Your typical student judge I'm a senior at Fremd, and I have done debate since freshman year. Tech over truth! I am also not super well versed on the topic, but I know a little, so don't assume I just know what your argument is right away.

• Keep your own time and the round going
• START CROSS RIGHT AFTER SPEECHES, I WILL JUST STARE AT YOU UNTIL YOU START
• Try to make friends! or at least be respectful-- I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKS IF YOU ARE BEING RUDE
• Args must be extended and weighed for me to vote on it
• The more emphasis on weighing, the better
• I don't listen to cross; that's your time to understand or poke holes in an arg. Bring it up in speech if you want me to weigh it
• Good with speed but if you go too fast and I don't catch it, I just won't write it down
• SIGNPOST & OFFTIME ROADMAP
• Explain how you get to your impact
• voting issues in summary please
• Have fun! Take risks and LEARN!!!
• Ask questions after round if you have them, I would love to help you out!!!
• Use a stopwatch, NOT a timer with a ringer

Background: My name is Alex Boehne (pronounced [BEY-nee] for those interested). In high school, I completed 1 year of Public Forum and 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas at Triad High School. I currently attend Southeast Missouri State University, majoring in cybersecurity with a minor in networking security.

I've got three big paradigms that usually decide the round for me:

1) ((!!!LD ONLY!!!)) Value debate - almost any debater can throw a bunch of facts out there and hope the judge understands what those facts mean, but good debaters can effectively take the cards that they have and link those back to their value and criterion. Remember: your V and VC are ultimately what you are supporting, and your evidence isn't going to be very useful if you can't say why it supports your argument.

2) Flow organization - this was my biggest challenge as a debater, and it just boils down to being able to effectively travel through the flow so I have the opportunity to track your arguments. Just make sure you make it clear with an off-time roadmap how you'll be traveling through the flow, and make sure to go down the flow so I can track your arguments. It's a lot harder to vote for you if I don't know where your arguments are going!

3) Voters' issues - so many good debaters ignore this one and make it way harder for good arguments to win! Make sure you allot yourself time to crystalize your arguments in voters and explain to me why you believe that you have won the round that I just watched.

Other than that, I don't have any preference for conventional or unconventional strategies (excluding abusive tricks), new ideas, or talking speed. When in doubt, I'm happy to answer a specific question you have about the round and how I'll be judging (although this is pretty much all of my thoughts). Best of luck!

Feel free to reach out with any questions via email: chitgopekarsamarth [at] gmail.com.

It's important that you're respectful in round—not just to your opponents and myself, but also to your partner. Trust me, this activity gets way more stressful than it has to be and it isn't worth ruining friendships over. Failure to do so will be reflected in your speaker points.

I also run https://debate.land—check it out if you have a second ;)

• Will vote on pretty much anything. My threshold for buying impacts goes up as the magnitude/scope/... of the impact goes up. To convince me of nuclear war, you need to have more warranting than if you're convincing me of a dozen deaths happening in a random city.
• The final focus must use weighing mechanisms and explain why you win on them
• The summary should always frontline all responses to your case when going first
• The rebuttal should always frontline all responses to your case when going second
• I will not extend your turns for you... if you want me to weigh off a turn, extend it properly and provide warranting + weigh-in speech.
• Keep your opponent's prep time in check, I won't be timing anything but I have a pretty good gut sense for when people are taking advantage of that

• Have fun!

Other:

• I have a high threshold for non-topical arguments (Ks, Theory)—you need to really convince me that there's an important precedent that's going to be set or a fundamental flaw with the AC that genuinely needs to be critiqued. In general, don't run these args. If I get the idea you're just trying to win the round and don't care about what you're reading, I probably won't vote for you. Most schools don't have the resources to teach theory and it usually doesn't sit right with me.
• I usually have a good idea of what teams are going for (though props to you if you fool me!!!). But I like to emphasize the Public inPublic Forum, so assume I have no idea how anything works, what the topic is, etc. and convince me as if though I was just a regular person.

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

Georgia or Angie (she/they)  

I debated for four years at Stagg as a rebuttal speaker in PF and also debated LD. I have been nationally qualified twice and earned the title of semifinalist with my partner at IHSA my senior year. My philosophy is that if I give clear and meaningful critiques to the competitors, they can learn and improve. I am not one to “sugar coat” my comments, but I think it’s in your best interest. I am here to decide the winner, but also to share my experience and help you be a better debater.  

