My name is Abraam, I'm a university student studying engineering. I don't have much experience in judging.

hints for high points

since the tournament is online please speak clearly and slowly, also send a copy of the case on Abraam778@gmail.com

good luck to everyone

I am a parent judge, I evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read.

I prefer the practical arguments those are well elaborated between the claim, the facts/evindences which extensively elaborated. And i would really appreciate if the debaters doesn't rush their way during the speech.

Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.

For Districts (GA): it's nat-quals, big stuff, do whatever you need to do to earn a win with high marks. Won't penalize certain strategies, will penalize execution of certain strategies (i.e., if you feel the need to read truth-testing, please see my thoughts on related strategies before I miss a NIB). I consider myself a reasonably good flow, but if it's not on my flow, it does not exist.

About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior* at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm familiar with the rez.

- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)

- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding) - like pls don't

Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):

- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz

- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks

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

- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability” - though I tend to be on the higher side of speaks...

Prefs Cheat Sheet:

K, Policy: 1

Philosophy*: 2

Theory and Tricks: 4

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

*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook

TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine

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

- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous

- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments (would love it if my RFD echoes the 2NR/2AR)—this also means I now will factor CX into my decision-making if you completely fumble on key issues

- I won't flow arguments if I can tell that they're generated by ChatGPT - debate is about making arguments and thinking for yourself, not letting AI do work for you - very low threshold for theory against chatGPT arguments, btw

- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk

- I disclose the decision + other stuff post-round but: I don't disclose speaks (goofy), it either takes me like two seconds or 45 min to figure out the round, I try my damndest to give the "right" decision (quality decisionmaking + feedback = really really important), but I am not receptive to aggressive postrounding…

- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result; I am probably more willing than other judges to consider independent voters (especially misgendering, racism, and other arguments that, intentional or not, result in exclusion in debate)

- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)

- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)

- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3

Lincoln Douglas

Kritiks

- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful

- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad

- I find material explanations of the alt and ToP more persuasive, but I understand abstract interpretations of power or identity to often be necessary, just explain it and we're good

- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L

- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)

- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good), similarly, I think the Aff should at least define what debates should look like as a departure from the squo

- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh

- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf, K aff v. cap K is usually pretty easy to resolve imo but other debates (especially identity debates) need weighing, ToP analysis, and probably a lot of perm work

- I don't like the perm double bind - saying "either the alt is strong enough to..." is basically telling me to my face "I know perfectly well the Aff links but nonetheless I'll pretend it doesn't" - good framing wins debates, but bad framing hurts my heart

- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)

- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it

Policy/Util

- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”

- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful

- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D, especially on the JF24 topic I find that solvency is highly contestable and makes for very rewarding rounds

- I do not default to judge kick, 2NR needs to tell me to do it, low threshold for "it's a lose-lose for the Aff so don't do that"

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

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

- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)

- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals

- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts), especially on the JF '24 topic, I think one-country plans make a lot of sense semantically, but random country ACs could be abusive - doing a lot of work on "there's enough lit about Israel to make it a debate but the US doesn't even have presence in Cyprus, how am I supposed to make args here" is a good strat

Phil/FW

- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry

- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)

- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true

- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"

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

- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them

- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates

Traditional LD (Trad)

- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches

- Trad v. circuit rounds are a dilemma because every judge has different feelings here, but I tend to err on the side of circuit debater should slow a bit (70-80% speed), read an educational position like 2-3 policy off or a good but common K (setcol, security, fem, etc.), and the trad debater should be willing to adapt to tough situations - if we're in a bubble or elim round, do whatever it takes to win

- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge

- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense

- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)

- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other

- "spreading bad" is a bad arg if you have the doc and even worse if you use it to clap back after you misgendered your opponent (I cannot believe I had to put this in my paradigm)

- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good

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

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

- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)

Theory

- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact (aka presumption)

- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse

- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate

- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)

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

- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx

- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)

- I've voted on RVIs in the past, just not my favorite thing to evaluate bc everyone and their dog has different conceptions of "when do you get one" and "how does an RVI interact with layers" and aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa just go back to substance and push presumption :)

- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"

Disclosure

- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity—I lowkey really dislike disclosure theory debates so would prefer to adjudicate this only if necessary

