attended 5-10 tournaments per year. If your debate experience is in traditional LD, please treat me as a flow judge. If your debate experience is in progressive/national circuit LD, you should probably treat me as a lay judge, at least to the extent that I have little familiarity with progressive debate (aside from what I've read in the debate blogosphere). Here are some notes about how I judge:

General Principles:

Debate is interesting! It encourages us to learn about interesting ideas that interact with each other in interesting ways. For me, the single most important thing you can do in a debate round is to genuinely think about the ideas involved in it. Why do your arguments make sense? Why might your opponents' not? How do your ideas relate to each other? I think if you do this, you will be more likely to win the round — and even if you don't, you will get more out of the round.

I appreciate good research and well-chosen cards. One of the great things about debate is that it makes us look for evidence to back up our claims. That said, if you are relying on cards to make an argument, they should contain information that actually proves your point. For example, if I am choosing between argument (a), which relies on an assertion of some fact by a famous professor, and argument (b), which doesn't include a card but does include good analysis that negates argument (a), I will vote for argument (b). However, if I then hear argument (c) which provides sufficient empirical evidence to show that argument (b) is false and argument (a) is true, I will then vote for arguments (c & a).

I really appreciate clash — make sure you are doing your best to understand and respond to your opponent's arguments. Especially if you're not going line-by-line, make sure to roadmap (on- or off-time) so I know how to structure my flow.

To vote off a given argument, I need to be able to believe that it's true (which requires warranting and, generally, evidence) as well as why it matters (keep in mind question like: what is the impact? why does it matter under this round's framework? how can I weigh this impact against other impacts in the round?).

I am "tech > truth" to an extent. However, I also consider myself reasonably well-informed about the world. Therefore, while I will try not to intervene in the round, if you are making an argument that contradicts common assumptions I might have drawn from, say, reading the New York Times or taking history classes, you may have to do more argumentative work to persuade me of your argument.

Re: judge intervention, I will intervene less the more clearly you explain your arguments and their implications.

Some Specifics:

Please don't spread. (I'll let you know if I can't understand you — but just in general, assume I can't understand spreading.) I can flow relatively fast "normal" speech (and I understand the desire to fit as much information into the round as possible), but I will flow more accurately and in more detail the closer you are to a normal conversational pace.

Please use theory only as much as necessary to maintain a fair debate. Don't run tricks that are not also actual, good arguments.

That being said, I will evaluate most arguments (including kritiks, counterplans, etc., if in a circuit where those are a norm), as long as you explain them clearly (i.e., you offer warrants for all your arguments instead of simply name-dropping jargon, you explain any cards that aren't self-explanatory, you make it clear why your arguments are relevant to the resolution and my ballot).

Please send me your speech docs if you have them, but understand that I will only open them to check content/evidence if called (or if I'm skeptical about something that's asserted in the round), and that any argument you want me to evaluate should be clearly stated (and explained, and backed up with any necessary cards) in your actual speeches.

Finally, remember that while I have specified some preferences here, my goal as a judge is to make debaters feel welcome and cast a well-considered ballot based on what happened in the round I judged. Please don't just run the arguments you think I'll "like" — run the arguments that you think are compelling, interesting, or important.

Other Debate Events: In general, my LD paradigm applies to all debate events. I have competed once in PF and once in Congress, and have judged both events. I have never competed in policy, but I think I've read at least one textbook on how to debate in policy (i.e., my knowledge extends to some familiarity with stock issues and a little bit of policy jargon, but I'm not familiar with technical arguments or current trends in the policy circuit).

PF

I'm fine if you paraphrase evidence or read cards, but if you paraphrase, please make sure you also have a document with citations and cut cards corresponding to any evidence you do read in the round.

Congress

Your speeches are short, but please do your best to make them substantive! If you speak early, try to frame major issues in the round so that your speech stays relevant and resonant throughout. If you speak late, try to either (a) weigh arguments that were made earlier in the round and analyze how they interact with one another, (b) introduce new arguments/perspectives/evidence that have not yet been considered, or (c) both. I vote off substance first, but I do appreciate style. :)

Extemp:

Yay, extemp! I love extemp. Make sure to answer your question. Like in debate, genuinely thinking about the question and its answer(s) will go a long way. Don't make up evidence. Don't freak out. Also, remember to give a speech you are comfortable with and confident in, instead of stressing about what I might like in a speech.

Here are some other things I do appreciate:

Interesting AGDs and transitions (as long as they don't detract from substance or strike a tone inappropriate to your question).

Signposting. Make sure I can clearly track your separate points!

Unified analysis. (This is when you have an umbrella thesis that unifies the separate points in your speech into an answer that is more specific/detailed than "yes" or "no." It's not necessary, and a good speech without unified analysis will beat a less good speech with it — but unified analysis may make your speech more cohesive if you can pull it off.)

Diversity of evidence. If you can cite different types of sources (e.g., an Al Jazeera article with breaking news, a book laying out an international relations theory, an NBER study on the gender wage gap), each offering a different perspective or type of information to bolster your points, then you will probably be able to put together a very well-rounded speech.

Quality and relevance of evidence. For some topics, recency of evidence matters a lot; for others, older evidence can still be valuable. Make sure to cite reputable news sources (think NPR or the Washington Post, not Fox News) and note biases or perspectives (e.g., the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, while The Nation is a left-leaning magazine).

Context. If you can place your arguments in historical context, frame them with academic theories, or understand how issues influence one another, I think that's really impressive.

Beyond that, of course, Extemp is a speech event, so I do care about style! I won't penalize you for small stumbles, but if one speech is significantly more fluent than another, that is a big point in its favor. Similarly, things like using vocal variation, gesturing naturally, embodying a range of emotions, and sounding like you're having a conversation (not, er, talking to a wall) will all help your speech stand out.

Other Speech Events:

Public Address

Be funny, be passionate, be solemn, be conversational — whatever tone(s) work best for you and your message.

I appreciate speeches that address interesting, arguable topics, rather than simply relying on platitudes or common assumptions. I appreciate clever rhetoric and powerful writing, as well as solid argumentation.

I weigh speaking style, writing style, and content in my decisions; because these factors play into one another, I don't categorically prioritize one over the other.

In Info, I appreciate creative and interesting visual aids (although I am totally willing to vote for a good speech with few or no VAs). Remember, visual aids should help you convey your message, not distract from it. I won't penalize you for small mishaps (i.e., you will be fine if your stand falls over).

Interp Events

I don't have much personal experience with interp, but I really enjoy watching interp and admire interp performers!

I appreciate clear pops between characters and precise, creative blocking.

Although you didn't write your speech, you did select and cut it, so I will pay attention to your choices. Does the narrative make sense? Is the piece itself successful (i.e., is it thoughtful? is it funny? are the characters believable?).

If your piece seems to exist for the sole purpose of being maximally traumatic, I will rank you low.

The balances between naturalism and exaggeration, drama and humor, etc., are yours to strike. If I think you chose the right balance for your piece and performance style, I will rank you higher!

Miscellaneous:

Don't be discriminatory.

Please assume (within reason) that others in your round are well-intentioned. People with good intentions can still say harmful things, but usually it's more effective to explain to them why something is harmful than to ice them out of the conversation.

Speech and debate rankings are a zero-sum game, but speech and debate are not! I hope you have the opportunity to learn from your own research, reading, and practice; learn from one another; and find a community through speech and debate. Have fun!

Put me on the email link chain dinaellis@paulhastings.com
Parent Judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions. I can't follow people that talk too fast, have too many citations or use debate lingo. I spent most of my career on Capitol Hill working on House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees. I currently am an attorney at Paul Hastings where I represent fintech, crypto and blockchain companies before Congress and the agencies.