First, I am a flow judge, pretty standard for PF. I will take into consideration the established PF “norms” of the flow of the round. (evidence not brought up in every speech isnt flowed, arguments brought up after summary arent flowed, etc)

Second, weigh impacts, don’t just extend them. Yes, extension is really important, especially because I judge on the flow, but if you don’t explain the extensions and properly weigh the impact, they hold little weight. (I love weighing mechanisms)

Third, explain your cards. It may be elementary to ask that your warrants and impacts are backed up by evidence, but here I am. You can call for cards, but if you do it to get extra prep thats gonna mess with your speaker points. I weigh based on the explanation and effectiveness of the card in the overall argument, as opposed to the literal evidence itself.

Lastly, intimidation and excessive assertiveness will not win you the round. I see this is a common problem in some teams, but, as I stated, I am flow judge and I will judge based on the argumentational level alone. A round cannot simply be won by being louder.  

speaker points:

I will almost never give out a 30. Nonetheless, my criteria for a 30 speaker include (but are not limited to) the following:

-respect for the round, me and your opponents

-efficient and intentional use of speech time, good speech structure

-general good public speaking skills, lack of filler words, incomplete explanations, rambling, good speed, volume etc

-clear understanding of argumentational mechanics of PF and the purpose of each speech

Please do not hesitate to ask any questions regarding my paradigm in round, as it is in your best interest to understand the way I judge.   

As your performance, preparedness, and effort on your debate is valued and admired, I do prefer quality vs quantity. This helps me consider all important points in order to make the best decision. Speed is not favorable for me.

If your side is con, facts or showing cards demonstrating why I should decide for con is important to convince.

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

• It’s not an argument without a warrant.

• 'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.

• ‘Probability weighing also isn’t real

• Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.

• Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

• Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.

• Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.

• Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.

• Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.

• Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.

• If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.

• You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.

• Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
• Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

• I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.

• weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus

• It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.

• Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense

• Miscellaneous Stuff

• Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there

• Have preflows ready

• open cross is fine

• Flex prep is fine

• K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.

• I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory

• I don't care where you speak from

• I don't care what you wear

for Fremd tournament: I know you've had a few tournaments with this resolution, but this is my first time hearing it. Don't assume I'm familiar with the topic or have heard any of the common arguments, abbreviations, etc.

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 5 years

General:

- keep speed within reason; if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll put my pen down and look at you until you slow down

- I judge off the flow, lay everything out for me, I won’t make any assumptions or connections for you

- arguments need to be extended throughout the round; if something gets dropped and doesn’t make it to the end of the round, I won’t vote based on it

- give me clear voting issues, I don’t care who won more arguments, tell me why the things you won mean that you should win the round, weigh clearly for me, tell me why I should care about the arguments you won, why do they matter

- I don’t flow cross; if something important comes out make sure you bring it up in a later speech so it ends up on my flow

- keep track of your own time and prep time, if you opponent is going way over, let me know

- treat me like I know absolutely nothing about the topic, I haven’t done any of the research you have

LD:

- I don’t care who wins framework, just make sure you weigh under whichever framework is agreed on

- I don’t like pointless framework debate, if your frameworks are compatible, like justice vs morality, just collapse and move on instead of wasting time arguing which is better

PF:

- If you’re speaking first, it doesn't make sense to go back and defend your case before you opponent’s rebuttal

- the round should funnel down; your constructive and rebuttal focus on the line by line, by the summary you should pick voting issues and address the line by line arguments that tie into them, in final focus I don’t want any line by line arguments, focus entirely on the voting issues for the round and weighing them

- no line by line in final focus, it’s too late for that

When flowing, I prioritize sign posting, the clear acknowledgment of topics being argued. I love a good clash. However, I DO expect all competitors to remain respectful to each other throughout the round. If for some reason time is up but you have not finished, I will put my pen down and listen to the rest of your sentence but that is all. Extra 0.50 speaker points for any topical puns. 

Hi debaters! As a judge, to me the most important parts of the debate are focused on the latter two speeches. As times get shorter, I prefer that debates shift from reading out cited evidence, to impact-focused arguments.

Another thing I'd love to see is some impact calculus in the last two speeches. Don't just tell me you won the point, explain to me why you did.

Keep taglines short; I appreciate an organized debate.

Make sure debates stay respectful. Aggressive crossfires are common, but make sure it doesn't get to the point where I have to start docking speaker points.