- You don’t have to disclose performances

- Stop chronically reading disclosure against Black debaters—I don’t get why that is y’all’s go-to strat of all things

- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)

Tricks

- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)

- I've realized as of late that I find it very difficult to flow a slew of analytics made in short spans of time (which is part of why I prefer Ks and policy since cards in these debates are usually longer so I don't have to delineate as much), if you're gonna read a bunch of analytics, give me time to get em down

- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow

- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link

Misc/Defaults for LD

- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence, I have no defaults on theory (make args lol)

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

- Don’t care if you sit or stand, just make it so I can hear and understand you

- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, the fog is upon us

CONFLICTS:

Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS

Hi debaters!

Please speak clearly and if possible, not too fast. Also please explain your arguments in plain terms.

Good luck!

Very stock parent judge. Believe that speaking is as important as debating, thus strong speaking skills will be rewarded with good speaker points. I try my best to take notes but I’m no expert at flowing. My son does debate and I try to listen in on the arguments he talks about. Truth > Tech.

Cross Ex is a really easy way to win my ballot. If you can poke holes in your opponents arguments whilst clearly and strategically explaining your own arguments I will appreciate it and it makes my job easier. I pay attention to all of the cross exes.

Please don’t spread or even speak too fast. It is important that you know how to speak in a organized but also realistic manner. Spreading means I can’t understand and thus I can’t take note of your arguments.

Impact calculus probably makes judging easier. Even if you’re losing an argument but you can prove why the ones you are winning are more important I will vote for you. These usually sound like “Even if you buy their arguments on economic policy, our climate change argument is more important because.......”

I have experience of judging debate for few years. Few things I am follow when judging

1. Have students understood the basic issue being discussed.
2. Are they directly addressing topic with specific evidence
3. Explained why their points are better than other side.
4. clearly state the topic and summarize the summary at the end.

Enjoy debating and learning !

Please talk slowly and clearly. If I can't catch what you're talking about, I can't credit you for your arguments.

Please make the framework/metric clear for me. It would be best to argue and arrange your arguments according to the contentions so it's easier for me to keep track of the progress of that contention.

For crossfire, try your best not to talk over your opponents. I can't hear any of your points if both parties are talking over each other.

I. Background

I've been a college BP debater for 5 years and have judged junior and intermediate level PF competitions for 4 years. I would stay unbiased in the process of judging the debate.

II. Judging Style

I'm a flow judge and base it only on argumentation, ok with fast speed but would prefer clearer delivery for logical reasoning parts while evidence parts could be relatively faster. I'm open to kritik and counterplans depending on the motion but they need to stay highly relevant to the topic.

III. Evaluation Criteria

Priorities goes in descending order.

1. Impact

The potential real-world impact of each side's arguments and policy proposals needs to be clear, specific, and well-supported.

2. Evidence Quality

The quality, relevancy, and credibility of the evidence presented by each side will be evaluated. Well-researched, and up-to-date evidence would make your argument more convincing.

3. Reasoning

Logical reasoning is very important. Try to be coherent and specific about each logical link.

4. Engagement

Proper response must be given to your opponent's contentions. Try not to drop any of the important ones.

Last but not least, be respectful and be a good sport. Enjoy!

I am committed to always being a fair judge in debate competitions and ensuring that the evaluations are based on the arguments presented and the rules of the competition. I shall maintain impartiality and avoid any form of bias towards any particular debater or team. I shall be well-versed in the rules of the competition, including the format, structure, and criteria for evaluation. This will ensure that all evaluations are conducted consistently and fairly based on the content of the arguments presented, rather than the delivery style or personal beliefs of the debaters. The quality and coherence of the arguments shall be the primary criteria for evaluation. each debater is given equal time to present their arguments and the time allotted for each round is managed effectively to allow for a fair evaluation of all arguments. I shall ensure that the evaluations are consistent and fair and treat all debaters with respect. I will strive to create a positive and inclusive environment for all participants.

In Public Forum Debate, I will priotize for those who have better explanation and justification (why or how) in their case. It means that not only I credit the evidence, but also the explanation of what debaters can or want to do with that evidence. It would be nice if debaters could explain the likelyhood of their case in term of utilizing the evidence. Debaters might want to explain the exclusivity of their value and how it would happen in your side of the house.You might need to be clear about the clashes in your side of the house so it would be easier for me to see the holes you poke in your opponent's case and how you rebuild your own case. Note that I will only judge and take notes based on your speech (I won't step out of your case) so it would be cool if you could choose your wording wisely and give the step by step of your value to be justified to make sure that we have mutual understanding so I could give proper credit to your case.

