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,
My email if you decide to start emailchain for evidence sharing

drneeruagarwal@gmail.com

I have judged elementary , middle school, Novice High School and Junior Varsity 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.

Thanks,

Neeru

Updated for ’24-’25. If there’s anything not covered in here (tried to be as extensive as possible), just ask, but if it’s something like “are you good with counterplans” I might be v sad.

For Novice State (will be deleted 1/18): not lay,pls do not treat me like a parent judge. Tired of not flowing and worrying about “the email chain” and then a lack of nuanced ev comparison or even line-by-line (and then judges don’t care either, which is its own issue). The decision will always be disclosed. Don’t send PDFs or google docs, don’t send the 1NC before the 1AC is read (be reactive and smart), engage w/ the 1AC in the 1NC (will vote Aff on presumption otherwise). “This is LD” is only a response to T-USFG.

- I really prefer docs formatted circuit-style (here is an example of like the minimum for a traditional doc formatted in that way)

- Felt compelled to add this: because this rez uses "and/or," the Aff is burdened with defending one or both. They get to decide that. Neg debaters that rely on one NC: think again because if you read "ICC bad" and they defend UNCLOS (or vice versa), you don't garner offense.

- If you're in front of me and your opponent does NOT USE CUT CARDS and is instead PARAPHRASING, saying the line "reject paraphrased evidence since it artificially inflates strength of warrant and we can't verify that it's consistent with the original text" will make me so so happy (you will be happy too when speaks come out)

About: 4 years of LD in a GA HS (local first then circuit), UGA ’24, ’24 (M.Ed. if it matters to you, it probably doesn’t). Have judged on the circuit and locally since 2021. Familiar enough with the resolution to know what you’re talking about, not familiar enough to know all the intricate ptx DAs. Do whatever you do best—would rather see good theory debates than bad K debates, etc.

- Pronouns: they/she.

- Yes, I want to be on the chain (chansey.agler@gmail.com), speechdrop and fileshare on tab are fine; I won’t look at google docs, PDFs are inadvisable

- Fine w flex prep

- Pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round thx in advance; ask me for permission before recording an RFD

Speaks:

- Speed is fine if you’re clear, be extra clear (start slower) when it’s the first round of the day or of the tournament, appreciate slowing down on advocacy, interp, ROB, standard/criterion texts—more signposting is good, I usually need a few seconds to switch flows—audibly saying “onto the DA” and pausing for a second in the 1AR, for example, is helpful

- Speaks are based off of efficiency, strategy, and clarity, not arbitrariness—playing behind the scenes to try and balance historic gaps in speaks, lowering them for split 2NRs

- I typically average ~28.5 relative to the pool, would usually prefer not to disclose them immediately after the round

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

Ks, Policy: 1

Traditional: 2

Philosophy*: 2

Theory: 4

Tricks: 4

TL;DR: collapse, weigh, common sense is important, read complete arguments, do more link work

Top-level/must knows:

- Will vote on most arguments, better for policy and K arguments (method debates and clash rounds are fine). Experienced w/ philosophy but LD’s execution is hit-or-miss. Theory or tricks-heavy strats need to be complete arguments and have actual warrants. Meaningful, resolvable, complete arguments are good, hail marys are inadvisable regardless of style.

- Explanation, weighing, clash, and judge instruction are crucial. Do more resolving interactions btwn things. Yes tech > truth in that I resolve rounds based on the flow, am open to a lot of args (would prefer to see what you’re good at), but truth matters in the sense that args start at zero and go up from there and I’m not abandoning all common sense, if I didn’t understand it, I can’t vote on it.

- Most judges give awful RFDs—not listening to the round, ignoring arguments made besides what they like/don't like. Trying very hard not to be like that but there is a greater range of uncertainty in my decision when I have to do more work—explaining, doing link weighing, and resolving clash mean I can echo the 2NR/2AR and avoid decisions I am unhappy with, fine with questions but aggression/postrounding are nonstarters.

- Not a fan of frivolous/‘tabula rasa’ nonsense since I think what we do is and should be meaningful, the closer an arg gets to abhorrent or contrary to debate’s intent (think “flat earth”), the likelier it is I won’t evaluate it. Will not evaluate arguments generated exclusively by AI (unless it’s a performance about AI or something ig?).

- Not voting on -isms or discriminatory args, this includes args from hate orgs (ex: the heritage foundation). Will eval impact turns like spark, wipeout, and extinction good (read: as negative util/preserving value) but I understand why many aren’t receptive to these. Not evaluating things like ‘warming good.’ Threshold for responses is always lower the worse/edging on abhorrent the arg is.

- CX matters, you must be able to explain args to win on them, CX should never be 3 min of “what was your first contention…wouldn’t you agree…”

- Independent voters can be persuasive in the age of reading off docs and just not understanding engagement, in the age of widening ideological gaps, and the age of increasing accountability. Not everything rises to the level of independent voter, but speech acts do matter.

- Accessibility is important—lmk accommodations directly if possible, most emails go to my spam (this happened in a round), misgendering/racism/other -isms in round lead to loss of speaks and/or the ballot if egregious. I take misgendering very seriously. You and your opponent have the right to point it out and make it instant DTD, even if it happened in the 2AR. Advocating for this is exhausting. If there’s an issue of similar nature, let me know in whatever way possible.

- weigh <3

Lincoln-Douglas

Policy

- Probably most comfortable judging this, fair game for most things, though I will say I prefer topic DAs (esp w/ specific links to the plan) to generic ptx, not wild about tangential extinction impacts (do we really need to read ‘extinction’ on a topic like “standardized tests?”)

- Fine with specific plans and PICs, not fantastic for either extreme of the nebel T debate

- Tag and ev quality both matter—incoherent args (tags like “No China war” followed by a long card are as bad as a card highlighted to incoherence) are incoherent (this is a massive problem in LD rn and policy args are imo most affected by this), you only get credit for what’s flowed, do more ev weighing

- I think inserting re-highlighting is fine if it’s from portions of ev already read, must be aloud if it’s a different portion even if from the same article

- I think zero risk is a thing, CX can do a lot of work here too

- Like good impact turns, ev quality is necessary, innovation makes for some interesting debates, stale impact turns like the same version of spark every round are bad

- Yes internal link weighing—contest probability, timeframe, etc., makes my ballot easier when both sides impact to extinction

- 1NC needs to do more competition work in LD, love good perm debates but 10 “perm do both” analytics aren’t it

- Judge kick seems bad, 2NRs should learn to make strategic choices, won’t not eval it but definitely receptive to “it’s arbitrary”

- Case debates are great debates, do more solvency/link turns and not just 1 min of impact D after spraying 6 off (2NRs on case are always welcome btw)

- In LD, you should still warrant util/SV in the 1AC—the 1NC should always go for an NC if this isn’t the case

- If evenly debated, ground > limits for T; Aff on CP competition, Neg on CP theory; condo good; semantic controls pragmatic

- “You get ptx” or “we want ptx” isn’t great as an explanation of models for T, other than that, good for T interps that delineate models of debate and go for topic lit/controversy, 2AR must extend case if T was the 2NR, if you’re reading “X school’s Aff is the TVA,” explain what that means

- Not very moved by tournament dates, popularity, etc. for T—popularity doesn’t make an Aff immune to T as a germane criticism, though functional limits are persuasive

- Bad for plan flaw unless the plan text is meaningfully different from real implementation (“this isn’t how that law works in practice” = fine, “US meaningless/no period” = please no)

Kritiks

- Very solid or very weak rounds based on the work you do to make it great, honestly much better for a more technical K debate though I do understand that performances are important too

- I try to be familiar with a decent variety of lit but I do not guarantee I know the intricate details of your lit base (most familiar with queer theory), you should still explain args as if I do not have a base understanding, have voted from things like psychoanalysis to a simple cap K and back, you do you if you can explain it

- Not familiar with denser critiques of IR, happy to judge these but I’m unlikely to understand it without the 1NC doing some work here

- Have devoted a lot of focus in particular to queer and trans lit—don’t go for it just to go for it, higher threshold to win it when “state bad” is your only link, these lit bases are indebted to Blackness in their resistance strategies (this seems most relevant in methods debates)

- Ks of discourse – be reasonable, policing is bad, racism and other forms of abhorrent discourse are also bad

- Non-T Affs are completely fine, just have a relevant ballot story and do ‘something’ (don’t care what that ‘something’ looks like though—very low threshold here)—I do also enjoy creative visions of affirmation and like Affs that innovate

- Presumption and case pushes are good against K affs (more than a few short analytics)—a lot of teams fall short in explaining what the Aff does, what it endorses, ballot key, etc.—doing work at these levels treats the Aff like an Aff and makes for better rounds than “fiat is good because I prefer policy debates”

- Have judged a bit of K v. K rounds, K aff v. cap K is usually straightforward but otherwise, do a lot more “turns/solves case” and work on the perm than just “root cause,” resolving work is key—the two Ks aren’t usually a criticism of the same thing so perms that demonstrate interactions or resolve “perms in a methods debate” are more convincing than 5 brief versions of “perm do both”

- Not a fan of the “perm double bind”

Independent Voters

- I tend to view these as pressing concerns that must override substance, I think debaters are oftentimes too quick to throw out “auto-drop” or “repugnant” warrants without explaining DTD implications, but I also think problematic discourse is terrible—very receptive to things like misgendering as an IVI, less to things like “this is independent” if it’s a reps turn or something that should be resolved substantively; I find that many independent voters fall short of DTD and seem more DTA—for example, “legal definitions bad” seems like DTA

- Theory args (condo, CP legitimacy, etc.) =/= independent voters, idk why these are lumped together ngl

Framework (Policy v. K)

- Policy teams that go for “ToP doesn’t explain everything, prefer particularized methods on this issue” along with “state engagement good on this issue” do much better than those that rely on generics

- Aff FW v. K: a) start resolving “weigh case” vs. “debate is about discourse” much earlier, b) “extinction o/w” is overused and avoids clash, c) I honestly don’t usually understand most “procedural fairness” args on their own and so impacting the deficit to fairness is necessary

- T-FW—a) not great for “planless” Affs that still defend the rez in LD (e.g., a Kant AC), b) state engagement being better for movements and solving case is really enjoyable, “rez is worth debating” is good if applicable, c) 1-off FW strategies that devote most of the 1NC time to answering the Aff are honestly really enjoyable because of depth of clash

Philosophy

- Familiar with analytical ethical phil, limited familiarity with continental, quicker to understand the former (if it’s like Levinas I can probably understand what you’re saying but if it’s really esoteric then you should err on the side of overexplaining esp in CX), execution in LD is hit-or-miss—I like good FW debates but bad ones hurt my head

- Explain your theory of ethical good, explain the application of Kantian ethics instead of just going “that’s coercive, can’t do it”—I’ll listen to things like “taxation always bad” if that’s the logical conclusion of your FW, but that rarely seems to be the case—I think CX is important in these debates

- Won’t hack for epistemic/ethical modesty but I also won’t disregard high risk of extinction purely bc there’s clash at the framing level

- Not huge on phil ACs that also read a util advantage or phil ACs/NCs that get super tricky

- Unlikely to vote on FWs I can’t explain back to you or that are extremely circular to the point of uselessness—performativity and constitutivism warrants are often culprits here

- I do not want to hear source Kant. If other cards are outdated and constantly need bracketing for things like gendered language, perhaps it is time for revision

- TJFs: a) I understand the necessity for them in circuit contexts, though they usually don’t make sense unless util is in play, b) most TJFs are poorly warranted, explain why analytics or carded offense are good/bad, c) phil ed loss? maybe? idk that’s for you to decide

- Impact-justified frameworks are probably bad

- AFC/ACC: this is debate. clash is a thing and good and args that deny clash make me sad.