One last thing to keep in mind; I don't weigh crossfire. If you want me to weigh it in my decision, you MUST bring it up during a speech.

GOOD LUCK! :)

I will give one extra half speaker point if you can somehow work the phrase "riddle me this" into the debate.

Also I love to see weighing in debates :)

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years. typical flow judge, assume im lay on the topic.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- do email chain or speechdrop. send cases and docs

-- ~250 wpm max (w docs!!) but pls slow down in back half or i will 100% miss smth. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

-- metaweighing is kind of a cheat code ngl (do it)

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run prog at ur own risk. i havent judged prog much and what i have judged has (generally) been very mid. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like this guy and this guy

I'm glad you're doing Debate, I look forward to watching your round, and I wish you the very best of luck!

Before all else, I am a FLOW JUDGE. Here's more specifics on what I want to see in a round:

• All arguments need clearly explained logical warrants, as it's not my job to make logical leaps for you
• Claims must be grounded in evidence, and when there's contradictory evidence on both sides, I'd like an explanation of why to prefer your evidence/warrant, because otherwise I'm left guessing
• Structure your speeches how you feel is best, but signpost so that I know where you're at on the flow
• In a good round, both sides will have valid arguments left, so please WEIGH IMPACTS in later speeches
• I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens there, make sure it's in your next speech
• I expect you to stand your ground (this is debate after all), but maintain a baseline of respect/decorum
• I would much rather you ask a clarifying question than attack an argument that wasn't made (don't strawman your opponents, ever)
• I'm cool with a little speed, you have a lot to cover, but please don't spread, because that defeats the point of this activity (I also don't like K's/theory/progressive debate)

I'm always happy to answer any questions before or after the round, since this is an educational tool before all else, and you're here to learn (don't lose sight of that).

Have a great day, make a friend, learn something new, and enjoy it.

I am a parent/lay judge. I expect you to speak at a slower pace so I can keep track of everything you say. However, I judge on clarity. It is your responsibility to make sure I am aware of your framework, contentions, and impact. Signposting is essential in how you present your arguments. Make sure I can follow everything that you want me to hear and vote on. Weigh your contentions so I know what you want me to evaluate and prioritize and why it matters. Be respectful to your opponents, partner, and myself. Finally, the team that will give me the cleanest and most efficient reasons to vote for them with everything considered will get my vote.

Tech > Truth

I am a Senior at Belvidere North High School.

I am a flow judge and will be voting off the flow.

Try and not jump from flow to flow, it makes the round messy. I want to see good arguments and know your stances.

Email: jpmedranocenteno@gmail.com (For the email chain)

For time, time yourselves and try not to go over 10 seconds past time. I'll be keeping time myself. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

P.S. - If you give em candy, I'll boost speaks up by 0.5 points.

Arguments

I will vote on anything that makes sense, try not to have anything that doesn't make sense.

An argument needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

Weighing

Always try and add in weighing to the round.

Without weighing, your arguments are too generic and there is no reason to vote for you.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

I'm a second year parent judge who wants to see debaters be respectful to each other and provide strong fact-based arguments.

I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging PF. 

Speed:

I'm not comfortable with speaking fast, and if I cannot understand your arguments I won't vote on them. Speak slow and clear so I can comprehend what you're saying.

Lingo:

Don't use PF lingo past something like "magnitude" or "probability" because I won't understand it. Express things in terms that the average person would understand.

Round strategy:

Collapse on arguments and summarize the debate in the second half. Trying to go for everything muddles the round and makes it more confusing for me.

In Final Focus, imagine that you're writing my ballot for me.

Weighing:

Weigh early and weigh well. Weighing is comparative: explain to me thoroughly why your impact is more significant than your opponents. This makes voting a lot easier for me

Signposting:

Signposting should be present in every one of your speeches so I know what you're talking about. Giving an off-time roadmap is also very helpful.

Conduct:

Please be polite in round — debate should be a place of learning. If I catch you being disrespectful, I will drop your speaker points.

Some aggressiveness is OK with me so long as you are still being respectful to your opponents and not overbearing.

I'm not familiar with the official rules, so if your opponent has violated one please tell me what rule they have violated.

Finally, please have fun.

I am a tech-over-truth judge.

Also, I'll be timing prep, so don't try to argue with me about how much prep you have left unless the other team can agree with you on how much you have left.