In public forum debate, i will prioritize the student's cappability in creating further analysis in regards to the fact and material that they deliver to the speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know step by step process as how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttal and responses are better to not one liner and have deeper reason. I expect a debate where student can cite factual and scientific resources such as journal or papers.

My name is Hamza Aziz.

I am a University level debater and have been to a number of tournaments. I recently judged the Harvard online PF tournament.

I hope to see some strong arguments for and against the proposal. What I prefer is to see is logical explanations of each argument along with the use of credible sources.

Good luck to all debaters!

Thank You,

Hamza

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

I was once a policy debater so there is a reasonable chance that I will keep up on my flow. If I don't, that means there is a good chance you are talking like a policy debater yourself (or like an auctioneer, and I won't feel so bad if I miss something).

I will go where you take me. I will rely on your arguments rather than my own domain knowledge.

I do appreciate when debaters spell it out for me, not just why you should win the argument but how that argument should contribute to the decision. I look for clear links and impacts for the pivotal arguments. I understand that jargon is useful shorthand, but I will understand you better if the jargon does not become excessive.

I will tolerate kritiks but set a high bar for arguments that do not attempt to relate to the resolution, or that could be used regardless of the topic at hand (i.e. meta-arguments like that debate is pointless because we live in a flawed society). I appreciate clash delivered with a level of sportsmanship and manners.

I highly appreciate speeches that engage with the core issues of the debate. There should be effective weighing and compelling argumentation, with sufficient substantiation, to fully credit a speech.

For an argument to be logical and strong enough, I usually evaluate through the following standards: relevance, likelihood or feasibility, impact, and exclusivity.

In terms of style, I prefer those who delivers a clear and properly structured speech. The speed should not be an issue as long as you convey your message well.

My name is Vahan Bedros.

I am a debate coach for BL education.

While I judge, I will be looking for:

• Clarity and confidence in speech. Don't speed talk to a point where nobody understands what you are saying.
• Present your facts and information in card format
• Organization and consistency with your debating skills.

This is a debate so be passionate and energized!

I debated for Dougherty Valley. I don't debate for Cal.

be comprehensible/go slower - i dont judge as often as you compete

way better for the K now than I was 3 years ago - I still require explanation and examples to the same extent though

Debated mostly in LD but went to policy camp and some policy tournaments. If you're a PF-er you shouldn't have counteradvocacies but other than that I will judge it like it’s a policy round - read cards

he/they

add me to the email chain (bhatsavit@gmail.com).

if you're short on time, just read this top section:

don't overinvest, have fun

Tech>Truth, but it’s easier to win more truthful arguments.

arguments require a claim and a warrant and (eventually) an implication. i wont pretend you said something you didn't and have no problem voting on lack of explanation or not hearing something.

online: record speeches locally if online, flash analytics if possible

email chain should be set up at start time

if you or your opponent might read theory or topicality as a viable out (not just to waste everyone's time), read the "rant" under the theory section. everything else in the paradigm is extremely standard and you'll be fine even if you don't read it.

Misc:

- you don't need to adapt to novices if on the national circuit

- circumvention and impact turns are nice

- number/delineate your arguments

- will reward fun, high-risk strategies such as 1-off disad, a massive impact turn , 7 minutes of case turns or circumvention etc.

- "independent voting issues" are rarely ever independent or voting issues

- happy to give the "i don't get it" rfd

• defaults: comparative worlds (LD), no judge kick, "competing interps", no rvi, drop the debater on T and condo and disclosure theory and drop the argument on all other theory, fairness and education are voters, everything other than fairness and education is not a voter

- tell me to judge kick or I won't: condo assumes 2NR collapse exists.

Evidence:

- disclosure is good

- sending a marked copy does not constitute prep, requesting a doc where "unread cards are deleted" does

- you can insert rehighlights

-clipping - stake the round and show me the recording.