Mark your contentions or I can's follow the arguments.

Nuclear destruction is not something that I think is credible. Your arguments would have to be very good against the other team.

Facts matter but don't bring up brand new arguments at the end.

I am new at judging and not an expert on the rules of debate. I will not focus on the technicalities of the rules of debate that much and will concentrate more on the content that you say. I value warranting over evidence, being able to argue why your speech impacts is what may convince me.

I believe that the main goal in a round is to make your point clear to the judge, so please explain your points well so that I can be able to count them in the round and don’t worry too much for the time constraints, I prefer you take a few more seconds to explain your ideas clearly than have me not understand your point. I dislike it when people focus more on reading from their screens and don’t focus on addressing the audience or the judge, the screen is not who you are trying to convince.

I value focus, organization, confidence, eye contact, and good sources.

Hi! I’m a fourth-year student at Harvard. Limited debate experience. aromero0023@gmail.com

My ballot goes to you if you are able to accomplish most of the following:

1) Have a comprehensible structure with believable evidence (believable because contentions clearly connect to warrants / evidence which clearly connect to impact)

2) Adequately address your opposition’s important/main arguments and explain why they are wrong / irrelevant / actually an argument in your favor, etc. AND why your arguments are better

3) Clearly establish some impact in your argument and why we would prefer a world where you are correct vs your opposition is correct (this is not mutually exclusive with points 1 and 2)

I am particularly fond of weighing.

Hello debaters,

I have both debated in and judged PF tournaments before, but it has been awhile. I am best able to follow when you speak slowly and clearly. If you would like me to consider an argument or defense in my decision, make sure to bring it up again in final focus

Email= Aavedonroy@gmail.com

Novice

Read your case and don't worry about the rest of the paradigm. Make sure to do weighing in your later speeches and collapse to a few arguments that you can develop and defend well.

I did policy, pf and ld. I have dyslexia and adhd. In policy, I did LARP debate. In PF I did LARP and lay debate. In LD I did disability K debate, and some frivolous theory.

Quick Prefs

I can’t understand spreading except off the doc be full warned

Identity K’s/Phil K’s - 1

Tricks -2

Phil-2

Lay 3-

Larp-4

Specifics

I did policy, pf and ld. I have dyslexia and adhd. In policy, I did LARP debate. In PF I did LARP and lay debate. In LD I did disability K debate, and some frivolous theory.

I went 1-5 at columbia, 1-6 camp tournament , 2-4 stanford and emory. I beat such amazing novices from newark, a Strake kid who wasn’t trying, and people not understanding my wiki. I also frequently posted on Debate Meme groups.

I can understand spreading but please send a speech doc. If you don't have a speech doc don't spread. If you don't want to send your opponent's analytics that's stupid but 100% send it to me.

I'm not a Phil debater so unless your reading Kant, util, objectivism, libertinism, Virtue ethics, Pragmatism, Deleuze,Hobbes, Negative Util, SV, Heidegger, Spinoza, Determinism, Tricks, Delibrative Democracy, Foucault, Alienation, Levinas, Agmben then I can't understand it so you might not want to read.

I'm a big fan of combining Phil and K debate combined.

Tech over truth ( except for ableism/accessibility) unless the round is clearly inaccessible ( like actually because someone is spreading and other people can't). If your opponent asks you to slow down then slow down.

If your arguments aren't warranted and your opponent drops it I will vote on it but if both sides aren't warranted then I will do weighing on my own.

I give novices an auto 29 if they run tricks. Like, on one hand, I love you for running tricks in novice year but at the same time, you should be learning the basics of LD.

Asking for a 30 gets you an 27 in speaks.

If you run a k/ theory please run it well. Most debaters don't really understand k which makes me sad so please try to make it coherent.

Theory: I default to reasonability, no rvi, drop the argument (if it's coherent) unless contested.

You can run kaff in front of me if it's an identity k but if it's not an identity k I would prefer not.

my email is aavedonroy@gmail.com

If you want 30's- weigh, speak clearly, and warrant your argument.

If you have a disability I understand that speaks can be harsh so if you want to tell me ahead of time.

Don't vote off word pics unless it's clearly offensive. Ok I will vote on it if it's dropped but like stop acting words that clearly aren't offensive are.

Evidence Ethics is bad but I won't vote off middle paragraph, or brackets unless it's actually bad. I will weigh it as a theoryshell.

Hello! My name is Roy. I am a lay judge and this tournament is my third time judging.

Please:

- do not speak fast, if you do I will likely miss important information

- try not use debate jargon

- signpost when possible

- give an offtime roadmap before speeches

- implicate your responses

- when giving rebuttal, make sure your responses are specific and respond to a specific warrant/point on your opponent’s case (as opposed to vague responses or too much grouping)

If you have any questions or need to add me to an email chain, please contact me at ruan_qiang@yahoo.com

good luck!

hi hi im soph i debated w ransom everglades for 4 years on the nat circuit. now i am a freshman at emory and coach:)

preflow before round cuz as soon as everyone is there im starting

my emails are sophia.r9234@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

pls add both emails to the email chain (I prefer email chains to docs) and send speech docs w/ cut cards

(i don't know why this is formatted weirdly tab just does it idk)

1. debate stuff

1. i will vote off the flow

2. tech > truth but don’t say anything ridiculous and this doesnt apply if it makes the round unsafe

3. start weighing in rebuttal if possible and keep it consistent

4. COMPARATIVE WEIGHING don’t just say “scope”

5. PLEASE WEIGH ANYTHING OFFENSIVE (THIS INCLUDES TURNS)

6. no new weighing in final, no offensive overviews starting at first summary but i dont rly like it in 2nd reb either

7. please collapse

8. extend links, not just a tagline with an impact

1. saying “extend tariko ‘21” is also not a link extension

9. signpost, especially in rebuttal, if i don’t know where you are i can’t flow

10. SIGN MY BALLOT FOR ME. tell me what i’m voting for and why. also tell me why i’m not voting for your opponents

11. if there’s no offense i’ll presume for the side that lost the coin flip

12. defense isnt sticky

13. you should have cut cards

1. if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to

14. I'm down w ks and paraphrase theory (shoutout jdog) but technically i never actually RAN a K or initiated theory i just know how they work so take that as u will - that being said I coach 3 K teams and understand how they should be run so run whatever u want
15. with that being said- I have a very LOW threshold to feel bad if a team is in varsity and upset about hitting a varsity argument when there is a novice and/or JV division. if you are in varsity, be prepared to hit theory and potentially a K. simply saying "pf is for the public" and/or "I don't know how to answer this" probably wont win my ballot unless there is no nov division and you are clearly a nov. if that is the case-L25 for the team reading varsity stuff on novs, otherwise if you are volunteering to be in varsity nothing is off limits
16. I'm not the best w tricks but I can try
17. if you genuinely think I made a mistake you can postround but not aggressively pls <3
18. im not gonna flow cross so just say it in a speech
19. I don't hack for or against anyone so if you know me, that isn't going to influence my decision and I would be a waste of a strike
20. the only caveat to the thing above is if you are known to be problematic to like an egregious point (i.e having a national news article referencing being publically antisemitic or saying you want to stab Asian debaters with chopsticks) then strike me lol. i cant like separate the art from the artist or whatever. ill down u.