Traditional LD

- I started trad and understand it, I only vote off the flow (not “who spoke better”), if you only have lay experience, just be aware that I understand the topic, debate, and a variety of styles—it doesn’t mean “read something crazy for the sake of it.” Unless definitions of words are relevant to the debate (aka topicality), just debate substance. The Aff is not bound to a “plan,” but solvency is a germane question, and you can’t just say “it’s LD.”

- The 1NC must engage with the Aff, not doing so means I’m voting Aff because the Neg has the burden of rejoinder, 1NCs are weirdly orienting themselves to very little case coverage nowadays

- I do not want to hear cases that read like an essay

- Yes I disclose, ask questions in-person

- Ev comparison, weighing, and analysis are good in these rounds—it is not enough to say “x matters,” tell me why x/y matters more, don’t just restate things, grandstanding is unhelpful

- FWs should have warrants and not be “upholding my side of the rez,” explain why util or Kant or whatever is true

-Do not read "constitutionality" as a framework. Reconsider reading something often construed to antiqueerness in front of a queer judge.

- If there’s no clash at the FW level, just concede FW and move on, two people can agree on a metric and disagree on the best action under it, I guarantee I will be happier if I see an in-depth DA + case debate in trad than bad FW debate

- Trad v. circuit: circuit teams should explain their args (esp in CX, not explaining means I’m skeptical of your understanding of the arg), simplifying is good (1-off, case for Ks and 2-3 off w/o procedurals for policy = good), not penalizing trad teams for not understanding circuit norms like disclosure, not penalizing circuit teams for playing the game (ex: if it’s a late prelim/elim and you go 5-off, more sympathetic than early prelims)

- Say the name of the card before what you cut, don’t paraphrase ev, made-up ev = auto-L, brackets that modify meaning = L

- Shenanigans like “they had no value/criterion” if they conceded FW or did something like reading a K will not make me happy (pls don’t mansplain LD to me…)

- “they were abusive” – what’s abusive, do I drop the argument or the debater, how do I rectify this, why do I care (theory >>> “this is abusive” with no warrant/impact)

- Trad debaters can respect in-round safety too, this does cost ballots (overt racism and antiqueerness has made a resurgence in locals again), will penalize this stuff even if there’s not an argument made

- No set lens on the rez (Aff should do something but idk what “something” is), debaters’ dismissal of things like Ks =/= reasons to reject on my flow, if you think Affs should debate the topic, argue they should—read T-FW and not NCs that don’t engage

- Yes, I’m fine with CPs, but most “counterplans” in lay rounds don’t make sense to me tbh—pls endorse a singular, counter-course of action w/ actual ev that the CP solves Aff offense—don’t read an abstract counter-claim—I won’t vote on CPs I don’t understand

Theory

- Have judged a reasonable amount of theory, highly dependent on execution, needs more weighing btwn standards and i/l weighing to fairness/ed—resolvability is key and otherwise I tend to defer to substance and/or presumption—deficits to fairness are rarely weighed (ex: neg flex vs. PICs stealing Aff offense)

- Better for policy theory than LD-style strategic/friv theory, make the abuse story and model clearer (condo always bad? what’s allowed?), if I can’t draw the line btwn speeches, unlikely to vote on it (10 second condo args don’t make for good 3 min 2Ars)

- DTA + reasonability are often persuasive, beating back paradigm issues in general is often persuasive

- Bad for friv and abstract theory, clear and specific interps are easier for me to eval, won’t eval stuff abt opp’s appearance or similar, use common sense, not very good for “URL theory” or “punching theory” or other things circulating rn

- Combo shells are both arbitrary and strategic against spiky affs

- I prefer that you do explicitly extend uncontested paradigm issues but that you not be annoying abt it

- Don’t use theory to shut out tough convos

- Not a fan of “must include links to circuit debater” or the like

- Lots of shells = usually unstrategic, more than 2 and I usually question your strategic decisions

- Not flowing new 2AR theory args unless the 2NR was abusive (“strike it from the flow” will suffice too)

- Have voted for RVIs in the past, not entirely opposed to voting for them per se but I think substance is usually easier to resolve given the lack of weighing or resolving done in these kinds of rounds, and RVIs are usually not well-warranted or extended

- Misdisclosure is tough, I need: a) SLOW DOWN and tell me what was ASKED FOR and what was GIVEN—I eval screenshots from both ends, b) standards that tie into this difference, c) DTD warrants (why not drop an analytic if that’s what you’re indicting?)

Disclosure

- Disclosure is good on balance but I’m not huge on disclosure theory esp when the violation gets more contrived—as of late I think reading disclosure theory is a mandate for equality over equity and I’m pretty receptive to exceptions to the rule, policy v. policy is where I am most persuaded by it and K rounds least so

- Don’t need to disclose performances or similar materials (narratives probably fall under this umbrella)

- Not voting on this at a local. Y’all haven’t figured out how to format a doc, let alone use the wiki.

- New Affs bad is not my favorite arg but I’ll hear you—go for better warrants over generics, skip “can’t engage” if you put a lot of answers on case, “new Affs justify some level of Neg abuse” >> DTD, the joke “I prepped for “it’s new”” was maybe funny once in like 2019

Tricks

- I honestly do not understand TT as much as you probably want me to if I’m in the back

- Okay-ish for things like ethical paradoxes and maybe epistemic ones (one-card “skep Ks” are a nonstarter but gettier problems can be cool), not big on strategies designed to avoid clash—not a fan of sweeping theory spikes or “disregard the flow” that are tricky in nature, much worse for theory tricks than things like paradoxes

- Warrants are key, if I can't explain it back to you based on what was said in-round, it doesn't get the ballot

- If you want paradoxes to take out a framework, you have to devote time to them

- Bad for crazy logic paradoxes, I cannot flow a million Ps and Qs or understand an equation in the context of an LD round

- Slews of analytics are hard for me to flow, slow way down if the 1AC/1NC is loaded

- I evaluate all speeches in a given round, the exceptions do not usually come from tricks

Evidence Ethics (all events)

- I'll eval both theory and ev ethics challenges, the latter stops the round and winner gets a W, loser gets low speaks, theory plays out like any other theory debate

- If it's an ev ethics challenge, everyone needs to be silent and I’m looking over everything, if coaches/debaters try and sway this after the challenge, it’s an auto-L

- For clipping: I tend to not flow off the doc—this means I need a recording and definitive proof (beyond just a line or so)

Misc Stuff

- LD Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence – I have no defaults on theory (make arguments), permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, though presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy – it is MUCH easier to convince me that presumption affirms than permissibility

- I don’t care if you sit or stand—just be clear

CONFLICTS:

All entries – Sequoyah HS (GA), Perry HS (AZ), Ivy Bridge Academy (GA), Dean Rusk MS (GA)

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.

I'm a lay judge so please avoid spreading. I cannot flow your argument if I cannot understand it. Don't run any progressive debate (theory, kritiks, tricks etc.), you will be dropped.

Please send your speech doc before the round at vtahuja@gmail.com so i can follow along.

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!

Convince me, and explain yourself. The point, to me, is to be lucid and convince others of your opinion-- not to win a game based on technicalities. I'm not going to tank you or celebrate you for some mathematical dropped claim or missed protocol.

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 & Policy Coach @ The Potomac School since 2021,

W&M '24, GMU '22 (debated (policy) 4 yrs in HS & 4 yrs at GMU)

I have a masters in marine science & will be working for NOAA on Arctic policy & research come February.

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

Universal hot (lukewarm) takes

--Tech > Truth. Idk who the truth is so I’ll evaluate everything in the round at face value.

--I have no issues with speed, but I do have a problem with sounding like a blender on high. Some of you aren’t speaking fast, you're just a symphony of noise. I’ll clear twice before I stop flowing (and will make it very obvious I have stopped flowing.)

--As much as I try to remember to, I almost never time prep/speeches. If you ask me how much prep you have 8/10 times I will not know. Pls time each other.

--I ask to be on the email chain, so I have access to read evidence if I am instructed to do so. I do not flow off of speech docs.

--Impact calculus is always important. If I am buying your opponent’s arguments… give me a reason to vote for you anyway.

--Evidence!!!!! Warrants!!!! Evidence standards are in the trash can. I beg you to pull them out. (Most of the time) your evidence should have more than one sentence highlighted as a ‘warrant’. So many of you neglect to do any real warranted analysis. Examples ≠ warrants. Examples can be helpful, but ultimately do not rise to the level of warranted analysis you should be doing in debate. The team doing better evidence comparison is usually the team who gets my ballot.If the way you produce evidence is not in line with the NSDA Evidence Standards…. I may not be the judge for you. See PF header for specifics.

--If something happens in cross it needs to be in the next speech… I will never vote off of anything that happens in cross unless it also makes its way into a speech.

PF

--I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. I understand that not all teams are coached in the same way. However, if I am in the back of the round… you will benefit from sending cases/rebuttal docs BEFORE each speech.If you neglect to do this & you waste my time trying to hunt down a piece of evidence mid round… at the very least your speaker points will suffer because of it. Additionally, I have yet to see a round that has warranted a team asking for a marked document… even more egregiously you should never be asking your opponents to write or send out analytics… ur sooo self reporting… I know you aren’t flowing.

--Arguments need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus.However, tagline extensions of arguments do not fly. It is helpful when you reference author names of certain piece of evidence, but you need to do be doing warranted and comparative analysis in addition to naming your evidence. Defense is not sticky.

--Theory: I hate judging theory rounds. I’d rather watch grass grow. With that being said… I do think at national circuit tournaments teams should probably be disclosing. Take that as you will… I have no problem using speaker points to express my displeasure having to judge a disclosure round.

--Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. You can read my policy paradigm for more specifics. However the biggest things to consider are 1. I am more inclined to evaluate Ks that either indict the aff or link to the topic. So many PF Ks are equivalent to links of omission… I am less inclined to vote for those. 2. I am also more inclined to vote for aff teams that actually try to engage the K.

--Tricks: Do not do this to me I will be sooooo upset.

Policy

I no longer judge many policy rounds. Potomac has one novice policy team that I work with. If I am in the back of any policy round, presume that I know little about the topic broadly. Be as specific as possible in your explanation of arguments (especially when it comes to T, CP mechs, etc).

The longer version of my paradigm is below but, 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 yourinterpis reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp isslightlybetter. 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 goes alongway. 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.

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 vein 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.

Parent judge, please speed at a conversational pace. Send me anything you read at aharthur12@gmail.com

• Presentation of your arguments matters as much as the arguments themselves.

Hello debaters, I am a parent judge

Try and speak clearly for someone who doesn’t do debate and make it obvious what the most important arguments are. Thank you!

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 in my fourth year of judging debate. 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 of the topic.

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

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

I look forward to hearing you.

3rd year medical student

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(lay) judge,

• If you can please share cases so I can follow along I would appreciate it (veezee210@gmail.com)

• Don’t speak fast and explain your cases thoroughly

• Limit Complicated Jargon: Explain what the words mean

• I will judge based on

• Confidence and speaker skills

• Final focus

• Respectfulness

Have Fun!

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 have been a parent judge for 6 years, so I do know some of the basic rules.

Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions.

Keep your arguments generally socially acceptable.

I prefer probable arguments as opposed to farfetched arguments. I want to hear a good debate. Avoid repeating what others have said. Make sure you address previous speakers and expound on arguments. I want to know that you are listening to the debate and participating.

Please avoid bringing up your computer or tablet when giving speeches.

At the end of the session, I have to rank you and that is difficult, so please talk to me when I am finished if possible.

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

PARADIGM: Be kind, be honest, be clear, tell me a story that makes sense, and engage specifically with your opponents' arguments. 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 more than 5 years ago. Don't make ridiculous arguments or misrepresent evidence. I will almost certainly not vote for progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc.).

Most of the time, the team that does the smartest things analytically (great comparative weighing! response grouping! weighed resolution of clash!) wins. If you have to speak super fast, you're probably missing the point. I don't enjoy speed, but I can certainly flow it, short of spreading.

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.

I want to see the best round that you’ve gotat your ability level.