If your opponent provides a framework/overview, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and conceded to, just like any other part of the debate; if you drop it, you concede it.

In rebuttal, I want you to respond to everything, and if you're second rebuttal, please frontline everything. Don't give me another constructive speech.

Your summary must crystallize, weigh, and collapse the round to the most important arguments and impacts for me. Comparative weighing should be both on the link Ievel and on the impact level.

In many cases, this is where the RFD is sealed for me. NO NEW ARGUMENTS. You also should extend your offense out to summary or final focus or I might flip a coin to decide the winner.

Also, I'll be on my phone during crossfire, so I don't really care about cross unless you're getting violated.

In final focus, tell me why you win my RFD. Show, DON'T tell.

If you are acting bigoted, sexist, or racist in round, I will give you 0 speaks immediately and you will lose the round regardless of how the flow looks. Any mocking gestures, such as snickering during an opponent's speech, talking loud when you're not supposed to be, or acting in a way that disrupts the debate, I will give you an auto 25 in speaks.

Last but definitely not least, please follow evidence ethics, if your cards are badly cut, taken WAYYY out of context or sounds too good to be true, I won't evaluate your arguments.

Hello, I'm Aditya. If you are doing an email chain (optional) add me — ramesh18@illinois.edu

Background: Started in Congress for one year, moved to PF for the rest of high school.

Main things to take away from this paradigm: Tabula rasa, keep debate respectful, signpost and warrant your arguments well, and give me the exact reasons why you should win.

CONDUCT:

You will lose + auto 0 speaks if you are bigoted (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.). The other team does not have to point it out.

Any blatant rudeness (eye rolling, consistent interruptions, loud offhand remarks, loud snickering, etc.) that I catch is auto 25 speaks or less (the bar for this is pretty high). I do however appreciate aggressive cross and rhetoric in speeches as long as you aren't being demeaning.

Moderate Spreading is OK (200 wpm) as long as you enunciate and signpost well. Lazy spreading will give you bad speaks.

Try your best to be persuasive. Have some inflection in your voice when you go over important points, and feel free to use some rhetoric so I don't get bored.

Practice good evidence ethics — if your cards are horribly cut, extremely paraphrased, or taken way out of context, I won't evaluate arguments with them. You will also lose speaks.

I will be timing, so don't try to argue with me about prep or speech times unless your opponent can corroborate you.

Don't prep after prep ends.

Don't take forever taking out evidence (you SHOULD have a doc on hand).

Unless both teams agree not to, evidence sharing won't be on prep.

SPEECHES (PF):

Roadmap everything past Constructive, and signpost EVERYTHING. Give me clear warrants, clear impacts, highlight clash, and WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH (make sure it's comparative!).

Constructive: Signpost everything, have quality warrants for everything you say. If you Spread and I don’t understand, I will not flow it at all, and it cannot be extended throughout the round — be careful.

Rebuttal: Implicate everything, second rebuttal MUST have frontlining. Go down their flow and give me a clear off time roadmap.

Summary: Collapse, extend, respond, and weigh. No new arguments in second Summary.

Final Focus: Write the RFD for me. All arguments in this speech must be in Summary. Focus on the weighing, and use actual impact calculus.

All arguments need to be warranted or else I can't evaluate them. You also should extend your arguments through each speech, and I will only be evaluating what I hear in Final Focus.

I don't flow cross. Anything mentioned in cross needs to be brought into a speech for me to evaluate it.

I do value truth over tech to a degree; dishonest or misleading arguments will be weighed at a heavy disadvantage. However, don't abuse this. You still need to refute every argument well or else I will consider it conceded and it will get full weight.

"The author is politically biased", "the study is from a different country", and "the evidence is old" aren't valid evidence indicts. You need to provide an actual warrant as to why those things would impact the results of the study.

Remember that PF stands for PUBLIC FORUM. This type of debate is meant to be accessible, so don't be super technical, and warrant everything. And again, act in a manner where everyone stands to gain something from the round.

GENERAL THINGS:

Remember that I as a judge am still human. It is in your best interest to make sure I catch onto everything. The better you signpost, the better you articulate arguments, and the more you emphasize conceded point, the more likely I am to follow along — please extend and do not state things once and expect me to remember it throughout the entire round.

Debate is stressful and competitive. Remember to go out there and put your 100%, but while doing so enjoy yourself and have fun!

Good luck!