1. speaking stuff

1. send speech docs even if you go slow and send all cut cards

2. i’m ok with speed as long as i can understand you

3. have fun, make jokes, but dont force it cuz thats weird

4. do not give speeches in crossfire, it’s so annoying

5. speaks

1. i start at a 28.5 ish (ill adjust based on how good the round is)

2. I'm a college student who flies to tourneys so if you give me paper that will make me very happy and likely to boost your speaks it will also make my rfd better cuz I don't like laptop flows

3. -.5 speaks for “starting with an off time road map”

4. -1 speaks if you miscut/misconstrue/lie about evidence

5. +1 speaks if you make me laugh

6. please don’t call me judge im literally 18 (you can just not say judge but if you NEED to address me specifically just call me soph i guess)

7. you will get high speaks if you and your partner have good energy together (i wont dock you speaks if you dont cuz you have enough problems at that point)

8. i’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric

9. i’ll drop you w 25s if you say anything offensive

10. at any camp/single pool tourney- if you read a k/theory on novs and it is obvious that they are novs prior to initiating i will drop you with 25s

I did LD for four years in high school and I've also done PF.

I can understand most theory and alternative debate strategies, but I consider running a K without responding to your opponent's case unfair.

I'm not a fan of spreading, but it's okay as long as you're not mumbling.

For case sharing, my email is annika.ruda@gmail.com

This is my first year judging.  Please do not speak quickly.  

I am a traditional judge. Please don't include LD jargon in your cases. I am a Public Forum purist. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. Since this is real world debate, at the end of the round I decide what kind of world I want to live in - pro or con. Paint the picture for me. Be persuasive. Be competent. Be kind.

Hello!

My name is Diego Sandoval!

I am fairly new to the debate format; however I have been doing my homework and have talked to well-experienced judges for advice, so I will be properly trained for the event.

As far as my judging style goes, I tend to pay attention to the facts, logical arguments, as well as the evidence presented, and the possible flaws opponents expose during the crossfire. Please speak clearly during making points and have a concise Final Focus as that will also play a large part in my decision making.

I also ask you to please be respectful to your opponents and Judges. I will not tolerate any kind of personal insults towards anybody.

Hello, I am a parent judge. I will vote on knowledge and accurate facts presented, based on extensive research.

Try to persuade me the best you can.

Please make your arguments clear and convincing.

Thank you so much for letting be a judge.

Barely did debate in high school. Please speak slow.

Hi! I'm Amal, a sophmore at Harvard with a background in Congress and APDA. My judging preferences are pretty standard, but here are just a couple of things to keep in mind:

-Please don't spread. If you need to go at a speed faster than one typically talks to get all your arguments through, that's totally fine, but you need to be understandable. If you're struggling to breathe, or are mixing up your words, I likely will not be able to make sense of what you're saying either and can't flow your full argument.

-No theory. If you try to run theory, I will likely vote for your opponents. I expect competitors to be debating on the topic at hand.

-most importantly: WEIGH EVERYTHING YOU SAY. You need to spell out for me why your links and impacts matter more than your opponents, and consistently connect every argument you make back to the main debate.

I enjoy the spirit of debate, but it is disappointing to witness rounds where competitors become rude, insensitive, or aggressive. Debate should be treated as an event to exhibit critical thinking and social awareness, not a chance to browbeat others. Niceties aside, speak clearly, explain your arguments well, and do not rely on debate jargon to articulate your reasoning. I prefer conversational style speaking over speed.

I enjoy the spirit of lively debates, but do not like to see competitors become rude or patronizing toward their opponents. Debate should be treated as an event to exhibit critical thinking and social awareness and the best debaters do this without disparaging their opponents.

Theory arguments are unlikely to be successful with me, especially if they avoid discussion of the debate topic and the opponents' case. Your opponents have prepared to discuss the topic, so moving away from the topic makes for a suboptimal interchange between the two teams.

Please speak clearly, explain your arguments well, quantify the impacts of your contentions (and ideally quantify the adverse impacts of your opponents' contentions), state and re-state important impacts/statistics (so that I don't miss them and can properly weigh them), and do not rely on debate jargon to articulate your reasoning. I prefer conversational style speech over speed.

I'm new to judging. I will judge based primarily on the logic of your arguments and their implications for real world impact. I want to see first and foremost that your arguments are sound, that your points follow each other in a way that makes sense. Secondly, (assuming that there is sound logic in your argument), I want to see that your argument makes effective sense of and expression of your side's human impact. That is ultimately what this is about.

I am a history teacher, with a solid background in geopolitics, so I will not need excessive exposition to make sense of your arguments. That said, I will strive to keep my knowledge out of my interpretations of your points.

I am an international student at Harvard. I have experience in APDA, BP, and the World Schools formats. Please be nice. Reasoning > Evidence

I will drop speaks every time you say something was conceded or dropped if it wasn’t actually conceded or dropped.

I tend to make decisions very quickly, so don't take this personally. Rounds can be very good and very close but still very clear.

My name is Lindsey (she/her) and I am a senior majoring in economics & philosophy at Cleveland State University. I will be attending UVA Law in the fall. I competed in public forum debate for four years, and I have experience coaching public forum debate.

My email is lindseyshrodek@gmail.com if you have any further questions/ for evidence email chains.

In general:

Please read content warnings when discussing sensitive topics. Debate should be a comfortable place for everyone.

Be respectful and make the debate fun. I don't even flow cross X, so talking over your opponent to get more offense in than necessary doesn't accomplish anything (except for making you look rude).

I won't read evidence unless I am explicitly asked to read the evidence. I would prefer to not read evidence and have debaters settle evidence disputes in speeches.

Tech>Truth

provide an impact with your turn, it makes it much easier to weigh

Condense throughout the round

I am fine with speed, but if you are going fast, please give an off-time roadmap/signpost.

I do not flow cross. If you want me to flow something, say it in your speech.

Progressive Debate:

Theory is fine with me, but it should be accessible.

Wanna run a capitalism K? Excited to hear it! Wanna run a theory shell? Cool, here for it!

Just consider the space you're in and how familiar your opponents are with theory. If your opponents respond to your kritik or theory shell, but don't use technical lingo, those arguments will still be considered. Respond to their rebuttal regardless. For example, I don't want to hear "they agree to our role of the ballot so they concede our argument" when the opponents had contested it but without saying role of the ballot. It's just like how a turn is still functionally a turn even if you don't say turn.

In other words, don't be nitpicky with technical theory wording and try to avoid running something completely abusive to smaller teams like disclosure theory.

Path to my ballot:

The first way I evaluate the round is by comparing how much offense each team has on the flow. If there are responses on a piece of offense you have, you must frontline them or you cannot extend it.

The second way I evaluate the round is based on weighing mechanisms. If you don't tell me why your argument matters, I can't evaluate it. Weighing must be comparative. Don't repeat your impact without interacting with your opponents' impact. Quantification really helps with weighing.

This is my first year as a I am a parent judge. A few things about my judging preferences:

- I value a clear logic flow and argument

- It’s important during a debate to allow the listeners to understand your argument and points, so it’s better to speak slowly and to be heard, rather than quickly (clarity over speed)

- I love a good clash. You’ll get credit for a clear, logical argument, but demonstrating the ability to modify your argument and rebut your opponents’ ACTUAL argument is very important (dynamic arguments are very effective)

- Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

Most important: have fun. The ability to debate is a crucial life skill!

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years. I am now a senior at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. However, if you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that.Tabula Rasa -Look it up and that's your answer on my biases on this topic

FOR NYCFL Grands: I am not well informed on the Artemis Accords topic, but I did do a bit of research on it. So please make sure to explain terms and not just throw terminology at me, with the assumption that I already understand it. The same things apply that I say at the top, I will vote on impacts and warrant clarity, so explain the arguments thoroughly.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

• This is my first time judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."

• I have a background in Business and Finance.

• I request to speak a little slowly - I am a novice judge.
• I request you to track your time. I would like the teams to strictly follow their allocated time to keep the debate fair.
• I request the debaters to provide their contentions in a written bullet form as it will ensure that I fully understand and track their arguments.