Novice Teams:

• Don’t stress! I love to see young debaters trying their best.
• Stick to the basics- Present your case well. Flow effectively. Try to address all your opponents’ points. Practice speaking with enthusiasm and confidence.
• CLASH! Listen to what your opponents are saying. Adjust your arguments so you’re talking specificallyabout the way your opponent presented their case. The more you can respond to what was said in this specific round as opposed to parroting general counter-arguments you’ve prepared, the better a debater you will be!
• Only spread if you really can do it.
• Use each round to practice skills you’ve been working on recently. Especially if you’ve gotten consistent feedback from judges or coaches, use this round to apply that feedback and see if you can perform better than the last round.
• Be respectful.
• Have fun.

Varsity/Experienced Teams:

• Show me what you got.
• Pick your strat based on the team you’re up against.
• When picking which case you run: I have no preference between truthful verses creative.
• If you’ve got a crazy case to run that will crush the meta, do it! Just make sure you have enough evidence and are familiar enough with your argument that you can pivot deftly to tough questions in cross or intense scrutiny as you collapse.
• If it’s a topic that simply insists on the meta, use it. I don’t care if we’ve seen the arguments a million times during a tournament if they’re effective. Argue it well and, if you’re bored, do it with flare.
• If you can spread and that will make the debate better, do it. If spreading makes you unintelligible, don’t. Emphasis
• While I like to see an attempt to line-by-line every point that’s brought up in case, as the round continues, I prefer meaningful clash on issues that grow relevant in the round OVER an unending fight on the veracity of each and every sub-point.
• Therefore: collapse. (If your opponent leaves things in your speeches untouched, go ahead and extend them. In this case, I still think it’s nice if you highlight a key issue that emerges in the round for me to vote on. But I if you get to keep all your offense, go for a blowout.)
• I love sign-posting. Be clear about your story of the round. It saves me thinking time if you spell out for me who you think has solvency, uniqueness, more standing arguments, etc. But also explainwhy.
• K and Theory only if it’s super awesome. I hold a higher standard for K then regular adjudication.
• No disclosure theory. That’s my only hard pass.
• In general, I will try to judge the round on the terms YOU set.
• Finally, I learn from every round. I reiterate, show me what you got. YOU teach US how awesome and varied debate can be.

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. 

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 senior at the Waring School, and I've been debating for 3 years in 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", saying I "should" vote for you is fine, but "need to" is annoying.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 both tech and truth. 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

PF Coach at Delbarton

Tech > truth

general:

1) I WILL NOT flow off doc

2) You need to cut cards, if you do not strike me.

3) EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND every piece of offense you extend turns, case, das all need proper extensions of LINK IMPACT

4) slow down in back half

5) I STRONGLY believe that good debaters should be able to win the flow while simultaneously adapting to the lay

substance:

1) if the argument is intuitive/stock I do not care how fast you speak

2) speak slower if you are going for something more wild

3) the evidence better say what you say it does evidence ethics is EXTREMELY important to me

prog:

1) disclo shell and paraphrasing shell r almost an auto W for me, everyone should disclose and not paraphrase

2) i have a high threshold for identity ks just because i know how they can be done well

3) topical ks ie cap, imperialism, etc r all cool

4) debate is supposed to be EDUCATIONAl if you are questioning how educational your kritik is dont read it in front of me

5) good T debates are cool

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add brookekb1@gmail.com and greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain.

Updated for Harvard 2/17/2024:

I don't typically judge LD; given this, I will try to be as tech as possible but no promises. I am comfortable with Ks, theory, etc. whatever weird arguments you want to run. Just be clear ab what you're doing and be ready to time yourself (lol)

Updated for Princeton 11/30/2023

In high school in Houston, TX, I competed in PF and FX for 4 years on the state and national circuits. In college, I competed in American Parli (APDA) and British Parli (BP) for 4 years. I graduated from Boston College in May 2023 with majors in philosophy and biology. I now work in clinical trials.

• Please be as clear as possible about where you are on the flow. Signpost and let me know which side you are starting on. I am going to be typing fast but I am paying attention :)
• No new evidence after 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary
• Speaker points based on strategy, not fluency
• Spreading is fine
• I DONT FLOW CROSS - let me know during your speech if something happened that you want me to put on the flow
• Weigh terminal impacts!!! Meta-weigh issues of scope, probability, etc. Impacts are NOT intuitive in PF and not for the judge to discern.

Plz let me know if you have any questions. Put me on the email chain!

alexandraboehning@gmail.com

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.

Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)

I am a parent judge who did forensics in high school. I prefer to hear arguments at a natural cadence and am more interested in a few coherent and cohesive ideas rather than a shotgun of info. The logical reasoning around how the data support your position should be clear and lay out a map of what you mean. Please respect your opponent.

My name is Alex Brevde (she/her), and I am a senior 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 its 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.

> 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.

I am a first year volunteer judge and I did not participate in debate during high school or college. 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. The use of spreading or K-cases are not encouraged.

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!

Former debater (hs policy and college NDT/CEDA...decades ago) and current parent of a PF debater.

I flow. Good with normative jargon. I care about the line-by-line. Number your arguments and signpost--I like a clean flow. I can handle spreading, I'll call "clear" if unable to keep up. If a shell or the arg is a tad squirrelly be deliberate so I don't miss warrants. If this is a fast-paced, high-stakes Varsity round...I’m not going to be up on the latest literature--so Ks will carry a risk of losing me, and none of us want that! Fancy srategies and theory are cool but slow down the explanations—connect dots for me. If it isn’t my making sense, my face will tell you. Please make it make sense :) I'm going to be best judging a normative round--but I'll listen to any argument you want to make.

Little things I’ve noticed about my preferences in PF (but like any tech judge, I work hard to evaluate the debate based on the round not my preferences)

• I’m a fan of case disclosure--in the hopes it will create a little more ev rigor in PF. My biggest surprise in PF is how little ev is read and scrutinized...but ultimately case disclosure is up to the debaters, not me!

• Housekeeping to cut down on time for ev exchange: start ev chain before round; Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting.

• If you offer a framework in your case, lean into it…, meaning it should match your impact/weighing or else it becomes a tad tedious for me.

• I would love to hear more comparative link weighing in PF.

A little FAQ for first/second years:

• I don’t flow Cx. It is binding. But you need to bring it up in your speech to get it in flow. And you don’t have to face me during CX, you can face your opposing team.
• Collapsing is good, if second final focus brings up new arguments, don’t panic. I’m not flowing it.
• Frontline in the second rebuttal. If you don’t, I’ll most likely buy the other team’s argument that it’s conceded.
• Good warranting and implications raises speaks.
• 
  I'm pretty laid back...have fun...sit, stand, go barefoot I don't care. Be clear before you'e clever, but be clever.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 professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. If you run K, please hand-hold me a little bit in terms of explaining their structure and why I should vote on them. I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, and I've been around long enough to be more and more receptive to those arguments. However I haven't yet judged a K round.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

7. Be nice. It's really important to remember that however well or poorly the round is going, you need to be respectful in the way your treat other participants in the debate. I will not accept debaters who attempt to make their opponents feel less than, even if those debaters are winning on arguments.

PF:

I typically vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care 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. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; 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:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Policy:

I have judged novice policy once. I'm aware of the structure of policy debate and various mechanics/techniques that have made their way into LD/PF. You should assume I will need a little bit of hand-holding if the round hinges on theory, topicality or K. If the round doesn't go there and no one instructs me otherwise, I will look to impact calculus by default when voting.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

she/her

Can put me on the email chain: lauren [dot] burdt [at] gmail.com

Would prefer Tabroom's anonymized docs sharing if enabled

Background: I coached national circuit LD in Iowa and Nebraska until 2018. Have coached students to late elims of the TOC and NSDA Nats. I've mostly been in tab rooms and judging locally since then, so my threshold for speed and recognition of new arg trends has gone down since then. Debate's your game; I'm happy to be in the back of the room for whatever you prefer to do as long as we're all safe and having fun. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well-researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate, I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

Couple specific things:

-Speed: Probably not keeping up with your top speed these days. Will yell slow and clear. If you're debating someone who asks you to slow down, I expect you to make your best efforts to ensure they can follow the debate.

-Theory/phil: Sure. This is how I debated. I enjoy framing-heavy debates that compare the applications of different ethical frameworks. Engagement > evasion; extensions of a dropped sentence fragment buried within a paragraph of analytics do not particularly excite me.

-T: Substantive topicality debates ("T as a turn to aff's method") typically fare better with me in the back of the room than "aff must read plan", but I'm down for whatever floats your boat.

-K: Sure. This is primarily what I coached. Feel like these debates have gotten more buzzwordy these days which is not a great strategy to pick up my ballot. I'm uninterested in imposing my own ideological preferences as a judge, and I'm open to experimentation with what debate can/should be. I judge a lot of clash debates.

-General: I'm not following along in the doc. I flow speeches straight down and I evaluate debates holistically. Explanation matters, judge instruction important, big picture storytelling good.

-Happy! I like it when debaters are nice to each other. The friends you make in debate will last much longer than your memory of Ws and Ls. Personality is fun, sass is fun, but I have a pretty low threshold for being frustrated with actions and behaviors that work against building community. Have fun, be smart, and I'll do my best to evaluate rounds the way you tell me to.

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. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com- This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

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

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- 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.

----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:

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

29-30: 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/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

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

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

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

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

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes 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 so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

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/ROB, 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.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, 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. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

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.

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.

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay judge and have been judging PF debate since 2022

I value clear and concise points that are well presented with the right balance of evidence and are not overly data-driven.

Best of luck to you!!

Sid

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.

I am a relatively experienced parent/lay judge; this will be my third season judging high school speech and debate tournaments. I was a high school debater in Hong Kong and was also active in speech and drama. (I won several inter-school debate and speech tournaments). I judged three novice Public Forum debates as a parent judge in 2022-23 (at Lincoln-Sudbury, Newton South and Harvard Forensics). For the 2023-2024 season, I judged all Speech categories at St. Nick Showdown plus varsity Public Forum at NSDA qualifiers, NCFL qualifiers, and Harvard Debate Tournament. I prefer no spreading (quick speaking is fine as long as it's comprehensible). I am starting to flow.

Hello,

I go by Brian, and I am a Director of Ivy Bridge Academy. I don't need to be in the loop for email chain unless it is necessary: brianchoi627@gmail.com

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 and no spam of contentions (C1-3 is preferable). Flay judge preference

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! Frontline is preferable for 2nd Rebuttal.

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!

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)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
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. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

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— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) 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. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more 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. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong 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'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

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 like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

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

Email: aaroncontreras04@gmail.com

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: nacurry23@gmail.com

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:

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.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I like chili Good Day Debaters,

I am an intermediate judge and prefer off-time roadmaps to help follow the flow of the debate. Please avoid spreading; if you do plan to spread, sharing your cases in advance is appreciated. I value clear and straightforward communication, so please avoid using jargon. It's important to be respectful to all participants throughout the round.

Most importantly, remember to have fun and enjoy the debate!

Third 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 :)

Try to speak slowly and show compassion - that will reassure me that you're not a robot overlord :)

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

also collapse and extend please, write my ballot in final focus

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

theovdatta@gmail.com

I did some PF

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.

update on communication: I won't STOP you from speaking to your partner while they are giving a speech, but please don't do it. I will dock speaks, and I have never seen it been done well enough to justify both the perceptual loss and the interruption in thought process. Just do what I did when my partner missed an argument – write it big on paper, and hold it up for them to see.

update on speed: I did a lot of debate and I can flow very well. With that being said, I will not flow off of the doc (I think its a bad norm). Take this advice as you will.

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: gdetuya@columbushs.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. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. 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 aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion. If you're asking POIs, keep it to 15 sec or less, dont badger your opponents with multiple back to back attempts at asking.