TLDR: Focus on value and criterion in LD, don't misuse evidence in PF, and speak extemporaneously in Congress. Always warrant your arguments. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Thou shalt not go off-topic by using abusive "progressive debate" tactics such as kritiks, counterplans, or meta-analysis of debate. I am a traditional judge who flows and is tech over truth. If you think this is contradictory, you might spend too much time online.

In a debate round, most of all I'm looking for a clear, concise, and robust exchange of ideas. Some ways to work on this are to make sure you're signposting in all of your speeches, planning ahead to ensure that you're fitting the most important contentions and objections into the allotted time, and responding directly to the arguments and objections your opponents put forth in their own speeches. Do all of this without strawmanning your opponents (or committing any other major logical fallacies).

Most importantly, warrant: Don't take it for granted that your judges can see why your opponents are wrong, or that your contentions speak for themselves in response to challenges. Even if I do see these things, I can't score you well unless you are doing this work yourselves in the debate. Don't let any of your opponents' objections make it through the flow uncontested. Always warrant your claims. Cross-apply your contentions liberally in rebuttals so that I don't think you've dropped any of your own arguments.

I'm not a fan of most forms of "progressive debate," as I want you to make accessible arguments relevant to the resolution, not signal your position on whatever is currently in vogue. For example, if the resolution is about whether the United States should raise taxes on the wealthy, and you're arguing in favor of doing so, it is 100% okay (and probably a great idea) to give arguments about how capitalism can leave certain groups behind and how trickle-down economics only exacerbates wealth inequality and thus eliminates equality of opportunity. It is not germane to the resolution, however, to make all of your arguments about how capitalism is nothing but a tool of oppression and we need to abolish it, as this is not what is at question in the resolution. Similarly, I find meta-analysis of debate as an activity in-round to be grating. I will always favor the person/team using their speaking time to discuss the issue at hand in the resolution.

I'm also not a fan of counterplans because they shift the burden of proof in the round to the NEG/CON. The burden of proof belongs on the AFF/PRO. If you don't want to defend the status quo, I think you need to ask yourself why you're spending your free time doing this activity. As a coach and an instructor, the greatest value I see in debate is that it teaches students to charitably look at and adopt perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Using abusive "progressive debate" tactics to get around doing this robs you of the greatest benefit of doing debate, and robs your opponent of the opportunity to engage in a robust exchange of ideas about the actual topic of the round. Here I'll provide the analogy of papers: if a student handed me a paper that was well-written, but never actually addressed the topic they were supposed to write about (or worse, questioned the process of writing the paper in the first place), they would fail because they did not actually complete the assignment. The same is true in a debate round.

A note on speed: I don't mind spreading and can keep up with it as long as you don't talk like you have marbles in your mouth. But before you spread, consider that you will have many lay judges in this circuit who are unfamiliar with this speed or even hostile to it. Proceed at your own peril. Additionally, I often see debaters spread to try and overwhelm their opponents with cards to respond to without ever substantially developing or warranting their arguments. When I read student philosophy papers, I look for two things before anything else: clarity and concision. The lesson from this is that sometimes less is more because it forces you to focus on what really matters in the round, and as such you develop your arguments around key voting issues far more than you would if you were just hammering your opponent with as much evidence as possible.

A couple of notes on questioning: I'm not a fan of debaters interrupting or steamrolling their opponents. Be courteous and give the other team/person a chance to respond and to ask their own questions during grand cross while still using your own speaking time well. Being the loudest person in the room is not synonymous with being the best debater. I do not flow questioning, either. If you want something that came up in questioning to factor into my decision, you need to bring it back up in one of your speeches.

A final note on my ballots: I try to write pretty detailed ballots because I know how frustrating it is to lose a round and then not understand why, or to be told something vague or even get a blank ballot. I try to make up for this all-too-pervasive problem with debate judging by providing you with detailed feedback. However, I want you to understand that only the comments in my RFD directly factored into my decision. I'm writing comments throughout the round to you individually to try and provide feedback on your cases (especially because I know some of you may not have coaches), as well as your argumentation and speaking styles. Sometimes I will write things in the individual comments section that are my personal opinion on what makes a good case, or whether something is a convincing argument. As a tabula rasa judge, this kind of thing does not factor into my decision unless the other debater(s) call(s) you on anything I mention in one of their speeches. I provide this individual feedback not to explain my decision, but to potentially help you grow as a debater. The RFD is the true explanation of my decision.