Background: competed for 3 years in PF in high school and 1 year in Policy and Parli respectively.

Email chain: ahs.birder@gmail.com

I'm pretty open to, and will vote on, pretty much any argument (K, pics, fw, condo etc. and theory saying all the above are bad are all fair game) - as long as they're explained well, which means comprehensible to a lay audience: so take the time to explain the warrant (+ impact if applicable) and extend it through every speech, don't assume a) that I know what you're talking about or b) that I'll remember what you said in earlier speeches. Give me a convincing argument for why you won the round in your final speech - in the sense that I should be able to vote for you without having listened to any of the debate beforehand (although ofc I'll be flowing the whole thing). I try really hard not to intervene.

I'm ok with speed but please slow down for tags and send me a speech doc!

Please be nice to each other, be charitable and play fair with each other (for example, please no prep time/card calling shenanigans, I trust you guys to be chill with that) and overall relax during the debate, we're all here to have fun! :) (also please free to be casual/comfortable re. attire, especially online)

If you have any questions (or just want to chat), feel free to shoot me an email or ask me before round! This isn't out of courtesy, I genuinely love talking about anything and everything!

Speak at a moderate pace that both your opponent and I can follow. This is Public Forum, there should be no theory - that belongs to Policy and LD.

I will be flowing the round. No new arguments in summary. However, in summaries, I do prefer a line-by-line to address the round. Give me clear voters in your final focus to make sure that I know what you want me to vote on for the round.

Avoid off-time roadmaps - your speech should clearly signpost.

For evidence shares: please use this email - taylor.sluder@bcsemail.org

I have experience in PF, Parli, Extempt, and Duo/ longtime judge (mainly PF)

Things to consider at the start of the round:

1. Make sure to clearly state your contentions
2. Speaking fast is okay but do not spread
3. Remember I am flowing please make it easy to follow along throughout the round
4. Make sure your flow is ready before the round
5. Delivery matters!!

Things to consider during the round:

1. Keep up with your own prep time
2. Make sure you utilize your time wisely. Make sure you use all of your time and are refuting as well as rebuilding your case.
3. Please do not spend multiple speeches arguing over one source.
4. Make sure you are extending arguments.
5. My ballot will go to the team that does the best weighing and impacting in the round. You have to be clear as to why you are winning the round. If you do not call something out or respond, I cannot make the argument for you. Remember to actually debate the resolution don't get lost in the round.
6. Be mindful of what you say in the round. The words you use and the arguments you make have implications. Please consider that throughout the round.
7. Do not wait to FF to say that the other team dropped all of your contentions.
8. Do not ask for a source in question for something that is common knowledge. I do count logical arguments and responses.

If doing an email chain please add me - gabri3ll30422@gmail.com

If you have any other questions feel free to ask!

Hello debaters,

I am a first year judge who did not participate in debate in high school. Please do not spread. For clarity, I prefer an off time roadmap before your speech, and sign posts during your speech. I am not familiar with debate jargon. If an interesting point is brought up in crossfire, please bring it up in your other speeches or it will not be relevant to the debate. I prefer quantifiable impacts and that you weigh impacts. Why does your impact matter more than your opponents. Finally, please do not introduce new arguments during final focus. I will not count them. Make sure to extend your arguments into the final focus.

Please send your speech docs to bsmoko@hamdenhall.org.

Good luck!

Hello, my name is Valentino Soriano, I am a parent judge.

Please note that less jargon is preferred and clearly state your contentions. Speak slowly and clearly and address your arguments during each phase of your speech or the prior argument will be null and void.

Ensure that you state if you are taking prep time when it is your turn. I will keep time but expect all participants to also self time.

I wish everyone good luck in this and future debates and look forward to your debates.

Thank you.

I am a lay judge.

I would prefer it if you speak slowly and clearly, so I can hear your arguments and understand you well. Clarity on your contentions is of utmost importance.

Overland HS '16 | Morehouse '20 | Harvard Law '25

Hi, my name is Noah (he/him), and I am a first-year law student at Harvard Law School. I competed in PF (2012-2016) in high school, and NPDA and BP (2018-2020) in college.

Please be respectful and kind to each other. While I can handle speed, going as fast as possible generally doesn't come off as persuasive or productive. I don't flow crossfire. Please signpost. I won't automatically drop you for running Ks or Theory, but I advise you to refrain. Practice responsible evidence ethics (if I'm told to call for cards after the round, I will, but I prefer not to have to sift through evidence to determine a winner). It's my general disposition to give everyone high speaks, and you have to convince me to lower them.

Keep track of your own prep. Weigh please. Debate is a game. Have fun.

If there are any questions before the round I will be happy to answer them.

Good luck!

I am a new judge, so I am not aware of much of the jargon surrounding debate. Please explain your arguments clearly and at a reasonable pace (don't spread). If I miss your argument because you are going too fast, it will not be flowed. Please remain kind and respectful in round.

Make sure you are timing yourself and keeping track. I will try to ensure that the timings are fair, but I am a new judge, so keep that in mind. Be clear and concise while maintaining your positions.

Be clear with your responses and evaluations. Point out any interp on evidence, and show why your evidence is valid. Don't get bogged down in FW or Definition debate if it doesn't affect the round. No need to share your cases with me, just speak clearly.

I consider Tech>Truth. Since I am new, please remain on topic. Do not run frivolous theory; I will drop you. I am also not too familiar with Ks. If there is an actual issue, make sure to show it clearly and ensure that it relates to the topic and the round. I'm pretty open-minded with arguments, but you have to show me the logic and the evidence.

Weigh, weigh, weigh. This should be a very significant portion in your summary and FF, and I expect to see some in Rebuttal as well. I won't flow cross but I will listen to watch for any issues. Draw attention to anything significant from cross in your speeches. No new arguments after rebuttal, and no new evidence in 2nd summary. Extend your links and respond to turns.

Overall, be nice and act ethically while defending your position. Don't confuse me as it will not help you win. I am a pretty lay judge.

I am a lay judge, but have been taught to flow and have three years of experience judging PF. I prefer clear, slower speaking. Signposts are also super helpful. I don't intervene; I will judge your contentions by your ability to extend them and your opponents' ability (or lack thereof) to undermine them. I look for a logical argument. I like summaries and final focuses that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I've never called a card when judging in person, but while competitions were virtual, I did look at the cards that were called, and I have occasionally called a card myself. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.

For evidence, start an email chain or a shared google doc at the beginning of the round. It is for your benefit to not share cards through the chat. Include me on the chain - I'll give my email in the chat during the round.

WEIGH. WEIGH. WEIGH. Otherwise I will be forced to do link/impact comparison for you, and you may not like how I do it.

Truth over Facts.

Don't speak excessively fast, it's irritating.

Frameworks must be warranted

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Joshuasp.debate@gmail.com

I am a 2nd year college student, GSU policy debater, IBA coach, Sequoyah HS 21'. Paradigm shortened for ease, ask questions before round. I will explain why I didn't vote on each flow I didn't vote on which arg I voted on as well as explain what it would have taken to get my ballot/improve chances of future ballots after each round. I love debate which is why i am here, if deb8 gets too messy I may end up sounding PO'd.

Quick prefs: 1 - K, Larp 2 - Tricks/Theory 3 - Topicality 4 - Phil (LD)
Speed - Lower speed spreading with a focus on clairity is ideal for me.

Influences: Chansey Agler, Matthew Bartula, Patrick Smith, Jared Croituro, The Western Washington University Team, Andrew Shaw, Luis Toro

PF:

DA's should be read in rebuttal, begin weighing by 2nd rebuttal/1st summary but don't say weighing in your off time roadmap, you are weighing ON the case flow, not as an off case. Low risk is not sufficient for a presumption ballot. I am a big fan of stock arguments ran well, not that a unique case is bad, but run it with confidence and knowledge of the scenarios.