About Me:

I'm a 6th 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.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

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

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing 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- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

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. Don’t get caught up in solvency.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

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 an experienced PF judge who values the key principles of PF. I have been judging PF since 2011, and I debated in 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, don't just state a weighing mechanism and assume that puts it on the flow, do not give me a super lengthy off time road map, that sort of thing. Add me on email chains: lindsay_donovan@milton.edu

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 in scope they may be than your opponents). I do not like source wars, or taking long periods of time to call for evidence or look at evidence, especially out of prep time. If your only strategy is to call into question the validity of evidence, you will not earn my vote. I will primarily vote on the flow, but I think persuasion is the crux of debate and can make flow better... and can stick out more to me than just an extended tag on the flow.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

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

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Theory/K/what have you: If Theory or K is fair, understandable, and well reasoned I can follow it. But in general I find most theory debates unfair in nature, most people just use it as a tactic to win and have no heart in it for the sake of smart argumentation. Notably I will not vote for Disclosure theory. It is a norm, not a rule :)

Pet Peeves:

• Tech > Truth (If you are saying something blatantly not true or distorting/mis-paraphrasing your opponent's evidence I will mark you down).
• Nuclear war impacts, unclear warranting or no warranting only evidence.
• Overly aggressive/rude tactics. Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. I tend to vote for more calm, collected, and cordial teams.
• "Collapsing" feels like a fancy way to say dropping all your points.... I don't like it. Why bring up points in the first place so easily to discard? Run a 1 contention case then... Never concede anything!
• Also - I hate Solvency (it is a Policy concept, and PF does not have the burden of proving/disproving solvency as a voting issue unless the resolution SPECIFICALLY calls for it.) This means, do not ask how they "solve for" whatever point or that I should downvote teams who cannot completely solve issues.

Spreading and 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 at your best ability.

Don't be malicious please! 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 (or if you ask me to! Always ask your judge to stop a round if you feel unsafe).

Coached (and still coaching LD,PF,CX, CONGRESS, ALL FORMS OF SPEECH) for 18+ years

Jdotson@potomacschool.org email chain (yes)

Welcome to Nat Quals in Richmond!

Public Forum:

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. And at this point, just send me cases anyway.

Evidence and ethics (I am getting very tired of messy cutting and building sentences from nowhere. People need to be calling that out more) So cut your own 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.

Flex Prep:

Sure, if we are in TOC and possibly elim rounds, but other times I think sticking to traditional PF is best.

Prep time:

I am not 100% stickler to tenths of a second; but I don't round up. I try to keep good time and remind you. My time is official prep in the round.

Timing cases:

I do NOT need you to hold your timer up when time is up on folks' speeches. I got it. MY time is official. I do not flow after time is up. You are saying stuff that means nothing at that point.

Frameworks

are not 100% needed.

Overviews/Observations/Definitions are also useful. If you know what to do with them; I will vote off of them all especially if they stay on the flow and are not addressed.

Impacts

Use them; impact calculus

Weigh them; meta weighing is helpful

Analyze them

Front lining

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

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.

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. If you use dislco just to win a round, it should be against other teams that would do the same thing to you.

My coach said we can't post on the wiki;Email...text...

copout... disclo will win

Kritiks

I mind if you run a K unless it is 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.

GREAT COMMUNICATOR DEBATES

If you are looking at my paradigm, you are probably already a debate student who is used to checking Tab. So I will be quick. Usually, I am a serious flow judge, but I will judge this tournament based on my understanding of the most important elements of the criteria set forth by the Reagan Debates ballot. I used to host the Reagan Debates in the Mid-Atlantic many years ago, where one of my students, Ronald Thompson Jr. qualified to the National Tournament. We traveled to the Reagan Library in 2015, where at Nationals, he made it to quarters. He is a NexGen Leader .

I know what to look for in a winner, just keep confident and do a good job debating and speaking.

other debate formats:

I judged LD years ago so if I am in LD pool I am a traditionalist

I judged CX years ago but I will listen to everything you throw at me

Super speed/Spewing/Spreading beyond recognition does not impress me but if you must, just send case.

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is colindownes@gmail.com — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

Some stuff you probably care about:

Ks, K affs, performance, and other, non-normative ways of engaging with debate and the resolution are fun and fine in my personal view, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial.

Speed is ok. Clarity is essential. Paperless debate has gotten debaters into some very bad habits, among which is thinking that they can rely on judges to read speech docs to reconstruct basically unintelligible 1ACs and 1NCs. I won't be doing that. This is an oral advocacy competition. It's impossible to articulate a brightline on this but them's the breaks. So consider being conservative on this front. That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I need you to slow down to compensate for that.

Some stuff I care about:

Cross ex is important. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism and if that's obvious it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact where the link story is poorly articulated and badly warranted. Relatedly, I will vote on presumption and feel strongly that the aff has the initial burden of persuasion.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions 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 a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

My cranky opinion is that "Perm: do both" is not an argument, it's just a claim without a warrant.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

PF

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad disclosure and evidence exchange practices combined with the use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this concerning state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for voting on this stuff or signing a ballot on an evidence violation. In my view, a paraphrase which substantially distorts the content of a card is distortion in the sense of the NSDA evidence rules and I will absolutely decide a round on that. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). 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 a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. 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.

For related reasons, I have a very high threshold for voting on theory in PF. If you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using technical arguments to bully a less technical team I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Courtesy and promptness in satisfying requests for cards are something that I will take into account in speaker points. Your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly provide to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased.

Congress: I beg you, if you are not giving an authorship/sponsorship or first negative speech, you need to (1) be a little extemporaneous and not just read a canned speech, and relatedly (2) you need to clash with prior speeches and directly respond to them in some way. If you don't do those things, the speech isn't getting better than a 3/6 from me, no matter how artfully delivered. This is a debate event, not a speech event.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I learned 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.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian, a socialist, and a lawyer for a labor union.

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

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: zdyar07@gmail.com. Also add it to any email chains.

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 tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Coached and judged since 2020 freelance, then Delbarton, and now as the Director of PF at Bronx Science

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 going fast 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

Evidence

- DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department. I also will evaluate para theory, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for it.

Rebuttal

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

- 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 (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive).

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- 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 well-resourced programs bashing each other over the head with theory and/or there was a serious violation, carry on.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks 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.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

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

- "try or die" is not comparative weighing. I think it's a massive logical fallacy the debate community partakes in.

Assorted things

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

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently subjective and somewhat biased-- I will evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 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 likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't 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**

Hello! I’m the head coach at Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons.

I have a background in law and have been teaching AP US History for a while. I tend to prefer economic, social, and historical arguments. Since 2013, I’ve primarily coached Public Forum (PF).

When judging, I really enjoy a good clash of ideas and creative analysis. I’m open to just about any argument, as long as you explain it clearly, warrant it, and back it up with relevant evidence. That said, being "open to anything" doesn’t mean I’m okay with distasteful arguments—keep it civil and respectful.

I don’t strictly fall into either the tech>truth or truth>tech camps. Think of me as closer to a lay judge. Just because “there’s a card” doesn’t mean I’ll automatically buy the argument. Make sure your arguments are well-explained and warranted. I need to understand what you're saying to be persuaded, so clarity is key.

Communication is crucial. If I can’t follow due to speed, I may not flow it. I usually won’t ask you to slow down because I prefer to avoid intervening, but if you’re spreading, that’s going to be a problem. I can handle a reasonably fast pace, but don’t expect to win by brute force alone.

I appreciate a respectful CX. If you need to ask for evidence, that’s fine, but don’t turn the round into an evidence battle. If you call for evidence, I hope you plan to actually use it. I listen to CX but don’t flow it. I’ll make note of interesting points in hopes they come up in the speeches. I almost never review evidence unless there’s a serious claim or ethical issue. If I feel like you misrepresented or misused a card, you’ll likely lose the round. I definitely prefer debates that are more conversational in pace.

Feel free to give an off-time roadmap—no need to ask, just go ahead.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case—don’t just read it. Weigh the arguments, link them, extend points, crystallize the round. Without clear framework and weighing, I’ll default to what’s standing at the end of the debate. Please don’t introduce new arguments in summary or final focus.

As for T's and K's, run them at your own risk. I’m not totally against them, but I tend to favor a good RVI and I’m not a fan of running these against inexperienced or novice teams. I also think T's get abused too often, so be honest with it. I’ll weigh what makes sense, including any real-world harms like abusive behavior or bad-faith misgendering.

Pettiness won’t win me over, but you should still stand your ground. A little sass is great, but there’s a fine line between sass and pettiness, so be mindful of that.

If you’d like feedback after the round, I’m always happy to share my thoughts, but know that I submit my ballots before offering feedback. I understand that some rounds (like bubble rounds) matter a lot, but I don’t check records before submitting my decision. I hope that regardless of the outcome, you leave each round feeling that it was a meaningful experience.

Please add me to your evidence chain: **arturo@arturofeliz.com**

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 sophomore 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!

Hello,

As a former competitor and winner of the 46th Harvard National Forensic Tournament in the international division, I understand the dedication and hard work that goes into competitive debate. I have been coaching for four years and occasional judging as well.

Here's what you can expect from me as a judge:

1. Clarity and Speed: I expect debaters to speak clearly, ensuring that arguments are comprehensible. While some speed is acceptable, spreading should be avoided.

2. Evidence Battle: If there is an evidence battle, I want to see it. Debaters should support their claims with credible evidence and be prepared to defend their sources.

3. Warrants and Impacts: I discourage running pure theory without providing warrants and impacts to support your claims. It's important to clearly articulate the reasoning behind your arguments and explain their significance.

4. Weighing Arguments: It's your responsibility to weigh the arguments presented in the round. I will evaluate the strength of each argument based on its warrants and impacts.

5. Cross-Examination: While cross-fires are valuable for clarifying arguments, they do not make or break rounds. Focus on delivering strong speeches that effectively convey your points.

6. Warranted Claims: Ensure that all claims are warranted and connected. If arguments are not clearly explained, I may need to make assumptions, which could impact my decision.

7. Evidence-based Arguments: Avoid engaging in moral arguments without evidence or empirical support. Debates should be grounded in facts and logical reasoning.

Overall, I am committed to providing a fair and impartial evaluation of each round. I encourage debaters to approach each debate with professionalism, integrity, and a focus on excellence.

Best of luck to all participants,

Shannon Garrido

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

You may send cases to me at jules@floristsreview.com.
I am a parent 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 :)

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com AND lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) Try to set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 4th year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu.

TLDR: tech > truth. I will evaluate anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and weighed.

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that case/argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debate washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case/argument, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot. I would also like to preface that this is in the context of a case argument, but I have also happily voted on any type of offense that has followed this structure.

Some overall specifics:

Speed: I am good with PF speed, but it's more important that your opponent is okay with it rather than me. Also, if you are going to be spreading please just slow down on tags and author names, dont just go through it full speed.

Framework: I am cool with pretty much any framework read in PF, just nothing phil oriented. If a framework is read, and a counter framework is not read, I will default the framework read. Otherwise, if two opposing frameworks are read, I prioritize pre-fiat offense then post-fiat. I often find teams under prioritizing pre-fiat offense, you should go for these arguments instead of engaging with the post-fiat offense of the framework.

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: I am not insanely versed in the norms of PF, but I think disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I rather not judge a friv debate, if you wanna read one, i probably will not flow it. Otherwise, I have voted for disclosure, paraphrasing, and vague alts. As long as you win some kind of in round abuse, I will probably vote for it.

K’s: This is where I am more comfortable evaluating. I think K teams in PF don’t utilize the alternative to its full potential, please spend time explaining how the alternative resolves the link of the K. Otherwise I am somewhat familar in: capitalism, settler colonialism, psycho (lacan), virilio, and security.

Phil: nah.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution. Also a great way to respond to the K!

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that.

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.

Message me on facebook if you have any questions!

Somethings I really enjoy:
- House music
- Tay-K
- Warrant comparison.