- ev ethics - any misrepresentation of evidence (stopping in the middle of a paragraph, if the article concludes the opposite way after the card ends, mis-cited) is an automatic L even if not called out. if your link is dead but the article can be procured through a different method you won't lose.

- i expect evidence to have cites/qualifications and not be bracketed unless offensive language. read theory

• i read a lot of ev, the quality of the warrant is the quality of the argument.

"Framing Contentions"

- extend warrants, weigh, and answer warrants. implicate each argument, don't leave it to me to do the work for you

- you still need to answer the disadvantage

- this just shifts the burden of explanation, it doesn't magically make extinction not a problem anymore (or the reverse). that being said, you should still leave some time for the framing portion of the debate

Disadvantages:

- I used to like politics disads but then I grew up

- no new links/IL/impacts/uq arguments in the 2NR, but may use cards to answer (new) 1AR arguments

- 2NR/2AR impact calc isn't new and is vital

Counterplans:

- love smart and creative counterplans

- start the solvency debate in the 1NC (card or analytic), not the 2AC. burden of proof on the negative!

- defining "sufficiency framing" isn't enough - make it contextual.

- read CP theory but don't speed through blocks. Counterplan theory is generally a question of research and predictability, having a specific advocate is important.

- i do not have a predisposition for/against condo/dispo bad in LD (they're good in policy)

- err neg/drop the argument on 1AR theory is persuasive in LD

- LD only: non-resolutional actor CPs in LD don't provide an opportunity cost to the plan insofar that the aff's obligation is to prove an actor's moral obligation, i will still evaluate them as they are read and debated unless that argument is made.

Kritiks (on the negative):

- good k debates are cool but rare - consequently good k debates with explanation and knowledge of your argument will get great speaks and bad k debates meant to take your opponent by surprise or rack up easy wins with blocks will get extremely deflated speaks.

- the more the negative wins their link the easier it is for them to win Framework

- filter alt solvency through Framework - and actually explain it please!

- please actually warrant your fairness arguments on Framework - 'moots the aff' absent an explanation of why consequences are specifically key is probably not enough

- LD only: Link walls must be in the 1NC. New 2NR links from the 1AC are new and will not be evaluated. New 2NR links based on the 1AR will be evaluated. In policy, new 2NC links are fine

- not relying on precluding the aff = higher speaks.

- extensions of 'ontology' and similar broad claims need to be much more robust than you think they do. you can't just say the buzzwords "natal alienation" or "gratuitous violence" or "metaphysics" without telling me 1) what they are and 2) how they implicate progress.

- i will vote for warranted K "tricks" but keep the overview shorter rather than longer please

- vagueness in cx bad

- particularity vs Ks is good and Ks should either link turn or impact turn this and overinvest time on this argument

Kritiks (on the affirmative):

- T-USFG/Framework - aff teams can easily out-tech neg teams but i usually went for T/Fwk. Don't care which internal link/impact you choose: fairness, skills, testing, etc. as long as they have an actual impact

- I am unfamiliar with K v K debates, but I'm not opposed to judging them.

- try to answer the case even if you go for T especially the parts that interact

- you get a perm

- go for presumption if the 1AC is just an impact turn to Framework

Theory/Topicality:

- Rant: Reasonability vs Competing Interps is much less important than you think it is. If the substance tradeoff DA or overpunishment DA by dropping the debater outweighs mitigated interp offense, I will vote against theory because of "reasonability". If neither of those arguments are introduced or leveraged successfully, I will not use reasonability (i.e. there must be some offense vs the interp to vote against theory). if both teams pretend like this part of my paradigm doesn't exist, I'll likely just use competing interps because it causes me less of a headache to evaluate

- i like T, went for it a lot.

- weighing is essential

- evidence comparison is underutilized

- RVIs are bad but don't drop them

- if a 1AC theory underview has more than yes/no theory, competing interps/reasonability, dtd/dta, voters you instantly lose 0.5 speaker points for making me flow all that :)

- Interpretations are models of debate, and definitions are the warrants for why those models are predictable - standards should be filtered through predictability

- "semantics first" is not persuasive, precision as an internal link is persuasive

LD Philosophy/Ethical Framework Debates:

- i am much better for literally any other argument. I'm sorry I just really do not care

- that being said, if your cards and rebuttals do a good job of explaining the syllogism and reasons to prefer(they usually don't), you'll be fine.