Because I am an IBA coach I guess I spend most of my time researching the PF topics and coaching PF. However due to my policy and LD background I am really good for K's, theory and I am willing to vote on tricks with a warrant (ideally contextual to sides or speaking positions so as to not be non uq). I am likely the most progressive judge in a given PF pool. Likely also one of the most tech too.

I prefer line by line to overviews for 2nd rebuttal/summarys. If there are 5 arguments read against ur contention, respond to all 5. I hate embedded clash and will not draw the lines for you - make your implications yourself as I try to minimize interventions.

Analytics are sufficient to create warrants but if its a stat or not intuitive then plz have card. Nothing is sticky. Extend all warrants

The first line of your FF should be what you want my RFD to be. Collapse, please oh god collapse. I have never voted on two things at once.

Nothing is sticky besides defaults (ie fairness/CI/death bad). You can't sever reps, "dropping" is biting defense on something to then prove your own contention is zero risk - means you can't collapse out of turns and if you collapse turns, your impacts are fair game.

Presumption errs 1st, permissibility errs con. Fairness/education default matter in the round, it is your burden to weigh why they matter.

LD/Policy:

While I am very tech - I emphasize warrants/explanation in what I need. Voting for something I don't understand is ridiculus but I am a quick learner and read cards during CX/Prep so I specifically need more explanation in the synergy between cards and implications. I won't vote on something not said in round. I will auto drop cards/extensions if they are non starter d2 lack of warranting even if extended, however thats very rare and mostly happens in LD 2ar's/PF FF's where they shadow extend args.

I am best for plan v K debates. I likely am not read up on your topic. I am good at the technical aspects of voting on phil, likely am not read up on ur fw tho. I like K's, I am much more receptive to pre fiat and discourse impact/alts. Reps matter.

Most of my ballots boil down to 2 things: either 1. a sequencing questions where root cause/impact X precludes argument Y. or 2. magnitude weighing. Hence why I say I am best fro LARP or K because I love root cause weighing and also I like the framework 2ar going for magnitude ow.

I lean no way on any theory arguments (eg PICs, Condo, Agent, ASPEC etc). However theory is rewarded for better warrants and does worse when it has worse warrants. I default fairness/ed are voters. Counter interp/Counter Model. No RVI (super ez to win RVI good in front of me though, just default responses are defense). Which voter comes args 1st should be done by block/1ar in policy or 1ar/2nr in LD. This lead to a controversial decision in an elim which is why I specify because I think fairness always matters (unless said otherwise) and its a matter of weighing if it comes 1st. Imbedded clash must have implications. I also err spirit > text so keep that in mind. Actual warrants and abuse matter as its an accusation of being abusive. I call it a wash if there is 0 risk + no RVI or if neither team has risk of offense, I rarely do the ladder so especially if there is an RVI this better be both or ur whole speeches besides a 10 sec case extension. I prefer reading multiple shells and combining warrants through spirit to reading combo shells. Signpost shells and slow down, I flow along doc (not off) so if its not in doc then light signaling is good like slowing slightly down and emphasing the text and tags.

Not the best for adv or process CP's, am better for actor PIC's. If I don't understand your CP I will not vote for it. CP theory is strategic. Kicking shell doesn't kick reps. I err judge kick good. 50 states is lame but sure go for it. Innovation is rewarded here. I have never had a policy 2n on a CP and maybe 3 CP 2n's in LD.

DA's are cool. Specific links get rewarded. Timeframe/sequencing weighing is how you get me usually here. Quick tf + mag ow aff + a sequencing explanation is soooooo fun to watch. Ptx is cool, have ur updates within 2 weeks preferably and postdating ev is strategic here esp when all authors r p bad in these uq deb8's. I am a very large fan of the more niche impacts like dollarization and food stuff.

K's are probs best for me as I read/cut/think abt them the most. I think there needs to be a clear framework page in the 1NC if your A-strat is your K or if u plan to go for reps or pre fiat. I prefer K's to be explained in simpler terms past the 1AC/1NC, idk what a rhizome is nor will I remember what it is during the round so explain it. I am a massive fan of clash and engagement in K debates. Alt explanation is important to me especially if you go for alt solves aff or as a PIK. Floating PIK's r funny, explain why the PIK is uq and perm is not bc this gets muddy. I love antiblackness lit and cybernetics however I think explaining your version is key because there are like 500 dif ways to interpret some of this stuff. In the (CX)block /(LD) 2nr plz have an OV abt summarizing ur TOP on the K and contextualizing that to the round. Having events to show as examples in K's helps ie specific laws or acts of violence. I am more cool with generic links than most judges but I like when its contextualized to actions/args even if the card isn't specifically abt their aff/plan.

Speaker points: rewarding off speaking ability is kinda ableist so I reward off of strategy and cleanliness on the flow. Word economy and strategy goes much further. Some of my coolest rounds have been against teams speaking at conversational speed but with sufficient arguments to still go far.

I am a first time lay judge.

Speak slowly and articulate your arguments clearly.

Don’t be disrespectful to your opponents.

I don't have much experience with PF, so just speak clearly and be nice :)

Make sure what you want to win with is in summary and final focus!

Hello! I am a first-year at Harvard competing primarily in APDA. I did a bit of PF in high school. I'm ready to evaluate any arguments you'd like. That being said, please

1. Weigh
2. Warrant
3. Have high-quality evidence (an issue I will intervene on).

Take it easy!

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I coach PF for American Heritage.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing arguments and worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing critical arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Only give an off-time roadmap if it is truly necessary. For example, roadmaps before 1st rebuttal are not required. If you give me a roadmap, please briefly tell me where you will start and be efficient with that explanation. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

Evidence exchanges in the virtual space can be a little smoother. I think they are easier when a google doc is created. I would really appreciate it if you all could send each other speech docs to limit the amount of time for evidence exchanges. At the very least, I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find and then use your prep time for the remainder of time it takes you to send the card. I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Hey all! I'm a past Public Forum and Parliamentary debater for 4 years in high school.

I'll keep my paradigm short and sweet. Ask questions before the round if you have any clarifications.

Speaker Points

• I'm fine with speed, don't spread, prefer concise and a drop of ethos
• Give up to 10 seconds of grace period, then will cut you off firm
• Please be respectful during crossfire

Voting Points

• I will judge most of the round from my flow
• Weigh, your FF should be mostly this with clear structured voting points
• Have well cut evidence ready, don't just name drop cards without linkages
• Extend arguments articulately, even from crossfire

Most importantly, have fun!!

Parent judge for Germantown Friends School.

Read slowly, speak confidently, and do not be aggressive. Debate is an activity that we are lucky to participate in, make sure that you understand we should all be appreciative of this. It's okay to be passionate but keep the environment comfortable for everyone.

Any racist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary arguments will result in L + lowest speaks possible.

Explain your argument clearly to me. I will not vote on something I am not sure I understand.

A parent judge who has participated a few debate events previously.

I prefer solid logic and clear presentation, please speak clearly.

To me the structure and quality of the arguments/evidence are more important than the quantity and density.

Be respectful to each other.

Do your best, try to understand the other sides with sympathy.

Be grateful!

PF Paradigm

Everything will be based on flow.

The following are not listed in order of importance, so please consider each element with equal merit.

Weighing:

- Weigh as early as possible in the rebuttal/summary after any necessary frontlines and be explicit in voters during FF. Weigh as much as possible in your given time.

Argumentation/CF:

- *Poor argument presentation will secure a loss.

- Well-warranted argumentation is good, but analytical and nuanced argumentation of well-warranted arguments is even better.

