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

My expectations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- I prefer clarity over speed

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

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

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

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

RFD and Speaker points:

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

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

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

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

Have fun!

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. 

Hello, I am a first-time parent judge.

Remember to speak slowly and coherently. Delivery is important and you should formulate your argument. Convince me that your argument should win and is better than your opponent's by weighing and impact. Speak with clarity and don't be rude during crossfires.

TL;DR: Speed is fine, tech> truth, send a speech doc, read cut cards, disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad.

Background

I currently coach a few teams and worked at a debate camp this past summer for a month so I like to think I am above the level of a washed first-year-out.

I debated public forum at Marist for 4 years (2019-2023). Competed in lots of rounds on the national circuit and went to TOC my junior and senior year.

I expect there to be an email chain sent up for evidence exchange every round. My email is:

jescayg@nd.edu

General Paradigm

-All offense you plan on going for along with turns must be front-lined in second rebuttal. That being said defense is not sticky, I don't know who started saying that but given that summary must mirror final that doesn't make structural sense. If a team kicks out by extending a delink, it is typically safe to assume the remaining defense on the argument is conceded. Often, defensive concessions can be taken advantage of elsewhere on the flow, and I am partial to debates where teams consider how arguments interact with each other at both a practical and technical level.

- Speed is non-issue for me as a judge and probably a net-positive for public forum as a whole. I'll be honest and say that any speed bad arguments likely will never win my ballot. "Flow better" is a sufficient response in my opinion. Still going fast doesn't mean you can sacrifice clarity. This is magnified by a world where teams don't read more than one sentence from a card or paraphrase. If you are unclear enough that your only solution is for me to flow off the doc, then your speaker points will reflect that. That being said, I will do my best to avoid having to clear you. I despise intervening and think the burden of clarity falls on you rather than the judge.

-Weighing without comparison isn't weighing, it is just extending your impact. Most buzzwords used for weighing are just part of timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Unless its an impact turn debate, please take time to compare both your links and internal links. I love when teams stake the ballot on either a link turn or an impact turn, so don't be afraid to kick case and go for offense on their case. That being said, collapsing is essential, and prioritizing quantity of offense over quality typically isn't the best strategy.

Evidence

-On a personal level I will always prefer full cut cards and no paraphrasing, nothing you do in round will be able to convince me that not having cut cards and/or paraphrasing is good for the activity as a whole.

-Please call out bad evidence practices, if you don't feel comfortable reading theory that's fine but you can still be making arguments in the speech that call for rejecting the argument (if I am on a panel in which theory is not an option I will be extra partial to this);

- I love when teams compare and contrast their evidence to their opponents, and it is something that teams do not do with enough frequency. This adds an extra layer of analysis to your arguments and helps make them more persuasive.

-Verbal citations are a must and need to include author name and date of publication. Not only is it unfair to make your opponents go back and check for authors and dates on all you pieces of evidence, but it is also plagiarism as you are taking someone else's work and utilizing it as your own.

Progressive

Theory

-I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Unless the theory is frivolous I'm not likely to buy any RVIs as I don't think teams should be punished for good-faith norm-setting.

-Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, I will have no hesitancy treating either of those as a voter and dropping the violating team. I would suggest that every team just disclose and don't paraphrase because otherwise you are going in to a theory debate you will most likely lose. That is not a case of me intervening, but rather due to the fact that the majority of arguments against disclosure and in favor of paraphrasing aren't good.

-99.9% of the time trigger warnings are unnecessary in PF. If it non-graphic I don't believe it should have a trigger warning point-blank. In my experience trigger warnings prevent important debates from happening, and are often used to silence underrepresented voices. The literature also seems to conclude that trigger warnings are a trauma magnifier, so do with that as you please.

-I'm indifferent on round reports if you disclose, but think they are unhelpful if you don't.

Kritiks

-The time constraints of PF make it really hard to have a good K debate, that being said, I think it is good for teams to be pushing the threshold on what arguments are accepted in PF.

Arguments I read in high school: Securitization, Word Pic, and topical race/gender arguments with a ROB

Arguments I debated: Anti-blackness, Rage, Fem, Cap, Set-Col, Orientalism, Spark, Dedev, Wipeout (not endorsing the last three just saying I debated them)

The tl;dr: is that I can evaluate K debate to the extent of a PF first year out with some familiarity navigating the policy backfiles. If you win the K on the flow you will win my ballot, but don’t assume I have prior knowledge when it comes to the more unorthodox K positions (especially non-topical ones).

- If you are reading an argument that talks about changing the debate space, please don't have an opt-out form, it is counter-intuitive, and potentially terminal defense on your method if you are willing to not debate an argument that aims to change the space.

Speaker Points

I'll start everyone at a 28.5 and adjust from there on a sliding scale. It'll be a mix of style and strategy.

Have fun, debate is a game.