- tricks: If there's a clear claim, warrant, and implication to an argument when it is first introduced, then I will flow and evaluate it like any other argument. Even if you go for terrible one-liners that are almost definitively false, you should still collapse and oversell the truth of your arguments.

• "we defend the aff as a general principle" is a topicality issue about implementation.
• general confidence vs modesty bores me - contextualize (with cards) !

Speaks:

CX matters, -0.1 speaks if you shift around your order multiple times when giving it or if you don't label your flows in the 1nc ("next off" is insufficient).

Credit to whoever I copped some lines of this paradigm from

I am an experienced University Debater with multiple breaks in judging along with past IA experience. Some of my accomplishments are Huber Debates 2020, ESL Break, Open Break at Uhuru Worlds 2020, McGill Winter Carnival 2020 Novice Champion, Seagram's IV Waterloo 2021 IAship.

I like to bring this competitive experience into my judging. The most important aspect that I look out for is comparative engagements. I vote for teams who can rightly identify the crucial aspects of their opponents' cases and be deliberate in outweighing and refuting those arguments. I also look for teams who can impact their research and show why their impacts are the most crucial in the round. When cases and arguments are similar in strength then I emphasize on framing and pick the team who can best elevate their arguments given the agreed upon conditions affecting the round.

Please be on time for check-in.

Email: Gracenicoleb@gmail.com

She/her

Background

• I did policy debate at Samford for 3 years
• 2x NDT qualifier
• Assistant coach of the SpeakFirst debate team

Top-level thoughts:

I prefer clear, slow speaking over fast, unintelligible speaking. With online debate, clarity is key. A lot of technology leaves failure points where I may miss something. I will be more likely to vote for the team that carefully explains their arguments over a team that provides more evidence but neglects warrants.

I will not vote for death good or warming good.

If I notice you are clearly clipping cards or are engaging in racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks or behavior, I will vote you down. If you want to call out a team that you believe is clipping cards, debaters are innocent until proven guilty. Be prepared to have it recorded or have some other way for me to verify it.

Disclosure: Debaters should disclose. I am fine with disclosure arguments.

Judge kick: I will kick the cp for the neg if no one tells me not to.

Tech > Truth with limits. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true unless it is obviously unethical or when I go back and read your evidence, it does not say what you say it does. I will read most of the evidence in round but if you're answering a specific argument/link/internal link with a generic, I won't always accept that without contextualization. If you leave it up to me to resolve an argument, you get what you get.

More specific thoughts:

CP

I default to sufficiency framing. The Cp's viability as a winning argument is essentially a product of how much it resolves the aff's impacts and the magnitude of the NB. Also, if it is not 100% clear on the distinction between the cp and the plan, outline the differences for me. If the CP has no external net benefit-- it must solve better than the aff for some reason.

DA

Be clear on the link level- this means I don't want you to just read cards on why you don't link-- I want an explanation. I will vote for a DA if I think there is a small risk of a link and a significant probability of an impact. I will not vote for a DA if I feel like there is not a significant probability of an impact, even if there is a small risk of a link. There are downsides to every policy-- it's the burden of the neg to prove why their impacts outweigh.

K

You should start with the assumption that I know nothing about your literature base. I will vote for a K if it is specific and interacts with the Aff. I will not vote for generic Ks that are not explained well or lack evidence. Line-by-line is very important for these debates so don't just rely on cards. Unless told specifically otherwise, I assume that life is preferable to death. In order to convince me otherwise, you must prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead. My best piece of advice is that if you want me to vote for the K, you must prove how it SOLVES whatever the debate is about. If the K doesn't solve anything, expect an L. I think too often, Ks get away with cheap solvency. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on bad rhetoric Ks/independent voters- these arguments are sometimes very convincing to me.

T

I am not the best person to judge a super in-depth T debate, but I'll do my best. I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could possibly be persuaded to vote another way. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on T so if you are going to go for it, commit to it. T outweighs condo 98% of the time.

Theory

I lean neg on theory. Condo- good and key to neg flex, but it's a debate to be had. For me to vote on generic condo, there needs to be something egregiously abusive going on in the round. My only caveat here is that I am more likely to vote on contra condo. I could be persuaded that going 5+ off with multiple contradictory conditional options is a voting issue for 2AC fairness and education. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

Resolution

Please read a plan. Without a plan, often the thesis of the aff gets lost, which is super frustrating. This doesn't mean I won't vote for you, but if you decide to not read a plan just make sure that you thoroughly explain what the aff does.