- If there is a loss of professionalism from either side, I will ensure to give low speaks to the individual(s).

- Turning on questions is expected, but if any individual during any CF refuses to answer a single question (in a clear manner), I will consider it to be poor handling of the CF. Depending on the severity/consistency, this may result in lower speaks.

Evidence:

- When calling for evidence, please make it brief and short. If you are asking for multiple cards, it would be best for an email chain to start and the partner of the speaker being asked for the card to send it to the opposing team rather than halting the debate for an extended period of time.

Organization:

- Signposting is non-optional! This always adds to the clarity of any debate. (I don't understand why you would ever forgo signposting, but I've seen many debaters do this and often confuse themselves.)

- *Be organized with your speeches. I understand how you are feeling in rounds, but if you've used prep time and have multiple moments of dead air (~10 seconds) in the speech, I would consider that you didn't use your prep time effectively.

Two asides:

1) If disclosure is permitted: My RFDs tend to go through everything on the flow, but due to time constraints of presenting RFDs, I will go through them relatively quickly so that we can all move onto the next round -- so, I tend to speak somewhat quickly. If at any point you are unclear about something I've said, please ask before I let you go. I try my best to be constructive, so I hope that you listen to the feedback rather than waiting for win/loss.

2) Although it is a lot fun, no Ks or Theories in PF.

Keep the following in mind:

- Please don't make your whole case just reading cards. Rereading your cards do not equate to analysis when asked to elaborate on a piece of evidence during a cross.

- If you are going to abbreviate anything, please state what you are abbreviating initially before just using the abbreviation to avoid unnecessary remarks between debaters.

More than anything, enjoy yourselves during the debate! :)

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I welcome clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals

• Be polite to teammate, opponent and judge.
• Speak at a moderate pace; I can only understand what I hear.
• Connect the dots clearly and be organized; don't go down a rabbit hole with your link chain.
• Signpost throughout the speech, slow down when reading taglines, and provide an off-time roadmap.

• Emphasis on stock issues; I will vote for the most persuasive and concise team.
• Interact with opponents' arguments, don't simply extend your case.
• Comparatively weigh; make it clear why your argument is more important.
• Illustrate the big picture in the final rebuttals.
• Narrow down the key issues I should be voting on.
• This will allow me to make a straightforward decision.

Wish you the very best.

Hello!

Please treat everyone with respect.

Get right to the point. I am familiar with Right to Work laws so you do not need to spend time explaining the basics.

I expect to see a well organized/clearly laid out argument that establishes connection to the topic with strong persuasive arguments to support your side. Back up claims with evidence where applicable. I expect to see you managing a rebuttal (fact supported if applicable) with the counterclaim clearly presented, present clear evidence and staying on the topic, not digressing.

Please speak clearly, pause where necessary (I understand you may be running against the clock but do your best to be clear in your speaking and making your point).

Provide logical arguments during rebuttals with strong logical reasoning and qualified evidence.

Avoid crazy parabolic arguments, Frontlining is good and don't make that your whole (2nd) rebuttal. Get your case strong first. Preempt a block? sure!

You being here is an achievement in itself. Be brave and Good luck to your team.

( I have judged 10 rounds in total. I am a working professional in the Financial services industry and have also worked in the Headline News Generation and Earnings analysis teams)

Debate should be about dialog and not confrontation.  I realize people get excited when stating and reinforcing a point of view, but please let’s keep it civilized.

Be mindful of your allotted time and articulate your points clearly and concisely.

I like to see eye contact, knowledge of your topic, and interchange between debaters when proving/disproving points.

I am not impressed by debaters repeating the same data points constantly until the allotted time is exhausted or reading a computer screen at 200 miles an hour; rapid speaking is acceptable if it is understandable.

I was a PF debater and MUNer throughout my highschool career, and am now a debate coach and studying business.

I appreciate a very technical debate; i.e. smart FWs, lots of impact calculus, clear voting issues, fallacies, jargon, and weighing.

Speak up and enunciate, I think it's kind of important that I can actually understand what you're saying during a round.

Off-time road maps are okay and encouraged. In RB try to go line-by-line if it suits you, and be smart about your refutation. Arguments not mentioned in summary I assume are dropped. FF should very clearly explain to me why you win each clashing point. Always remember your signposting.

Be mindful of your performance and charisma (they're very important to me), and have fun. Do not be rude at any point. If your speech time ends in the middle of a sentence, it's fine for you to finish it (just a few words).

All arguments should be backed by evidence and it should be presented quickly if called. I'll probably want to see it. Do NOT have a debate or argue with your opponents when calling cards.

I refrain from inferring on any arguments and will only give points for what you explicitly state (as tabula rasa as possible). I will not refute, assume, clarify, or weigh for you.

Keep track of your own time at all points. Try not to leave any time in your speeches.

Please do contact me at veratolari03@gmail.com if you have any questions!

I have no prior experience in speech and debate. I have never competed and only recently started judging. I understand basic debate argumentation but am still learning specific jargon and technicalities. Please try not to speak too fast but I understand that this is a space that requires time constraints. I have previously judged speech rounds in one tournament. Despite my lack of experience, I want to hear any kind of arguments that you have prepared. Please clearly extend your arguments throughout the round, with author names or taglines so I know exactly what you’re extending. I am excited to see what all of you have to say, but please be respectful of each other in round.

\---( ° ͜ʖ ° )---/

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so trad circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform

Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.

Don't lie/falsify/make up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)

Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.

Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, that it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.

May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 6ish.

__________________________________________

Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.

If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.

Hi guys! I’m Sierra, and I’m a first year at Harvard. I did not participate in high school debate, but I am enjoying BP and APDA while in college.

Some general thoughts:

1. PLEASE WEIGH! I have no other method for evaluating which of two claims or impacts is more important if you do not tell me why it matters compared to other arguments.

2. Give clear mechanisms! Though I am a reasonable person, connect the dots and tell me explicitly why something is going to happen.

3. I appreciate sign posting! I do flow, but I am new to it, so knowing where we are in a speech is very helpful.

4. Speak clearly, and don’t speak too fast.

5. I will listen to and evaluate high-impact, low-probability impacts like nuclear war, but I don’t like them. From Matej Cerman’s paradigm: I’d rather hear a well thought out argument than “how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

6. I don’t know anything about theory, and your theory arguments simply won’t mean anything to me.

7. I do appreciate clever jokes in speeches if they are applicable. Make the debate fun for me please!

8. Be civil, respectful, and understand that competition is about more than victory.

s/o Anthony Ovadje for the paradigm template :)

I did PF for four years at Marist School.

General Stuff

Weigh and warrant arguments.

Tech > Truth

Add me to the email chain: vance.sydneym@gmail.com

Evidence

If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. I usually won't call for cards myself, but if your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.

2nd Half

2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns

Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it

Speed

I'm fine with speed, but clarity is always more important

Theory/Kritiks

I have basically no experience with K lit, but I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments. A lot more warranting and explanation needs to be done if you are running this argument in front of me.

I'll usually vote for paraphrasing and disclosure theory unless it's handled atrociously. If your opponents do something terrible in round, I'll also evaluate some sort of shell explaining why its unfair.

Other

Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.

If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.

Parent judge - speak slowly and make sure I can follow the logic in your arguments.

Nastiness is not appreciated.

Hello,

I am a parent judge, and I am looking forward to observing a fair and respectful debate. My request is simple - show up prepared, speak clearly with supporting evidence, enjoy yourself, and respect all who are present.