For Lincoln-Douglas: If you're using a moral or political theory from analytic philosophy (i.e. utilitarianism/consequentialism, deontology/rights-based, virtue ethics, Rawlsian distributive justice/justice as fairness, any kind of social contract theory, principles from medical ethics, etc.) please make sure you know what you're talking about. I have way too many rounds where a utilitarian or consequentialist framework devolves into deontology or rights-based theory, and vice versa. Or worse, where a debater uses a contradictory value and criterion, such as pairing autonomy with consequentialism. And these are the simplest moral theories; the bar will be even higher if you choose Rawls or something more obscure. I'm not against you using these theories (in fact, as a philosophy teacher I want you to do so), I just want you to use them well and appropriately. I highly recommend that all LD debaters read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy extensively in order to better prepare for using and coming up against philosophical concepts in rounds. Theories from continental philosophy will be a tougher sell for me in general because they're even more difficult to use appropriately.

No matter what value and criterion you choose, make sure you're linking all of your impacts back to your framework throughout the round. A brief mention at the top of each speech is not nearly enough attention to framework in LD. Also, please don't make your value "morality." That's redundant. All of these resolutions have the word "ought" in them; morality is implicitly valued in the round. Saying your value is morality is like telling me you want to do something without specifying what you want. You're not actually giving me any real information here about how you're using a theory of value to evaluate the resolution at hand.

For Public Forum: Evidence matters here even more than in the other debate events. Make sure you're reading all of your sources in their entirety before cutting cards. I'm always paying attention, and so are most of the other debaters: if you're using something out of context, you will get called on it eventually by one of your opponents or judges. I will call for evidence in close rounds, so be prepared to hand over your cards. Making empirical assertions without providing empirical evidence will make it very hard for me to vote for you, and misusing evidence will make it nearly impossible.

For Congress: It is to the whole chamber's disservice to get stuck on one bill or one series of bills. Even if your favorite bill is being discussed and you haven't gotten a chance to speak yet, it's in your best interest not to extend a tired debate. I would rather see fresh debate on a bill that is less familiar to you than continue to see the same arguments recycled over and over again. Congress is meant to be an extemporaneous event. I don't want your speeches to be pretty and polished like a speech event, or even like a constructive speech in PF or LD. I want you to show me that you have a range of knowledge and interest in an even wider range of topics in current events, and can speak extemporaneously on these topics in the chamber. There's little I dislike more in debate than for a Congress chamber to take a recess so everyone can "write their speeches." This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of Congress. The best advice I can give Congress debaters for prep isn't to write polished speeches, but to regularly read (not watch) reputable news sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and The Economist. If you must watch your news, go with the PBS News Hour or something international (i.e. the BBC), not partisan entertainment-oriented channels like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. Podcasts are fun, but not a substitute for reputable news organizations with full-time fact checkers.

The most important parts of a debate to me are impacts and weighing, organization, and respect. I like to see very clear impacts, explain why this outweighs your opponents' argument. I also appreciate organization. Try to go contention by contention so I can understand your rebuttals. In addition, I want you to sound excited, less of a speech and more of a conversation. Make sure to be loud and speak clearly. And finally, aggressiveness will hurt your team. I don't weigh crossfire, if you want me to let me know, but if teams are aggressive in crossfire I will mark them off. Good luck everyone!

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Public Forum:

Takema Taylor

Rich Township High School

1 year judging PF/ 4 years judging LD

Speed of delivery - Clear delivery, speed is not important, Clear speech and steady pace.

Format of Summary Speeches - line by line

Extension of arguments into later speeches - Repeat the evidence in order to provide additional analysis

Flowing style of note-taking

Argument and style are valued equally.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Final focus

Director @ NDC

Director @ debate.land

did circuit debate a little while back

theory, T, and framing are fine (boring tbh) but I'm quite unfamiliar with k lit, run at your own risk

normal PF nat circuit speed, and I start at a 28 and move from there

default prob>mag, weigh to win

I won't vote on IVIs and default no RVIs

Also, talking to your partner during their speech or cross is an auto 25.

For TOC: add adithya679@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org to the chain, please!

I expect a clear delivery. This affects more than speaker points. In my opinion, it can affect my judging of that round. Articulation, speaking at a pace where words can be understood, making contentions and impacts clear are important.

Unique contentions and impacts with good, current, solid evidence will sway my vote.

Respectful conduct, always. A good well organized delivery is important.