Treat me as a lay judge. Spreading in a debate is strongly discouraged. DO NOT Spread! If you try to do a "speed talking data dump" I will assume it is to cover a lack of deeper understanding of your subject. I prefer a slow, clear delivery that demonstrates a logical analysis and speaks directly to/rebuts points made by the opposing team. It is the burden of the debater to make sure the arguments are flowable.

Intro:

Hi, I’m Drew, a first-year student at Georgia Tech. I debated 4 years PF at Carrollton High School on the GFCA and TOC circuits. I qualed for TOC my senior year.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: andrewbjohnson06@gmail.com

Preferably send both Constructive and Rebuttal docs, but at the minimum, Constructive.

__________________________________________________________________________________

TL;DR: Tech Judge, I will evaluate everything. Vote off the flow. Please weigh. Don't make me intervene.

Lay x--------------------------------------------O-----x Tech

__________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

General:

• I am a tech judge. 100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is developed well.
• Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful.
• I will not flow off speech docs. I only look at evidence if a team calls it out.
• I think speaks should be based on a 28.5-30 scale with .1 increments. I will only drop below that if you say something offensive or give up in round. I am not afraid of low-point wins.
• Go as fast as you want, but don’t sacrifice clarity. I debate quickly and can handle speed, just don’t spread. If I can’t understand, I will say clear up to three times and then drop my pen.
• I don’t flow cross, but I do listen. A large portion of your speaks will be determined based on how you handle the pressure of cross-fire.
• Time yourselves, please.
• PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer going down the flow line-by-line in rebuttal and summary.
• Paraphrasing is acceptable. It is cool to say the card name and then paraphrase what the card says. Just have a cut card ready when called for.
• I like analysis arguments as much as evidence-based ones, so if you use logical responses that make sense to me, I will not value them less than evidence unless the other team has a card disproving your analysis.
• Weighing is essential. You should do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be “we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me.” Give me analyses as to why you’re winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered as you want it to be.
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary.
• Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a significant educational opportunity; I believe that learning is why this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I think the punishment is warranted.

Theory:

• If you run theory, ensure that it is not abused in and of itself. I don’t think a formal counter-inter is necessary to respond to a shell; give responses like you would a standard argument. If it’s frivolous and the opposing team says that, I will drop you and give the lowest speaks possible.
• Do not run disclosure on the Georgia Circuit (Talking to a specific school here. You know who you are.). That is not the norm and is abusive.
• Feel free to run it at TOC bid tournaments, though. I disclosed and probably prefer it as the norm (Doesn't mean I'll auto-vote on it, though).

K's:

• I will evaluate K's, but don't expect me to vote on it just because you run it. I think K debaters are either lazy or smart so you need to prove why you are the latter.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Post-Round Info:

• I disclose. Usually, I will give my RFD in rounds with a few main things posted on Tab.
• If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me using the above email.
• Post-round me, please. I love good discussions about the round. Don't expect it to change my ballot, though. I've already submitted it before I give my RFD.
• Please ask for my flow if you would like. I flow on excel and will be happy to email it to you. :)

I am a parent judge with no past experience in judging PF. Here are some preferences:

-Speak slowly, I need to understand what you are saying in order to properly evaluate how I should make my decision.

-Stay calm and coherent during crossfire, I may take off speaker points if anyone is rude or downright disrespectful to someone else speaking.

-Do not be too complex with arguments, keep the points simple and comprehensible.

-Keep arguments cohesive and with good flow so it is easy to follow your points.

-Don't bring up new points in the final focus or in any summary.

-Time yourselves.

rashmismita@gmail.com

she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu

competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist

general notes

tech > truth

please preflow before the round

i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments

love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)

warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence

can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread

if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.

won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches

rebuttal

must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)

implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round

summary + final

defense isn't sticky

collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it

progressive argumentation

i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it

i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning

have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate

other notes

i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round

if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give

if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round

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

(TL;DR, I am a tech judge. PF is about persuasion, so don't frivolous/nonsensical arguments)

Hello! I am Kieran Kelly; I have done PF, LD, and Extemp at Carrollton High School for four years. I am currently in my first year at Georgia Tech. I won some national tournaments, qualified for TOC, and won six state championships(PF & Extemp). I am pretty familiar with most norms and arguments. As a judge, I will do my best to give you a fair, equitable decision based on the flow. I love forensics and firmly believe that winning or losing a round is a truly educational, fun experience.

For questions and evidence chains, email kierankelly678@icloud.com. I want you to send me your speech doc.

**** Theory and K's truth>tech. I WILL EVALUATE THEM, THOUGH!!!

DISCLOSURE: I like it at TOC bid tournaments. You will be dropped if you run this on the Georgia Circuit.

TRICKS: No way, pal. This is super lazy.

LARP: Probably preferred.