Somethings I dont really enjoy:
- Offensive overviews while speaking 2nd.
- Saying you outweigh on scope when you dont.

Lay judge.

Speak clearly.

Any speed is fine.

Be respectful to each other.

Good cross examination responses.

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 or flow. I enjoy helping debaters grow and being as specific as possible in my final deliberations.

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as jeremy lee's

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 theory

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 third year of judging local and national tournaments.

I base my decision off of my flow. Please be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude. No spreading, speak slow so I can understand you. Finally, 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 automatically lose 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.

Cross should be for either a) establishing a framework (e.g. "Can we agree that [term from the topic] means [definition]?"), b) make a point, or c) set up a point you get to make later. I'm not scoring cross per-se, but if you run a tight cross and either make a good point or use an answer later to good effect, it'll go to speaks. Being a jerk in cross will *also affect speaks.

Yes, I want to be on an evidence thread if you start one. (tampalaw@gmail.com) Yes, you can speak fast but don't policy spread me. Kritiks and mathematical annihilation arguments (e.g. "Even if it's only a 0.001% chance, nuclear war means extinction therefore we outweigh") should be used sparingly and only if *truly warranted and supported.

PS I am perfectly fine with paraphrasing. Heaven help you if it's not fair, of course... but if it is I prefer not to have a ridiculous block quote from some article. Be persuasive... not technical.

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 not a fan of spreading or theory.

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

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

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).

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

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 2023 when theirs is from 2021...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

Clarity is very important to me. Too often I see debaters sacrifice clarity for the sake of getting through as many cards as possible. If I can follow your entire speech (especially when you are reading cards), I'll award an extra .3 in speaker points.

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. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.

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

So

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

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.

• I am a post graduate in Env Engg. & Management from IIT Kharagpur.
• Have 23+ years of experience in Information Technology including 16+ years in leading large programs for delivery in shipping and Healthcare Industry. Currently working as Strategy and Planning specialist.
• Public Forum Debate judging started in 2/18/2023. Have judged ~21 rounds including 4 triples so far till Mar-2024
• Participants introductions before actual start of debate would definitely help me.
• Would love to see arguments summarized at the end of case presentation and rebutting section.
• Maintaining respect for everyone in the room and keeping calm during debate is always desirable.

My email in case you have any questions and want to reach me : vishu.jain30@gmail.com

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

Hello everyone, I’m Kati (she/they). I am the lead PF coach & curriculum writer 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 as a fish. 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 specific paradigmatic questions for me, feel free to ask before we get started, but I pretty much am a blank slate. What matters to me most is that arguments make sense & I know what I'm voting for and why it matters.

General Prefs:

-Speed is fine/good! But don’t sacrifice your clarity & please don't yell into your mic if we're online.

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

-Weigh everything, even/especially 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.

email chain: samjones@college.harvard.edu

PLEASE EXPLICITLY WEIGH AND EXTEND LINKS - IF YOU DO NOT I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE TO DECIDE WHAT WARRANT/IMPACT IS MORE IMPORTANT AND NO ONE WILL BE HAPPY.

Update Harvard 2024: For some reason, everyone keeps reading extinction impacts without internal links and no link weighing. I like extinction as an impact when done well, but it isn't an excuse to not read links and not weigh. "There's no internal link in case" is a valid response. If both teams go for extinction, please give me explicit link weighing. "Our impact happens first" isn't weighing unless give me a reason to care. I'm more likely to vote on weighing over extinction than a sketchy link into extinction. Maybe I'm old, but one person per speech and first/second cross.

Day 3: I have not been getting enough sleep, so the more coffee I get brought the better my decision will be. I'm not going to vote on arguments for which I don't understand the internal links - this is the most likely to be true on conflict scenarios.

tldr: debate is a game, tech > truth, and warrants > cards.

Respond to offense and concede defense as soon as possible. First rebuttal defense is sticky until frontlined. I'm almost always going to prefer a warrant over a card. A round where everyone gets 30s is a round where I vote on high-quality warrant comparison.

Without metaweighting, I default uniqueness > magnitude. I won't flow off docs. If you're reading prog, assume I have no background. I'm open to ROTBs which have an explicitly defined way for your opponents to win under the ROTB. I default fairness > education, i'm truth over tech on most shells, and I will vote on RVIs.

Wear whatever and say whatever you want. I don't really listen to cross, but it makes me sad when people talk over each other. I'll vote on anything.

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.

I prefer to hear concise and well-summarized arguments instead of attempting to cover many points with fast-paced speech.

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. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

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, unless there's actual in round abuse. Running disclosure theory against a novice team is abusive. 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!

Debated. Did okay. Don't care about debate anymore.

Speech docs would be helpful and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

FOR NCFLS:I've never watched a policy round in my life, treat me like a 5 year old (some of them are probably smarter than me).

IMPORTANT: Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when you do all of the pet peeves in a round. For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing, strike me.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Truth over tech, please for the love of all that is holy have warranting

- 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 the first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier

- 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

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

- 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.

-Theory: Don't read it, I'll drop you. If there is actual abuse that needs to be covered, you don't need a theory shell.

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

- 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

Hi I'm David I debated for 4 years at Strake and have been judging for 3r

-a good standard for extending an argument in the backhalf is if a spectator came into round during summary they should be able to understand how your argument works and why its true (by true I mean a reasonable explanation for why something happens)

-weighing is important but it needs to be comparative its not enough to say ours happens first you have to explain why thats more important than whatever issue you have with their timeframe

-Ill evaluate whatever you want to read dont let me curb your enthusiasm but im not as familiar with progressive arguments so youll have to make sure you explain things well

-speed is fine but I prefer when rounds are slower the more you clear and articulate you are the better the round is

-please keep cross fire civil people are too competititve trying to get in questions and answers and people get aggressive and I dont like that I like when teams go back and forth with one question each you can follow up on your question after your opponent has the opportunity to ask you something

I dont need to be part of the email chain if yall want to do an email chain please try to get it set up before round to avoid unecessary delays

I debated in WSD in high school for Greenhill ('22). I don't debate much anymore (Harvard '26)

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.

PF specifics:

1. I do not consider an argument responded to because you said you responded. I consider the contents of your response, and consider an argument true until explained otherwise. However, I do NOT consider an argument important until explained why.

Hopefully you debate because you enjoy it. In that vain, have fun :)

As a lay judge, I come to the debate without extensive experience or expertise in the specific subject matter being discussed. This means that I will be evaluating the debate from a perspective of common sense and general knowledge, rather than technical or specialized knowledge.

While I will be looking for clear and convincing arguments, I will also be paying close attention to how effectively the debaters communicate their ideas to a general audience. I want to see debaters who can explain complex concepts in simple terms and make their arguments accessible and understandable to someone without specialized knowledge of the topic.

Overall, my goal as a lay judge is to provide a fair and objective evaluation of the debate that reflects the values of clarity, simplicity, and persuasion. I am excited to see the creativity and ingenuity of the high school students as they present their arguments and engage in a thoughtful and respectful debate.

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 high school debate. I have judged on last year Harvard National. Although I don’t have a lot of judging experience, I do understand the rules of debate. I like my debaters to be polite to each other and prefer if they speak at normal speed. 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, sedonakorzay@gwu.edu

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 you don't, you might not like how I vote

- Don't abuse and overview

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 most Theory, you're lowering your chance of me voting for you. PF is supposed to be accessible.

- 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.

Please send your speech doc tosrini_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 3 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 have resumed my debate participation after a long break last year. I enjoy Public Forum judging and coaching.

I don't have speaker preferences and will judge mainly on flow, 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. Have fun, debate is a wonderful life experience!

For email chains sga1011@gmail.com

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 will not (generally) 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 will only check a card if someone points out to me in-round that the card has been misrepresented.

Talking slightly fast is fine but if you spread, I will not follow your arguments well.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD. No Ks or theory.

Tech > truth but if you can explain why your opponent has made a very unlikely argument or has not illustrated a feasible link chain, I will probably be quite receptive to that rebuttal. Likewise, if you can explain why your argument is most reasonable and probable, I will be happy.

FOR PF:

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 or given me some good weighing as to why I should prioritize magnitude over likelihood.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

I am a college student who did PF in high school.

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.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• 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. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• 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 the more likely I am 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 should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form 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.

Qualifications: I am currently a member of Model UN at Boston College, a co-chair at one of the crisis governments at EagleMUNC, and a debater at the Parliamentary Debate Union of BC.

Judge Paradigm:

1. Make your speech clear and articulate - I don't mind the speed of the speeches, but do not throw bunch of different information all at once.
2. Track time - give each other enough time during cross-fires and track your speech time.
3. Think before you speak/question - think twice before asking a question or saying something; make sure it is not rude, highly controversial, or biased.
4. It is quality over quantity—please present quality evidence rather than clumps of data.
5. Don't stray off - try to focus on the main topic.
6. Respect others, including other students and the judge - laughing at someone or having extreme facial expressions or reactions are some examples of disrespect.

If you have any questions, regarding my paradigm or other personal/educational information, please feel free to email me to the email address below!

leefdk@bc.edu

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

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll; Collegiate

Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-All evidence read will be in cut cards and sent before its respective speech (marked documents afterward is ok)

-Debaters will not clip cards or otherwise misrepresent evidence (paraphrasing is a voting issue)

-Debaters will treat their opponents, judge(s), room and partner with decency

-DEBATERS WILL BE READY TO START THE ROUND ON TIME

-Debaters will time themselves

-Google Docs speech documents must be downloadable

----------

Policy:

-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.

-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.

-I'm happy to vote for procedural fairness.

-I'm equally happy to vote for an impact turn against procedural fairness.

-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.

-I thoroughly enjoy a good T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").

-Quality over quantity for off-case. Kick any conditional/dispositional off you don't go for. Judge-kick from neg justifies Reasonability from aff -- both are calls for intervention, but at least reasonability is an argument, rather than the absence of an argument.

-Generally, no RVIs.

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!

-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.

-Perms are tests of competition.

-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean its always a good argument)

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm beginning to judge more LD, but I have >10 years of experience with Policy and PF debate. As such, I'll be judging like this is a 1v1 policy round. Speed is usually fine, but please slow down on analytics and shells, especially if they aren't in the doc (I'd prefer them to be in the doc). I'll clear you if you're too fast, without penalty to your speaker points if you're responsive. Flex prep annoys me but I'll allow it. For the sake of all things holy, SIGNPOST (that includes giving me an actual pause to go to the next flow). If my flow is a mess, my RFD will be a mess. Help me help you.

Thoughts on arguments:

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new.

-Counterplans and Perms - Process counterplans are broadly legitimate. I default to aff fiat being immediate, but I'd be interested to see fiat/implementation contested. Perms are tests of competition.

-T - I love voting on T, both for it and against it. This is especially true of T against policy affs (competing interps on words other than "Resolved:" or "USFG"). I'm less familiar with Nebel/Whole Res T, but I'm willing to evaluate it if warranted well. Education > Fairness in most cases.

-Affs that don't defend the resolution - I have no face value objections to these. That said, I've found method testing to be the most compelling negative argument for SSD. Why is your injunction against the "norm" preferable?

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

No specific preferences, just keep it respectful and efficient. I'm a former competitor in this event so I'm well versed in the rules but I may need an occasional refresher :)

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

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 will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! 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 causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

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 (I don't prep the topics for these formats anyways) with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, I don't like listening to extinction level impacts but will vote on it, 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. Please don't spread faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. 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. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. 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 of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" 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.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

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. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

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

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. 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 if a lack of warrant comparison requires me 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

• 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. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

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!
• While I tend to be tech>truth, if you are unclear or disorganized it won't help you
• Please weigh - I am quantitative but you need to also take into account probability and timeframe.
• 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.
• Please include me in the email chain or doc share using alexlin.pf@gmail.com.

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.

for South Dakotans:

If people in the room want disclosure/feedback immediately after round I will do it.