PF & LD

Do not drop line by line to summarize your arguments. I'm more likely to vote for the team that interacts with the other teams' arguments to accelerate their own. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, plans, etc. if you want to run them. Impact calc is a must and make sure you collapse down to your best arguments in the summary. Don't waste time on insignificant arguments you're not going for. You must explain the warrants of the evidence you read. I will not accept the extension of a tag. Lastly, I hate tricks and will vote you down if that's what you go for.

Cade, he/him

Current Affiliations - competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present, coach @ North Broward Prep: '22-Present.

Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy:

Speed is fine, a lack of clarity is not. Debaters should go as fast as they can without over-exerting themselves and falling off of pace. Nuanced debates that require lots of analytics, etc. (think counterplan competition or theory) should be slowed down a solid 20% to make sure I can keep up. I will not be afraid to say I did not catch something if it was too fast for me to get down.

Able to judge anything, probably have a bit of a critical bend. I'd prefer you to read the arguments you are most comfortable with than attempting to try to adapt to me--you are most likely a better orator on the positions you are confident in!

T/Theory/Etc. - these debates are my least favorite, but I feel as if I blame this on the fact that I cannot for the life of me keep up on these subjects if both teams decide to spread through quick tags, short cards, and large blocks of theory arguments without providing sufficient pen time. I am game for T and theory, just know I am not a flowing savant, and thus going very fast through a large amount of arguments is difficult. Keeping this in mind probably means you will have a much easier time keeping me in debates like this.

Judge kick seems to make sense if condo is justified, but I am game to question either of those premises.

"Cheating" counterplans (international fiat, object fiat, etc.) are up for debate, though I am much more likely to be persuaded if you can find a decent literature base that advocates in specific the proposal you defend, i.e., the world government counterplan with a solvency advocate is probably more convincing than a specific bilateral cooperation/action counterplan without one.

Competing interpretations makes logical sense, reasonability seems arbitrary and indeterminate, but I am down to be convinced otherwise.

CP/DA - these debates are fine, though I get lost with too much jargon (idk what a link controlling uniqueness or the inverse means or the impact it has on the round--if this is your schtick, explain the implication of what you are saying so I can keep up!)---impact comparison is the quickest way to get me with arguments like this.

K - As long as you can explain it! Don't mind listening to anything, though tags beyond three sentences and I may be a bit annoyed. I privilege debaters who can effectively explain their argument and contextualize it to the scenario of the debate round we are in. Topic-specific K > backfile check.

Case - Big case debate guy. Consequently also a big presumption guy--so many teams get away with warrantless 2ACs on case that are easily punished by spending some extra time there. From affirmatives, I would appreciate an effort to ensure the advantages/solvency mechanisms/etc. are explained/extended in some capacity in each speech, beyond mere tagline mentions. Efficiency should not come at the cost of argumentative depth and clarity. All I have said here applies especially to critical affirmatives. I much prefer cap + fwk and case to 5 nonsense variations of the heg DA that don't link.

More teams should be willing to defend their affirmative against the K--if ur aff sets up the link turn really well, don't invest needless time in setting up a losing perm debate!

PF:

Talk about the topic. Compare impacts. Respond to your opponents arguments. The more these things get overcomplicated, the harder PF becomes to understand and reliably judge.

LD:

I am judging this like a policy debate. Theory is not something I am the biggest fan of--especially some of the 'LD' type frivolous theory arguments.

Do speak clearly (speed is okay, but you must be understandable)

Do enjoy your debates. make it fun

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

Communication, eye contact!

be polite, be confident, be persuasive

"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride

and wants it to be faster and wilder;

she does not want a room of his or her own,

she wants to be in the world, in the world with others

and making the world anew."

-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons

I love debate. Enough to give it 6 years of my life and likely many more. I have made a point to engage in every format and have made pretty good progress in that goal. I love the tech of Policy, NFA-LD, NPDA, but do heavily enjoy rhetorical presentation in forms like BP or PF. I'm currently a college debater and am always learning new things, but I promise to listen closely, judge with as open of a mind as possible, and offer feedback to help you improve.