EVIDENCE: I look at it post-round and will not vote for sketchy evidence. I'll give you ~3 minutes to find your evidence, but it should pretty much be on hand. The longer you take to find evidence, the more your speaks drop.

DELIVERY: I'm cool with speed, but I don't necessarily like it. I prefer that you deliver the speech in a way that makes me feel like you believe and are passionate about what you are talking about(even if you aren't).

WEIGHING ARGUMENTS: Run basically any FW with me, and I'll evaluate it. I will calculate the impact by considering magnitude in light of probability. However, if you prove any probability of an infinite result, I will vote on that. (extinction is not infinite unless you give me a reason to believe it is)

ORGANIZATION: I greatly appreciate good organization because it makes it significantly easier to flow. Off-time road maps are greatly encouraged, and I want a speech doc for constructive.

EXTRA STUFF: Be respectful, but don't be afraid to be passionate about what you are talking about.

Hey! Hope it's going well! I'm Reva. I've competed in Public Forum for three years and have also done Congress and various Speech events.

Tech>Truth

Speed is fine but make sure to enunciate well

Please please signpost and have a off-time roadmap

I will flow anything as long as it is not homophobic, racist, or sexist

Collapse, Extend, AND Weigh!!!!

If it wasn't in summary then it shouldn't be in final focus

Please give me a reason why I need to be voting for your side

If you have any questions please ask before the round!

I don't flow cross but I expect that you are respectful during it

BQ

I mainly compete/judge PF but I have knowledge of BQ and the topic

Same preferences for PF

I like definition battles

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!!!!

Here is my email reva.lingala1@gmail.com for evidence sharing or if you have any questions

Hello! My name is Eden (he/him), and I am a former PF debater from Carrollton High School and a current first year student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!). I debated 3 years on the Georgia and national circuit. I won several GA tournaments and broke at quite a few national tournaments so I'm familiar with lingo and norms.

Add me to email chain: edenlong42@gmail.com

Summary: Tech>Truth. Arguments need to be extended through every speech and evidence must be used to support your speeches. I will always vote off the flow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighing: Please weigh your impacts. If you don't give me a framework I default to util. I'll vote on any framework as long as you win it on the flow. If the link chain is strong and you defend it well I'll vote for your impact.

Theory: I'm willing to vote for theory arguments just make sure you actually win the warranting. I'm not going to vote for you the second you start reading theory just because your opponent doesn't format the argument the way you think they should. Whoever warrants the best gets my vote. RVI's and IVI's are fine.

Disclosure: I'll vote on disclosure at TOC bid tournaments only. I ran it a few times and know how it works. Same theory stuff applies though about warranting. I won't vote on jargon alone. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit. This is not the norm and extremely abusive. The Georgia circuit should be a space for anyone to feel welcome and disclosure only rewards teams who have the resources to run it.

K's:I have less experience with K's than I do with theory so keep that in mind but I am willing to vote on it if you warrant it. I don't have an issue taking debates outside of the topic as long as you prove to me why we should. I enjoy when debaters read K's they truly care about and I think it brings important discussions into our event.

Tricks:I really, really don't like tricks. I think the only time we should take things out of the topic is when we really need to. I hate when debaters want to be lazy and read out tricks to confuse their opponents. If you decide to run friv theory just be prepared for my rfd.

Structure:I think rebuttals need to respond to everything in constructive. I don't want to hear a new response to case in summary and I probably won't flow it. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No new evidence in 2nd summary and final should only extend what's in summary. Don't be abusive in 2nd final.

Evidence: I'll only look at evidence in the chain if you ask me to. Don't be hesitant to call for cards in the round. I don't get judges who are annoyed by this. Please have evidence ready to be sent, I love evidence sharing but I hate ending a round 30 minutes late.

Timing:Don't really care if you go over a little bit just don't be hypocritical. I've gone against way too many teams who go 20 seconds over then start complaining the instant their opponent goes one second over. Don't be that team.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to help you get better so please feel free to ask me any questions about debate or the topic after the round. I'll probably be flowing on computer and I'd be more than willing to send you my flow after the round. Good Luck!

Spreading is strongly discouraged. Please keep your delivery at a reasonable pace and speak clearly. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

I know it's a somewhat long paradigm but reading it will help you in round, I promise.

My Experience/Preferences: I'm a fourth-year PF debater at Midtown High School so I'm very knowledgeable about debate in general. If I'm judging you in LD or Policy, I'm fine with most theory and Ks, but less experienced with very progressive debate, so you may need to explain things to me in your speeches. Also, explain the basics of your topic to me if you're not in PF because I won't have done much research on it. Also, plz give an offtime roadmap, it just helps me flow.

Speaking: Do not spread, if you do I will give you low speaks and will tell you to slow down. Otherwise, I can understand pretty fast speaking as long as you're clear. Make sure you're speaking loud enough and showing passion in what you're debating.