In general I think debaters should be more creative and more willing to make strategic calls. More specifically:

• PLEASE use me as a judge to test interesting frameworks/non-stock arguments.
• You should concede framework if it's obvious you should concede framework. You should always ask: Do these frameworks prioritize meaningfully different things? If no, framework probably doesn't matter. Similarly, the NC does not have to read framework. You can just say "I concede the aff framework."
• I will HEAVILY reward these things in the 2nr/2ar:
  1) Choosing one or two arguments and weighing them very well (both links and impacts). I do not like split voters that try to win everything in the round.
  2) Weighing against the best version of your opponent's case. If you start your voters with the phrase, "even if you believe all of my opponent's arguments," and then you convince me that you would still win, I will give you a 30.
  3) Clearly implicating arguments in terms of the mechanics of the round (e.g., "if I win my deontological framework, then neg can't weigh any consequential offense, which means their contentions 1 and 2 don't matter").
• Empirics need warrants. If you cannot explain your evidence I straight up might not vote on it. If neg reads “trickle down economics works and wealth taxes decrease investment” (with mediocre warranting) and aff reads evidence that says this isn’t true, aff also needs to explain why this isn’t true, otherwise I will be very hesitant to vote for them.
• It's your burden to have a warrant, not your opponent's to point it out. If you extend an impact that I believe to be unwarranted I will not vote on it. This also means you get the implication of your warrant, not your tag. You can't be like "a wealth tax causes economic collapse" if your warrant just says that investment will decrease. I will listen to your cards and will be sad if you over-claim impacts.
• Huge fan of strategically dropping arguments.

—

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

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 200 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 look forward to an educational exchange of rebuttals and crossfire.

Points: All speaker points start from 27, and extra points are awarded for logical links, extending good warrants, and impacts.

I appreciate it if you could connect the dots for me, as to why your contentions make more sense compared to your opponents.

I will not call for cards unless I need them 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 senior 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

VBI San Diego 24'-PF lab leader

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

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

General debate thoughts (PF/LD/Policy/WSD)As cringe as it is to write, I view myself as a critic of argumentation. This means that any argument you make must be warranted. Absent a warrant your argument is not an argument and I will not flow it.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the rebuttals/Final focus, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 5 seconds of the final speech. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." 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.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal/final focus, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last speech.

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.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

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!

Policy:I have not judged much on the patents topic, I do not know the lingo, I do not know what is considered "topical" by the community. Start slower and work up to full speed.

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.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. 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.

Any other questions let me know!

Public Forum:

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; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum. 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): At this point it's either Util or Structural violence which is fine. If you are going to read a framing argument use it. If both sides are reading the same frameworkbe comparative. I find link ins to framing to be persuasive when well explained. If both sides have a different framework tell me why to prefer yours, or link in, or both. Going for magnitude meta-weighing and structural violence is kind of strange absent good warranting.

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: Tread carefully all ye who enter here.Disclosure and round reports theory are going to be an auto L-25 unless your opponent is reading some way off the wall argument that is not germane to the topic. In general the more "progressive" the argument the more willing I am to evaluate theory. Any attempts to read theory as a cheap shot victory will mean you get dropped. Reading theory args to "keep PF public" are persuasive to me. So spreading theory is not the worst if your opponents are going too fast. All of that being said theory debate is the debate I LEAST want to see. If a team reads theory against you, you should make it an RVI. It doesn't make sense in an event that is so short speech time wise that a team can read theory and not go for it, but as the team getting theory read on you, you need to make that argument.

Non-traditional stuff/Kritiks: 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. Kritiks with a strong link to the topic are really underutilized in my opinion in PF. Performative kritiks/kritiks that do not have a strong link to the topic have less pedagogical value in this event (I can expand on this thought if you ask me about it), however if that's your strat go for it. That being said, especially with non topical kritiks, I am more than willing to evaluate theory arguments about why kritiks are bad in PF/why topical education/fairness is preferable.

Argument rankings:

Substance-1

Topical Kritiks-1

Non-topical kritks-3

Theory-4

Tricks- -10000000000000000000

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. 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.

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

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.

I am a college student with little debate background.

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 analyze them for you. Public forum is made for the public, therefore, please try to make things simple and as straightforward as can be.

Try to make the round fun!

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 debate), 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 want to see effective and explicit weighing.

I can take notes at a pace slightly faster than conversational. If you spread I will lose track of my notes and your argument. I prefer clarity over number of words said.

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 senior at the University of Florida, where I am studying political science and philosophy. This fall, I'll be starting law school.

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.

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. Think of me as 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

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

• I've never debated. My experience in PF comes from coaching my son and judging over the last year.
• Please don't spread. Conversational speed is appreciated
• Signposting and off-time roadmaps are encouraged/appreciated
• Be respectful in cross and don't interrupt/talk over each other.
• Cross is very important, so I will definitely be listening. However, please weigh/extend during summary/FF so I can be sure to put it all together.
• Please keep your own time. I will be timing as well.
• Body language, eye contact, and enunciation are important
• Relaxed, light-hearted, and even humor if the situation calls for it is all good.
• Please collapse on your arguments.

If you have any specific questions, you could ask me before the round or email me at firstseeker@gmail.com

I am always amazed by how smart you all are and how well you debate. Thank you for allowing me the privilege to be here.

Tldr:

Good =conversational speed, collapse, signpost, weigh/extend, good form/body language/enunciation

Bad =Spread, disrespectful, ignoring time, bad form/body language/enunciation

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. janettmartinez83@gmail.com

DO NOT Be: rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

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've found I'm a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or can't understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

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.

I've been coaching and judging for 8 years, primarily PF and LD.

Email- cale@victorybriefs.com (SpeechDrop works too)

Affiliations: Del Norte, Magnolia, Director of PF at VBI

Former: Westlake, Flanagan, Corona del Sol, Brophy, Quarry Lane

General:

I want you to read whatever you are best at provided you are clear. Judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun.

Debate is hard work, so I will work hard to flow closely and give you a well reasoned decision. However, absent clarity, I can't do that.

Being clear means you:
- Send a well-organized doc.
- Are explicitly line by lining arguments, not vaguely cross-applying an overview all over the place.
- Signposting when you're transitioning between arguments.
- Numbering and delineating different answers.

Any speed is 100% fine, but whenever I am not confident in a decision, I can usually trace it back to one of the above elements.

I won't 'gut-check' or hand wave away your opponents' argument because you think it's silly or under warranted. Engage in the argument- if it's as frivolous as you're suggesting, doing so should be easy.

Finally, be kind to each other. I am a teacher and would appreciate if you treated each other the same way you would in a classroom. This includes arguments that insert screenshots or other personal information about your opponent: save for disclosure arguments, this is not the place.

Policy:

I will judge kick the CP. I am good for your competition-based or process CP and find most blippy cp theory claims to be less persuasive than meaningful engagements in a competition debate. With that being said, walls of three word perms aren't 'meaningful engagement'- contextualize your permutations. My default is limitless condo. I won't hack for it, but it is a strong default.

Zero-risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero.

I do not actively coach policy, and have primarily judged LD the past three seasons, so you should probably err on the side of being extra clear in standards debates on T.

I can judge critical debates, but often find myself frustrated with teams that are too overview heavy. Please explicitly line by line your opponent's fw claims, particularly if you're a planless aff.

I deeply appreciate well executed impact turn debates.

LD:

Policy- what I judge most. Everything above applies, although I am much more open to claims against limitless condo given speech times- just make your cp theory claims more precise.

Theory- For some reason, this is 90% of what I judge. Please always send interps at a minimum, and MEANINGFULLY slow down for anything you extemp. To make this more tolerable, please lbl your opponent's theory hedge clearly. Debates where the 1n theory hedge is vaguely cross-applied to a 1ac theory overview are impossible to disentangle.

Tricks- Requirements for me to vote here: 1. It has a warrant & implication 2. It is delineated in the doc (not in the cut of a card or hidden in a tag) 3. You're not being intentionally obtuse in cross 4. You slow way down in the rebuttal speeches to make the extension + application of the argument exceptionally clear. With all of that being said, I have no predisposition against voting here, particularly if you're just going for a fw trigger like skep or something.

K- Don't be so overview heavy, and don't assume I know your literature's jargon. Otherwise happy to judge it.

Phil- I have next to no experience save for Kant- I mostly judge nonsense tricky stuff. Need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

Traditional- I am unfamiliar with how to evaluate value/value criterion style debate. I am rarely sure what is happening in these rounds and will need extra judge instruction.

PF:

Extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument.

I can judge theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF- I only ask you don't read these positions just for the sake of doing it.

PF is basically never too fast, so the clarity stuff is less important. Just remember to signpost and to differentiate tags from the cut of your card while reading. If you're a traditional or lay team please don't worry about any of it.

Come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). The only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

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. 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. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*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.

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. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/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
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. 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
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. 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 former Varsity Public Forum debater at Bronx Science, 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 have judged over 80 rounds of PF debate and 8 rounds of speech competition, including at the Tournament of Champions (x2), Harvard (x2), Big Bronx (x2), Yale, Princeton, the Barkley Forum, Glenbrooks, and Apple Valley, among others.

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. 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 who has been judging both debate and speech events for approximately five years.

I particularly value a clear presentation of a particular argument. 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.

I do not like the approach of trying to present an excess of data in the hope that your opponents might miss a particular piece of evidence.

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 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. 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: Signposting is helpful. 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 (240 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 line of reasoning 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. Focus on your contentions and countering your opponents arguments - DON'T focus on telling me what your opponent is doing wrong or the rules they are breaking (ex. bringing up a new contention in final focus) as that is just wasting time. Finally, 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)

Yale '27, The Brearley School '23

I am currently a Yale sophomore. I was the student leader of the Brearley debate team as a high school junior and senior. 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.

Explain the impacts well. A likely modest impact can outweigh a remotely possible extinction event.

Signposting helps me keep track of arguments and counter arguments.

he/they

Email: david@notiosolutions.com

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

Paradigm: Persuade me. Warrant it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few other things:

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

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

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

I value the quality of presentation and reward things like eye contact, slowing down when highlighting impacts, weighing/organizing in later speeches, and persuasive rhetoric.

Bring any meaningful cx points into your main speeches.

Be respectful to one another.

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 am a recovering debate. I debated for 7 years. Arguably too many years. But debate was a critical part of my education.

I have one preference: please god, have fun. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

This is your debate round, not mine. You and/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 it to be.

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 (a standard lay judge).

Here are my preferences:

• Speak slowly and clearly. I take notes, so to ensure that I don't miss anything, slow down your pace and emphasize the most important points of the round.
• When voting, I look at whether you responded to your opponents' key points and whether you weighed comparatively.
• Most importantly, be respectful in round, both in tone and rhetoric; You will lose my vote immediately by being impolite.

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.

Hi I'm Sophia! I debated natcirc at Whitman for 3 years. This is my former partner Katheryne's paradigm and I agree with all of it.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of:am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! mid to bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

please add sophia@nationaldebate.clubto the chain.if i have judged you before,please don't add my old email to the chain

2024-25 season update:

1. i am finding that my tolerance for poorly signposted and bad clarity speed is getting lower. i find it especially hard to flow 6 spammed one line cards when frontlining that aren't signposted or implicated, which i am hearing more and more of. be clear and slow down on tags or just slow down all together because i will 100% miss a warrant or two if you're not, and won't take extra time to fill stuff in from your doc (meaning i'll use whatever your opponents use to prep after your speech if i need it, but not more).
2. read number 1 again please
3. current pet peeve: structural violence refers to an institution or social structure perpetuating some form of harm or violence, it is a specific term that does not just mean "something bad happens to someone marginalized," and i am always gonna be down to hear "they don't link into SV bc their link is about disparate criminal orgs and not a structural problem" as a response to framing
4. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination etc, not like disclosure) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. if you want me to do something differently/evaluate an argument i say i don't usually evaluate/whatever, give me a warrant why i should.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then you'll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, iwill make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won.that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances.

no tricks - you will have a hard time convincing me this is a good model - but if that's the hill you wanna die on go ahead

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIsDO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it.i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants.I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theoryEVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theoryi am probably just not a good judge for!i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically:feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away!but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have:i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks.i'm probably not aterriblejudge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

[last updated 10-1-2024]

Hi my name is Tanya (she/her), I'm a debate grad assistant coach at WKU. I did 2 years of NPDA parli and then 2 years of NFA-LD when I was a competitor.

Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com

!!! IF YOU'RE IN PF SKIP DOWN TO THE PF SECTION AT THE BOTTOM PLEASE !!!

Short version:

DA/ DA + CP > K > T > Theory (but it's a very close race)

I'm fine w non-t affs, I default to T-FW coming first. I think T is about accuracy over ground.

I'm fine with speed, but not amazing - if you're too fast I'll slow you.

More elaborate version:

How do you feel about speed?

I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something you should probably slow.

Should I disclose?

I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I don't like any disclosure shell that puts extra burdens on the aff beyond putting affs they read on the wiki (ex. you have to use full cites, no breaking new, needing contact info). I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading, either in an email chain or speech drop.

Substance

I like case/DA/CP debate, and I would consider myself more qualified to evaluate this than anything else.

K

I like and will vote on Ks, but there's a lot K lit that I'm not very deep on so I can't guarantee I'll pick on all the nuances of the K unless they're made very explicit.

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 uniquely bad.

Can I read non T affs?

Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. 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 need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact (ie link to fairness and education). Default to competing interps.

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 think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read (for example, time cube theory is frivolous even if its the only theory you read, but reading, like, disclosure and A spec and speed together isn't necessarily frivolous).

I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.

PF Only:

1 - 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 you and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easiest way to resolve this is to send your docs to each other - it is more important to me that your opponent has your evidence than it is that I have it. If I don't have your evidence my cap for your speaks is gonna be a lot lower than it would be if I did, because for all I know you made everything up.

2 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few caveats around tech in PF: Firstly, the norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will completely mishandle 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 (imo) 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 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.

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. I'm currently a financial analyst for an automotive company, while also supporting the company’s lobbying activities.

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 sophomore at Harvard College and currently debate in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats. I attended Bloomington High School South in Indiana. 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 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 in play. Why do your arguments make sense — or not? What contexts and assumptions underlie them? I think if you do this, you'll be more likely to win the round — and even if you don't, you will get more out of the debate.

I appreciate good research and well-chosen cards. 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 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 news 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 warranted, 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'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, but if you paraphrase, please make sure you also have a document with citations and cut cards corresponding to any evidence you mention 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:

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 Associated Press 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 seemingly disparate 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 enjoy 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 (e.g., 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, and I'll judge as best I can.

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 sophomore 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 but in like a watered down pf way so run whatever u want but send rhetoric
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 publicly antisemitic or saying racist, homophobic, or sexist things) 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, but i would still send the text to be safe

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 previously judged at the 49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament and have talked to well-experienced judges, 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.

harvard ’26

i did congress and worlds in high school but have judged ld, pf, and worlds. i placed third at nsda nationals and top spoke the tournament senior year.

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.

In my role as a judge, I adhere to a specific set of criteria to assess debates fairly and effectively. I value clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation. Here are my guidelines:

1. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • I appreciate debaters who communicate their arguments clearly and concisely. Spreading, excessive speed, or reliance on dense debate jargon can hinder clarity and accessibility. Debaters should strive to make their points in a manner that is understandable to both judges and their opponents.

2. Respectful Behavior:

   • Respectful conduct is paramount. Interrupting a partner without their consent or engaging in disrespectful behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. Debaters should maintain professionalism and courtesy throughout the debate.

3. Argumentation and Analysis:

   • I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Debaters should focus on the quality of their arguments rather than the quantity. Logical reasoning, relevant evidence, and clear impacts are crucial in making a persuasive case.

4. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Debaters should engage substantively with their opponents' arguments. Ignoring or dismissing valid points made by the other side will be detrimental to their overall performance. Constructive engagement and refutation are key components of successful debating.

5. Organization and Structure:

   • A well-organized speech is more persuasive and easier to evaluate. Debaters should structure their speeches coherently, with clear signposting and a logical flow of arguments. A clear roadmap and organized rebuttals are essential components of effective speeches.

6. Flexibility and Adaptability:

   • Debaters should be able to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to respond to unexpected arguments are indicative of skilled debaters.

7. Final Focus:

   • In the final focus speeches, debaters should crystallize the key issues of the debate. Clear voting issues and impacts should be emphasized. Debaters should prioritize their most compelling arguments and explain why they outweigh their opponents' case.

Debates will be evaluated based on these criteria. I encourage debaters to focus on clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation to excel in my rounds. Remember, quality always supersedes quantity in constructing persuasive and impactful arguments.

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.

I hate intervening. Please weigh so that I do not have to intervene. Weighing must be done on the impacts and ALSO internally within arguments to prove which team accesses impacts more

I appreciate creativity and am happy to hear clever and novel arguments. However, you must actually make logically robust arguments; I do not reward cleverness for cleverness' sake. In almost all cases, raw evidence claims are less persuasive to me than well-reasoned arguments (which can of course be backed by evidence). I find it extremely off-putting when debaters are unnecessarily aggressive to others. Make an effort to be respectful; chances are it will also make you a better debater. I’m fine with speed

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.

I'm Lindsey, I have some past experience judging and coaching public forum debate.

My Paradigm

I will vote for the team that presents a stronger logical argument. I will consider arguments on quality of evidence presented, arguments speaking to why your case is impactful, and strength of responses to the opposition's argument.

The New York Post Article

I want to clarify a few things as succinctly as I can for future reference.

1) I do not condone banning topics from discussion or any judging style that automatically disregards a topic based on the subject matter. I have always been open to discussing difficult topics and will continue to be an advocate of freedom of speech.

2) In high school, I did not have access to many debate resources and did not regularly compete at national circuit tournaments (usually we had around 5 teams per tournament). Because of this, I often found advising and judging from online paradigms, forums, or message boards. When I became a Judge briefly, parts of my paradigm were meant to give free advice related to style and decorum. The main point I wanted to convey is that being respectful and genuine about presenting arguments leads to more persuasive argumentation. Contrastingly, utilizing provocative arguments only for the purpose of shocking a judge and winning is less fulfilling. I apologize if my language came across the wrong way, debaters should have the freedom to explore any topic they want. Additionally, this was targeted specifically to theory and K debate, where debaters often have no advanced preparation of what the topic is going to be.

3) I do not support the recent publication of videos of debaters with the intention to shame their argument style. Every debater deserves the autonomy to make arguments that they want without fear of being cancelled or harassed on twitter. I think we should all try to be more open-minded about different ideas and understand that young people will often make mistakes and grow from them. Be respectful, engage with people in a good-faith way, and allow students the space to change their mind.

4) A good lesson for debate (and life) is to always try to understand nuance and different perspectives. I hope that anyone that reads any article (especially an article of this nature) would be intrigued enough to learn more, to contextualize their information, and to understand evidence before drawing conclusions. I will post the full conversation I had with James below for context.

Hi Lindsey: I am writing an article for The Free Press about judging bias in the NSDA. This bias is illustrated by Tabroom paradigms that tell students what they can and can’t say on the basis of politics and ideology.

I am reaching out because you along with other judges and the NSDA are the focus of my reporting. I will be publishing your name and your Tabroom paradigm below. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, I would like to provide you with the opportunity to comment and answer the following questions. I am reporting on the following comment from above:“...if you are white, don't don't run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.” 1. What is an example of an argument that you believe a white student could not run because of their race? 2. Why did you eliminate this statement about race from your most recent paradigm update? If you could provide a response by9PM Eastern today (Fri, May 12), that would allow sufficient time for your comments to be incorporated. Best, James T. Fishback --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey James! I don’t know if it’s exactly my place to say what arguments will/won’t make marginalized communities feel unsafe in the debate space and that’s one reason I updated my paradigm. I want it to ultimately be the debater’s decision, but I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space. Another reason I eliminated this sentence was because I incorporated a similar idea in my section about progressive debate and I feel it captures the main idea better: I think debaters should communicate before the round to make sure both teams are aware of what topics will be discussed and are comfortable with it. In essence, I think arguments that may be super hard to argue for communities that are directly involved with the impacts should be discussed prior to the round to ensure debate is fun for everyone. My goal isn’t to “eliminate free speech”, but to have both teams be able to have a productive and fun debate. This kinda goes along with my first comment, but I didn’t eliminate the idea itself. I wanted to clarify later in my paradigm that students should notify one another to see if their opponents are comfortable with a proposed topic. I think these topics are important to be discussed, but not when one team is using the argument as a means to get a win without considering the feelings/experiences of their opponents (especially if their opponents are directly affected by the impact).

I am happy to clarify anything else if needed! Best, Lindsey Shrodek

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

Thanks Lindsey! This is helpful

Re: "I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space." If, before a round, a team of black students expresses discomfort about their non-black opponents' case because it details the impacts of defunding the police on black families, would the non-black team still running that argument without consideration for the experiences of their opponents factor into how you chose the winner/assigned speaks?

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

I consider everything that happens in round. The goal of debate is to be a productive, positive-sum experience for everyone, and debaters need to be considerate of that goal when deciding how to run an argument and whether to run it at all. You can look at my updated paradigm if you want more information as the one you have is nearly two years old.

Best, Lindsey Shrodek

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

If you want to know where my intentions lie, please know that I intend to judge every round to its entirety, regardless of subject matter, that is why I wrote to James: "I consider everything that happens in a round." Thank you for reading! :)

This is my third year as 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, and dynamic arguments are very effective.
• Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

For Congressional Debate: I value the quality of your argument, the delivery of the speech, the depth of your questions, and your leadership/interactions in the chamber. In-round awareness shows you are engaged. You can still present unique info when you have lower recency. Be civil…lack of decorum shows lack of leadership ability.

Most important: have fun. The ability to debate is a crucial life skill!

rajendra10031@gmail.com

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.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. 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

FOR PRINCETON. Have not judged this topic at all and have not judged in a couple of months. With that said, do whatever you feel like as long as you are respectful.

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.

My Background:
I have recently started judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."
I have a background in Business and Finance.

My Requests:
I request the contestants 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. I request you to not provide details, just the title of your contentions.

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!

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 refuting and rebuilding your case.
3. Please do not spend multiple speeches arguing over one source/definition.
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.Make sure your evidence actually matches your claim (especially when impacting).
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.
9. Remember this is PF and not policy

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 five 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, but if an email chain is created, I would like to be on it. I'll give my email in the chat during the round. Speaking with passion is cool; aggressiveness is not. I do not like debates run on theory.

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 is not asking the question of what specific action must be taken, that's policy, what it is asking is for us to justify an action to be taken, or arrival at a particular state of existence. I HIGHLY value topical debate, (I mean really highly, like really, really highly). I start with the idea that role of the ballot is to determine who best debates the topic, I like it to remain there, but am open to having that change. I highly (and I cannot stress this enough) value topical debate. I value clarity in the round, and giving me a clear direction as to why you win gives me a roadmap that I can use to find your winning argument, use that time to wrap things up at the end of the round.

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. In my mind, Theory is there to check abusive arguments and tactics, don't make it frivolous please. The worst offender of this in my mind is disclosure theory. 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," tell me why that argument fails to hold water.

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).

Excited to judge you if you are reading this! Debate is super cool and it is my life, I hope that it is a big part of your life too and this is a learning experience for both you all and me as even people in the position of educators have new things to learn from these debates. Feel free to introduce yourself and talk to me like a person because debate is an activity you grow in, and everyone including judges are a culmination of their experiences here.

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com

I prefer to be called "jsp" or "Josh" rather than "judge".