This is the first time that I've judge this event. I've read over some information about this event and watched some videos. Please keep your deliver slow and clear. I would appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Hi, my name is Mercy, and I am a sophomore in college. I debated for six years, so I understand how debate operates and debate lingo. I have been judging for two years now, and my favorite arguments to vote on are critiques and identity politics. I mostly ran black arguments in high school pertaining to black women, and I understand the difficulties of debating your identity. So if you are a black woman who centers black women, I will give you a 30.

I will flow tricky arguments, confusing frameworks, and frivolous theory arguments, but if not explained thoroughly, I will not vote on it.

I lean more towards truth over tech, but I understand the importance of being technical in debate. If impacted out correctly, I will evaluate tech first.

I am very familiar with LD and policy, but I am new to judging public forum- however, I can still clearly follow and public forum round, don't be afraid to break a norm in a public forum if I am judging you- like reading a critique.

Lastly, don't say anything that actively makes the space exclusive for people. In other words, do not be anti-black and all of the other phobics- homophobic, xenophobic, fatphobic etc.

Have fun and respect one another. I also never have paper or a pen so please bring extra.

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

Be Polite and respectful.

Do your homework, be prepared to send the evidence to support your statement.

Don't speak too fast.

Bullet points are helpful.

Don't use much debate jargon.

Have fun and good luck.

Thanks for reviewing my Paradigm. I'm a parent judge, who enjoys hearing public speeches and debates to learn the logic, rationales and strategies of your contentions and rebuttals. It is not always easy to express ourselves concisely, articulately, respectfully with strong persuasibility. Therefore, it takes courage, effort, and enthusiasms to debate. I'm excited to be here with you, as a judge but more as a learner to hear your arguments, and to witness your growth on your increased publish speech capability.

I do not have any additional requirement or preference other than the official rules set for the debate. Please make yourself comfortable, and I focus on the content of your debate rather than anything else. If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
Thanks again,
David

As a Flay judge, I haven't formed preferences yet and try to stay open-minded on all debate styles. The only exception would be that I do not like spreading.

Hi, I’m Kyle (he/him/his)

Add me to the email chain: kylecwatkins@verizon.net

Or, create the Google Doc: kwatkins@bernardsboe.com

Either way, do this before round if possible.

BACKGROUND

I currently coach for Ridge High School and competed extensively in speech as a student there. I coach both speech and PF, meaning I emphasize both good delivery/style as well as clear argumentation.

GENERAL

1. Treat me as your average “lay” judge:

1. I will flow your arguments as long as you are clearly spoken

2. I am not well read on the topic as you are, so do not assume that I know what you are saying without clear warranting

3. No speed and do not spread and absolutely no progressive arguments

1. I appreciate strong narratives and cohesion of arguments — simply saying “extend this” or “extend that” doesn’t explain anything to me

1. All arguments should have clear warrants and impacts

2. You should be crystalizing the round for me — establish clear reasons why you are winning

3. Explain the “why” and “so what”

4. Do the weighing for me; tell me what’s important — I do not want to judge intervene

1. Do not misconstrue evidence — if you do have an issue with your opponents’ evidence, please bring it up in the round and contact tab accordingly.

1. IMPORTANT! You must read a trigger warning BEFORE that start of constructive if your case contains sensitive content. If you do not read one and make your opponents uncomfortable, I will drop you and dock speaks. Sensitive arguments affect others around you, in and out of round, and you should always be considerate of others.

1. I do not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. (I will dock speaks)

1. DO NOT CHEAT! There should be no communication with people outside of the round. Cheating has become much more common, and if I catch you for it, not only are you demonstrating bad competitive behavior, but I will also report your team and have you potentially disqualified

OTHER

+1 speaks if you bring me Arnold Palmer

Hello, I am a first-time parent judge. Some things to consider with me as a judge:

- Be nice and respectful to everyone in the round! I want everyone to have fun, and I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.

- Please speak slowly and clearly.

- I prefer logical arguments with solid warrants that are backed-up by good evidence.

- Tell me why I should prefer your arguments over your opponents'.

- Signpost: tell me where you are going in your speech so I can follow you best.

- I like off-time roadmaps: tell me where you are starting and where you are going to go in your speech before you start.

Good Luck!

I am the currently an Instructional Facilitator for Broward County Public Schools on the county-wide debate program. Prior to my current position I was the debate coach for 10 years at Coral Springs High School in Coral Springs, FL.

I am generally open to any type or style of argument, as long as it is relevant and topical. Explain to me why you have upheld your standard (which can be as traditional or creative as you wish, as long as you establish why it is topical), and/or (preferably "and") your opponent has not upheld theirs, and you will win the round. I will judge the round based off of my flow, but that does not mean that dropped arguments are an automatic disqualification. The weighing of arguments is incredibly important to me, and if I judge the dropped argument to be a comparatively minor argument, then I won't vote based on that argument.

The only arguments that I generally find unpersuasive are arguments that are completely non-topical and have no relevance to the resolution or the specific cases being debated. Any theory you decide to run should be in response to actual, legitimate abuse from your opponent. Other than that, be creative and have fun. Just make sure you tie it into the resolution and/or your opponent's case.

I will not explicitly factor speed into my decision. However, I am not terrific at understanding speed. Pay attention to whether or not I'm flowing. If I'm not flowing, I'm not understanding you. I won't say "CLEAR"; it's up to you to be understandable.

I award speaker points based on general clarity (Which does not necessarily mean speed. You can be fast and clear.) and the quality of support for your arguments.

Justin Weaver, Instructional Facilitator for Secondary Debate, Broward County Public Schools

Hi, I'm Kushan. I've done PF for four years, and I'm currently a freshman in college. I'd say I'm generally flow/flay and am receptive to almost any style of PF debate. Don't spread, though. Warrant and weigh anything you want me to evaluate.

I'm a parent judge. This will be my first time judging. Please do not use any spreading and excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly and focus on clarity and well thought out arguments.

Make sure your links are sound and the logic jumps are clear and concise. I will be judging based on your ability to effectively convey your argument. Lastly, please stay away from any theory arguments.

Please, thank you, and remember to have fun.

Good luck in your debates today! I am relatively new to judging but well versed in politics and history. I am looking for clear, concise arguments presented respectfully and succinctly. Ideal debaters will speak clearly and directly offering compelling arguments rooted in facts and backed by qualified sources. When in doubt, slow down and remember that sometimes less can be more.

american heritage ‘22 extemp/pf

i flow, but i've been uninvolved in debate so err on the side of flay judge and make the debate understandable and accessible. thus,

- weigh, preferably comparatively, and only on arguments you are winning

- extend at least the warrant and impact of each argument

- go up to “pf spread”

- defense is not sticky

- be nice. i won’t hesitate to deduct speaker points if you are rude/arrogant in cross or speech.

I am a high school debate coach with experience judging Parliamentary, PF and LD. I appreciate it when debaters do not speak so quickly that it is difficult to flow the debate. When it comes to sharing cards, I prefer that debaters do not share them digitally. I prefer to have debaters read from one another's laptops, starting prep time as soon as a card is made available.

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am new but I will try my best.

1. Please don't speak too fast. Again, please do not speak too fast. I am not native english speaker. Also I believe debate is a communicative activity, and therefore make sure I can hear and understand every word that being said.

2. Please make your arguments as clear to me as possible. I want to understand the real world significance of the argument.

3. Please be friendly to others, otherwise you will lose speaker points.

Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.

1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.

2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.

3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.

Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!

*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.

I am a parent judge.

I prefer arguments be delivered clearly and not too fast.

It is ok to be passionate. But please remember to be respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Please time yourself and let me know if you are going to take pre time.

Your overall performance, including the quality of arguments, evidence, and style, will help me determine the winner of the round.

My email is feiyang007@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain if there is one.