Evidence: I don't need to be on an evidence-sharing doc or email chain and usually won't ask to see evidence unless I really need to accurately judge to round. Also, do not excessively call for cards. No one should ever ask for 8 cards at the end of a speech, because they'll only end up actually evaluating two or three them. Doing this to try to gain prep time is very obnoxious and will lose you speaks. Only ask for cards if you are actually going to evaluate them well or need to examine the credibility of the source.

Time: Time yourselves, I will try to time as well but I may forget. I will be keeping track of your prep so don't try to steal any, doing so will result in a loss of speaker points. Also, be sure to use up all of your speech time.

How I Judge: I'm definitely prioritize tech over truth so if you point out your opponent's nontopicality, their running of a plan (PF), their failure to respond to something, or that they're bringing up new evidence or arguments when they're not supposed to, I will flow that argument to you. If you don't respond to your opponent's framework or alternative situation, I will go with whatever they say.

This does not mean, however, that you will get away with any type of response you want. If you have a bad turn, your opponent's impact will flow through. The same goes with your case, if your impact isn't true, terminal, and specific, I will only weigh as however important as I see it is. Your link chain also has to be clear and make sense for me to consider the impact.

I don't flow CSX but how you speak and respond will influence your speaker points. If you bring up a good point in cross, bring it up in your next speech. The same goes with other speeches, if you read it in one speech, you need to keep running that point, try not to drop arguments unless you intentionally drop it to collapse on one argument or save time and focus on more important things.

Another thing thats very important to me is giving a good explanation. Explain why the points you make impact the round and always link the points you make to your value criterion (LD) and your impacts.

I will vote on impacts, so GIVE COMPARATIVE VOTERS, tell me why you win the round and why your impacts are better in Magnitude, Risk, and/or Timeframe than your opponents.

Most importantly, have fun!! Debate is all just a game so try not to get too frustrated with anything your opponents say. Also, Ill give you 0.5 extra speaker points if you make a joke during one of your speeches, but only if it makes me laugh.

I have been doing PF for a number of years and I am a varsity debater. Some important things you should know are...

Don't be afraid to call for your opponent's card during a cross-fire if their argument seems extreme. I do not require you to use your prep time to read your opponent's card. An argument is only as good as its source, so be ready to share these if asked to.

I don't flow cross-fire. If you think something happened in a cross-fire that improves your argument then reiterate that in your speeches.

I will be timing but make sure to be aware of your own time. I will not flow anything said after your time is up.

Finally, be respectful of the other team and avoid interrupting each other. I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

he/him/his

Hey, I'm Mark! I'm first year out of Carrollton (GA), where I debated PF on the local and national circuits. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals a few times, all in PF. I'm a first-year at the University of Georgia now studying political science, international affairs, and Spanish.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: mvzjr2@gmail.com.

Debate how you want to. This is your activity. It is my job to judge all forms of debate equitably. That said, I have found that I have certain unconscious preferences in the debate space. You can take these with a grain of salt, or you can try to adapt. That is completely up to you. I will never drop someone solely because they don't debate how I did or how I prefer. I never really know how to structure my preferences, so below are my best attempts. Let me know if you have any questions either through email or in person before the round.

_________________________________________

-100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is extended well. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact.

-Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful. Collapse as early as you want.

-Go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity. I debated really quickly and can handle speed, but I think spreading is kind of annoying. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but if you do, it needs to be REALLY well done. If you get close to spreading, send me a speech doc.

-I don't flow cross.

-Time yourselves, please.

-I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. If you run theory, ensure that it is not abusive. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop.

-Paraphrasing is probably fine (definitely not preferred), but if you misconstrue evidence, I will hardcore drop your speaks. I might also drop you. When an opponent asks for evidence, I will give you about 1 minute to send it in the email chain (as a cut card) and then start docking speaks (this can be altered at my discretion due to technology issues, etc.).

-PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer line-by-line in rebuttal and summary, but this isn't necessarily a "must-do to pick up my ballot" type of thing.

-Weighing is really important. Do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered in the way that you want it to be.

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or first summary. Nothing new should be read second summary and beyond.

-Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a really important educational opportunity and I believe that learning is the sole reason that this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I believe the punishment is warranted.

_________________________________________

I start speaker points at a 28 and then go up and down from there. I am usually pretty generous with speaks. You shouldn't get below a 26 unless you did something discriminatory or extremely disrespectful.

Feel free to (civilly) postround me, but make sure everything is submitted on my end. I think that post rounding is educational for both the judge and the debater, and ensures that judges are checked for bad decisions.

If you are funny I will boost your speaks. Please be funny.

I disclose unless the tournament tells me not to.

If you have any questions, please contact me. You can email me, send me a message on Instagram (@markzimmer_), talk to me, or send me a carrier pigeon. Anything works.