---

Recent Affiliations:

Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy (PF), Thomas Kelly College Prep (Policy), Able2Shine (PF/SPAR/Extemp)

Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)

---

PF:

In the end you can treat me like an average tech judge. Truth informs tech and tech informs truth, one literally can not come before the other unless a part of your brain is just missing. Frontlining is good, line by line is good, weighing is good, weighing should start by the summary at the latest. Uniqueness and Internal Links matter just as much as the link/impact. If any of these terms are new to you talk to your coach or I before/after the round. Defense isn't sticky, it's slippery. I did college policy, that should tell you how I am for Kritiks and theory.

---

Policy:

I adapt to you instead of you adapting to me.

I am 50/50 for framework, flow on paper and don't look at the doc. Just like... make good arguments. Use what you are good at, don't use what you are not. I am more of a clash girly though.

I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear, my laptop will likely be closed till the rebuttals, I will yell "clear" or "loud" as much as needed but I would rather not have to and I will just stop if I get tired of saying it - speed will always be fine - clarity though is just as important

Inserting rehighlighting is okay, I will read it during prep, please explain what the recutting means though

I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

Tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle

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!

So glad to see everyone on campus this weekend!

I am a sophomore at Harvard competing primarily in APDA. I did a significant amount of PF in high school (Richard Montgomery HS) and won the tournament in 2022.

I'm ready to evaluate any arguments you'd like to run. That being said, please

1. Weigh
2. Warrant
3. Have high-quality evidence
4. Consider theory sparingly. I am relatively unfamiliar with evaluating these arguments at a technical level.

Most of all, take it easy. I hope that good argumentation and the best debates are exciting and fun for all involved.

If you'd like more details about my judging, this paradigm by a teammate is quite representative.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

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.

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 5 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, but points have to be well articulated to be considered
• Weigh, your FF should be mostly weighing/crystallization with clear structured voting points
• Have well cut evidence, don't just name drop cards without logical links
• Extend arguments articulately, even from crossfire

Most importantly, have fun!!

Parent judge for Germantown Friends School with two years of experience

Speak confidently and clearly. We ought to all be grateful for having the opportunity to participate in debate. As long as everyone is comfortable, enthusiasm is acceptable. Consider yourself a future leader who is interested in every subject being discussed and argued here. These choices may have the biggest effects on society. It's the reason we're here.

Whether you win or lose doesn't really matter. We can see the world from both sides because of the debate.

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! :)

sunthar.tharma@gmail.com

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 come prepared on the topics 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.

If you want to win, persuade me into viewing the argument from your point of view; you may do this by demonstrating knowledge breadth and depth about the topic you are defending. It is not only about stating your position on the resolution, but you must also be able to defend it and prove to me why your position is the best position during the crossfires.

Cards may be sent to ntillero@comcast.net

I was a PF debater throughout high school, 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, 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, no need to ask. 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). If possible, I'd rather you stand during your speeches and individual CXs.

All arguments should be backed by evidence and it should be presented quickly if called. 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. Tech>truth.

I do not especially appreciate Ks or Theory (trad-leaning). Feel free to run if you’re confident in your argument and I’ll consider it fairly, but I’m just letting you know.

Keep track of your own speech time and prep at all points. Obviously, 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.

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so traditional 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, 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 7ish.

__________________________________________

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 sophomore at Harvard. I compete primarily in APDA at college, and I also occasionally do BP.

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! Lots of them! 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 flow fairly extensively (paper or Google doc), and it is easier to judge your arguments if I know what you are responding to

4. Speak clearly, and don’t speak too fast. If you speak too fast, I will cry. Literally. Under 240 wpm please

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.

Email: mercywah28@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Mercy, and I am a junior in college. I debated for six years, so I understand how debate operates and debate lingo. I have been judging for 3 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, I did not do PF in high school but- however, I can still clearly judge, follow and understand a 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)

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.

PUBLIC FORUM:

Add me to the email chain or, create the Google Doc: kwatkins@bernardsboe.com

Either way, do this before round if possible.

Ask me questions post-round/over email if you want!! I'm happy to answer anything

PHILOSOPHY

As a whole, I also want to express that I am more and more soured on the distinction of debate judges into tech or lay categories. The core focus of this activity is communication, and a warped thread of stylistic choices that push towards "technical" and remove the possibility of legitimate communication in round steps away from the purpose of Public Forum as a whole. Judges can prefer emotional appeals, credibility appeals, logical appeals–but all judges deserve legitimate communication and to attempt to categorize styles only results in a rejection of understanding for communication as a whole.

If you feel that Theory, Ks, prog, etc. are necessary–I question if you are legitimately attempting strong argumentation or simply attempting a cheap win.

GENERAL

I will flow your arguments as long as you are clearly spoken, but I heavily encourage considering me more on the lay side of debate. Your wpm should not exceed 200–no discussion; and I encourage you to prefer around 175 or below. Going beyond this limit affects your communication in an undeniable fashion.

I won't vote for something I don't understand/wasn't well extended

Clear weighing/voters are incredible :)

Use ff to write my ballot

If you’re speaking too fast you run the risk of me losing stuff, and I won’t knock your opponent for missing stuff cause you tried to fit too much into your case.

I love strong narratives and cohesion of arguments — simply saying “extend this” or “extend that” doesn’t explain anything to me.

All arguments should have clear warrants and impacts.

IN ROUND

Signposting is so important–y’all all want to get through a ton of content, but it doesn’t matter if I have to waste my limited brain cells trying to understand how what you said interacts with your case.

Don’t be rude? The bar is low.

Take a breath before you speak! Don’t forget how incredible and unique y’all are for the amount of work you put into this activity, and the breadth of knowledge you have. Remember, I always want to vote for you, so you have no reason to be nervous.

IMPACTS

I wanted to make a whole section for this cause I think it’s so important

Timeframe, Magnitude, Probability

How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts

How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

CROSS

In crossfire, don’t ask questions with long preambles that come across as you trying to have more speech time.

I don’t flow cross, but you need to extend contradictions your opponents say for me to consider it.

FINAL FOCUS

Gosh I love final focus.

This is your time to explain voter’s issues, weigh on the valuable args in the round, and overall just write your own ballot. FF is time for your persuasion to shine, and my favorite speech in PF :)

TOPIC SPECIFIC NOTES [if any]:

I encourage each and every one of y'all to take a look at these links, and read some great pieces that talk about we use language!

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more-focus-areas/immigration-ethics/immigration-ethics-resources/immigration-ethics-blog/words-matter-illegal-immigrant-undocumented-immigrant-or-unauthorized-immigrant/

https://www.nwirp.org/illegal-vs-undocumented-a-nwirp-board-members-perspective/

RULES

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.

Read content warnings about potentially triggering content. If you don’t like content warnings, bummer. Content warnings allow speech & debate to be inclusive.

If you have spectators from your team, I fully expect your team members to be off their technology and not communicating with you. If you’re cheating in any way, you lose the debate and get to chat with tab.

SPEAKS

I believe speaks are important, and the points I give you relate to what I feel you should take away from my judging.

30: Lovely speaking, no notes.

28-29.5: Good stuff, minor issues or stumbles, mostly I vary here based on comparison in round.

27.5: You have work to do on your speaking style, and I would encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

27: You have lots of work to do on your speaking style, and I would heavily encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

26.5: I felt you said something disrespectful or behaved disrespectfully in round.

26 and below: You’re gonna hear from tab.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE

All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION

I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC

Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES

I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

//not judging this tournament in PF sooo//

ARE YOU IN NOVICE? READ THIS:

Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.
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.

I love seeing people new to debate, so I’m never going to mark you down if you don’t use conventional debate jargon, break conventional norms from inexperience, etc. I will still fairly judge, and novice-ness is no loophole to missed arguments and the like.

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 the debate coach at West Boca Raton High School. Prior to this year, I was an Instructional Facilitator for Broward County Public Schools on the county-wide debate program. Before that I was the debate coach for 10 years at Coral Springs High School.

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.

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 treat me like a 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. otherwise i will not flow/not understand enough to vote off it. something you want to bring up in final must also be in summary and rebuttal.

- no spreading

- 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. 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 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.

1. Limit spreading for PF—ideally, none. PF isn’t Policy. Clarity > Speed! If I can’t understand it, I’m not flowing it, so don't trade nuance for pace.

2. Signpost clearly. Off-time roadmaps are also always appreciated.

3. Weigh terminal impacts please! Magnitude, probability, risk of offense, and/or timeframe are all table stakes. If your impact makes their scenario impossible, if it precludes their outcomes, or if it creates an irreversible consequence, tell me explicitly.

4. I like warrants. "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence" (see Inko Bovenci's paradigm). Crystallize the round.

5. I will consider theory if there’s actual abuse or a structural imbalance in the round. However, the more frivolous it feels, the lower my threshold for responses. Hard pass on disclosure theory. Not super familiar with K’s and quite frankly don’t see a point in bringing them up during PF.

6. No excessive card drops.

7. Keep CX respectful. I don't always flow CX.

8. On evidence ethics: if you paraphrase, you need to have the original text ready. If you’re fumbling with citations or producing incredibly vague summaries, I’m docking speaks and evaluating the round accordingly. Include me on all email chains.

9. Collapse aggressively. Summary shouldn't feel like a laundry list of unfiltered offense. By final focus, I want one or two clean, well-weighed arguments with clear links back to the round.

10. Debate well, debate respectfully, and debate honestly :) I hope you all 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. for the border topic: if you both agree to debate a different topic and also aren’t __ist on said different topic i will give you 30 speaks lol

- would strongly prefer if y’all came in preflowed and coin flipped/ready to go!

- 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 the original warrant(s) from the first time it was read.

- outside of that, do whatever makes the debate enjoyable for everyone :) 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, and don't do things that make you/your opponents hate debate, 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 collapse as much as possible. i really like smart analytics and strategic decisions, much more than blippy dumps of as much as you can possibly get through.

- new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such. i am extremely receptive to responses where you simply point out that it is a new warrant and tell me to go look at the case doc/only eval whats in case

- 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. 2024 update: from my understanding this is an obsolete norm at this point. for all camp tournaments please fl/collapse in 2nd rebuttal, if i'm judging you in a tournament and both teams agree to no new 2nd summary fls/no 1st ff sticky defense i will evaluate the round as such

- 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!

- i presume neg by default, you can give me reasons to presume otherwise (but also just extend/frontline well and it won't matter)

- 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 extremely 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 have been judging public forum debate for over a year but I am still a lay judge and I expect you know how lay judges make their decisions. If I happen to be the judge assigned to your round, I ask the debaters to speak SLOWLY and CLEARLY, simply because: the more I understand you, the more I am convinced by you, and therefore, the more likely I would vote for you.

LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, I AM NOT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER!!!

I judge on content and reason. I believe in simplicity in arguing and that persuasiveness comes from easily understood linkages to convey a message.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

Hi, I debated four years on the national circuit for Seven Lakes from 2018-2022.

gtoc 3x, nsda 3x, nsda finals

zhang.justi@northeastern.edu

Update for Harvard 2/17: im pretty serious about the "speed" line in my paradigm. i wont assume you said something if I didn't hear it/flow it in speech. I generally find myself voting for teams that do a better job with explanation and warranting rather than going super fast. I was never really a fast debater in high school, so I'd much prefer judging debates <250 wpm.

I will not flow off of or look at a doc. I do, however, want to be on the chain to expedite looking for evidence if necessary.

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.

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.

msc-

• am okay with and would prefer to cut grand for a min of prep but up to debaters.
• please try to setup the email chain ahead of time so we can save time
• will not entertain post rounding.
• ill give speaks adjusted by division. for instance, an average varsity speech may receive a 28-28.5 in the varsity division, but that same speech may receive a 29-29.5 in JV etc.

Email: zhao.austin@gmail.com

(Please include me on the email chain if there is one. Preferably, send me your CASE AND REBUTTAL docs before you start your round. it will help me understand your points better)

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