I’m relatively new to debate, and this is my first time judging so please treat me like a lay judge. I can definitely flow but discourage spreading. In terms of pace, I’m a quick speaker myself so don’t be afraid to speak at a bit of a faster pace. As long as I can understand what you are saying, it’s fine! If it is way too fast for me, I will ask you to slow down but that is in the rare case that I genuinely can’t comprehend what is being said. Also I will never interrupt or intervene unless there are any instances of discrimination or ad hominems.

Also:

1. Be nice — I don’t tolerate any form of discriminatory rhetoric

2. Limit the offense you go for in final speeches, remember no new arguments in the back end of the debate please!

3. For PF, weighing would really impress me but of course isn’t required

4. Please no theory — not really familiar with any K’s and I don’t think there’s a point in even bringing up K’s in PF. Keep things simple please!

5. During crossfire don’t scream over each other, keep it fun but also civilized.

6. That’s all, I’m very chill and very new, looking forward to meeting you all! Please have fun and enjoy yourselves!

hi, i'm AJ! i graduated from Plano West in 2021 and competed in PF on the national circuit. my pronouns are they/them, and my email is ayi@college.harvard.edu.

- priority #1 is safety; be cognizant of your presence in the round/community, don’t be a problematic human being, use correct pronouns, provide content warnings with opt outs, etc.

- would strongly prefer if y’all came in preflowed and coin flipped/ready to go!

- outside of that, do whatever makes the debate enjoyable :) below are my preferences that might make it easier for you to win, but really do whatever you like. if you are compelling and/or justify decisions against my preferences below, you will likely be okay!

things i like in debate / things to know about me as a judge:

- i think about debate pretty similarly to renee li, alyssa nie, and aditya kumar.

- i'm quite expressive in response to what y'all say (though i also just nod/furrow my eyebrows in confusion a lot). i don’t like most pf arguments and still vote off of them so don’t be intimidated! but feel free to use my facial cues as you see fit.

- please prioritize warrants throughout the round, do not be blippy with them, and have clear extensions of your entire link chain and impact in the second half for anything you want me to vote on (including turns). any offense i vote on must be extended clearly in both summary and final focus and include good warranting.

- please collapse as much as possible. i really like smart analytics and strategic decisions, much more than blippy, unintelligent dumps of as much as you can possibly get through.

- new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such

- you don't need to frontline defense in 2nd rebuttal, but whatever you don't fl can be extended straight into 1st ff. i think it probably makes for a more in depth debate if you fl defense and collapse in 2nd rebuttal, but it's up to you.

- on weighing: being comparative between the actual nuanced arguments on the flow (as opposed to the general idea of an argument i.e. climate change) when weighing or responding is really really important to me. i am not too impressed with the meta of broad prereq weighing that doesn’t actually make sense when considering your link chain’s effect on the impact.

- that said, please weigh, and please start it by summary!

- dislike: doc botting, blowing up blips in final, independent DAs in 2nd rebuttal, excessively unclear speed, overgeneralizations of arguments or of the squo, jargon (define terms if absolutely necessary) being called judge, friv theory (unless its actually funny)

- don’t really care about: crossfire (feel free to take 1.5 min of prep instead of gcx), author names (just cite stuff consistently), most presentation things (sit/stand/whatever you’d like)

- super down to give as detailed feedback as y'all want, but i know thats not always what anyone wants to listen to immediately after an rfd. so i'll default to giving just the rfd - if you want advice beyond that ask me after round/message me. also please reach out even if you just want to talk about debate/hs/life! AJ Yi on FB, @aj__yi on Insta

Hi, I'm Kathy and I competed in LD for one year, but the bulk of my experience is in Moot Court and Mock Trial. I would consider myself a traditional/lay judge. With that in mind, here are my preferences:

1) Be respectful in CX

2) Please have a clearly organized roadmap and signpost

3) A little speed is okay as long as I can clearly understand you

4) I'm not familiar with this topic or core arguments, so please explain everything well (progressive frameworks will need to be explained very well)

5) I appreciate good presentation style (good eye contact and volume, not glued to your notes)

6) Please be systematic and organized when refuting

7) Higher speaker points awarded for being respectful, methodical, and organized

Be nice and have fun!

I recently started judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."

MORE IMPORTANTLY, I AM NOT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER!!!

So I ask the debaters to speak SLOWLY and CLEARLY if I happen to be the judge assigned to your round/flight, simply because: the more I understand you, the more I am convinced by you, and therefore, the more chance I will vote for you.

I judge on content and reason. I believe in simplicity in arguing and that persuasiveness comes from easily understood linkages to convey a message.

If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me. For online virtual debates, I would like you to disclose your case to me before the round actually starts and add me to the email chains.

Hi, I debated four years on the national circuit for Seven Lakes from 2018-2022.

gtoc 3x, nats 3x, nats finalist

sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

I would like to be on the chain and I would like for docs to be sent prior to the speech they are read in. bonus speaks for doing so.

IF YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY PREVENTING YOUR OPPONENT FROM ENGAGING IN THE ROUND, MAX SPEAKS ARE 25 + L

don't be any type of -ist

Defense -implicate the defense I won't do it for you AND weigh the defense against their case.

Turns -please extend warrants for turns and implicate them.... also weigh the turns against their case.

Weighing -Please make it comparative and interactive. "Probability" weighing later in the round that is just hiding new responses will not work well in your favor and will probably lower your speaks. Please metaweigh!

Frontlining - second rebuttal should frontline everything, no sticky defense.

speed - if I can't understand u and miss warrants, I'm not ghost extending them for you. So go as fast as you want at your own risk.

Progressive Arguments -I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating almost all progressive arguments. With that being said, I am very receptive to reasonability arguments and "we can't engage" answers as well.

Email: a@austinzhao.us

(Please include me on the email chain if there is one).

TL;DR: Lay parent judge.

I am a lay parent judge and English is not my native language.

For debate, to reduce your risk of having me vote incorrectly, please speak slowly, clearly, and explain your points logically. No matter how many warrants/evidence you bring up and regardless what sophisticated language you use, at the end of the day if I cannot understand your arguments I cannot vote off them. Therefore, get to the point simply and straightforwardly.

For speaker points, I start at 28 and then adjust from there based on how well you spoke, your confidence, style, and presentation. You get higher if you do all these things well, you get lower if you do not. If you are offensive or rude, I will dock your speaker points.

Enjoy the process, relax, have fun with it :).

I am currently a sophomore at Harvard debating in APDA. Debate is a great educational opportunity, so first and foremost, be nice and have fun!

Congress:

1. POs – Smooth operation of the chamber is the key to getting ranked. I look favorably upon tools like spreadsheets that make precedence clear to all.
2. Speakers – I judge this like a debate. In order of most impactful to least impactful, I score the following: turning an opposition argument, mitigating an opposition argument, bringing up a unique argument, extending upon a previous favorable argument, summarizing the state of the debate, repeating arguments. Clash is key – directly answering specific arguments from the opposition will earn you high speaks. Providing good logical warranting rather than just reading out quotes will also earn you higher speaks. Tell me what the specific benefits or harms of passing the legislation are compared to the status quo.
3. Ranking – Beyond speeches, I credit those members who had the most impact in generating and moving discourse in the round. So active engagement and good questions count. I recognize that speakers might not be able to get in more than one speech because of low precedence, but nonetheless I will credit attempts to engage in that case.

PF:

1. Weigh your arguments. Collapse on key voter issues and impacts in your final speech and tell me why your side wins this round.
2. Debate involves more than just one individual, so move away from solitaire and make a good-faith effort to engage with the other side's case. Clash = good.
3. Signpost, signpost, signpost.
4. Speak clearly and understandably. I can only judge what I hear.
5. Reasoning > evidence
6. No theory or plans in PF
7. No post-rounding

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