I view debate as competitive story-telling. Both sides are here to tell me a story about the topic. This effects how I view most questions in debate. As a quick outline toward earning my ballot, however, I care about three things:

1) The Contents of Your Arguments

2) Why they are Important

3) How they Compare and Interact with Your Opponent's Arguments

If you articulate to me these three things better than your opponent, I will very likely vote for you. Other than that, I want to hear your voice in the story that you want to tell. Please run the arguments and have the debate that you are most comfortable with, in the style that you are most comfortable with. I love new ideas and I love clash. If you can promise these two things, I will be entertained.

While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won, here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean on different controversial issues in the community:

Tech -----x-------------- Truth

Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card

Contextualized links --x----------------- Uncontextualized Studies

New ideas -----x----------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times

Public Forum:

While I appreciate the more rhetorical framework that PF is supposed to exist in, I like concrete impacts and a story for why those impacts matter and how they relate to the resolution. I love evidence comparison, impact analysis, and analytical examples.

I'm likely more open to theory or more progressive argumentation than your typical judge, but I love traditional argumentation as well. Tech isn't a tool for bullying or obfuscation. The burden of proof is on you to explain your argument to your opponents. If your opponents don't get your argument, that's your fault.

An argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact for me to consider it. This weird 'tricks' trend where teams sneakily toss in an independent line about voting for them isn't tech or line-by-line debate. It will only lower your speaks and my opinion of you as a debater.

I lift my pen up and stop flowing after the time for your speech runs out(I time independently).

Don't be rude to your opponents during Crossfire and allow the other team roughly equal speaking time(I keep track and it effects speaks).

Also when it comes to framing what's in the resolution/what it looks like, I am far more convinced by probability evidence("The Japanese Prime Minister says Article 9 Revision would be this") then debate theory analysis("this is the most fair ground for a debate"), please still make voter impact comparisons however if this ends up being the clash but I'd prefer to at least start in the lit base for determining what the resolution means.

On the "sticky defense" conversation. I like arguments to be extended in the summary. That being said, I don't need you to repeat word for word every argument made. For instance "extend our 5 points of defense on their first contention" would work well for me especially if you then contextualize those 5 points to the weighing.

On Kritiks, I'm honestly uncertain what that means in context of Public Forum debate. Can you make arguments or entire contentions based in "critical" theories of power? Absolutely!! In fact, when I debate in PF those are my favorite arguments to make. However, in PF you are explicitly given ground to defend which can run you into uniqueness problems. For instance, on the Japan Article 9 resolution, you can absolutely tell me that deterrence is part of a militarist mindset and even if it does technically "work" to solve an individual problem like Chinese aggression in the South China Sea that it creates a type of society or outlook that is very negative. This works because it makes sense to me on face that revising Article 9 would be a dramatic departure toward a militarist mindset/society then the Status quo. However, if you were to tell me that capitalism is bad, I'd agree with you but become confused as to how Capitalism would be any different between the squo and an article 9 revision. In plan-based formats like Policy this is solved by creating a counterplan(called an alternative) that shifts away from Capitalism but I'm unsure how you'd resolve the uniqueness issue in PF. However, if you think your argument makes sense in a PF paradigm, then I'd love to hear it.

Policy

I want clash and comparison, not scripts and uncontextualized framework fights.

Like most judges, I view the Negative as having the burden of rejoinder of a prepared affirmative opponent. What this means in practice:

Conditionality, I lean Aff. 1-2 CPs and 1 Alt plus the squo is very reasonable for fruitful engagement over the Affirmative. Every added Counter-advocacy after that is exponentially more potential negative worlds added and I lean more to depth over breadth when it comes to clash and do believe complaints about time from the Aff can be very valid(Having only 30 seconds in the 2AC per CP for instance is often not a very productive debate). That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more).

I define dispositionality as "if there is offense on the shell, the Neg can't just kick it." it's my default view on disads and I could be persuaded to apply it to CPs if the Aff put in the work. I will not reanimate turned Das though if they're not extended in the 1 and 2ar. You have to make the strategic decision to go for them.

On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; I need direct solvency advocates to buy these as legitimate and I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. If consulting is a ten minute phone call from the President, I don't see why that can't happen while Congress passes the plan. If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.

Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, don't think of them as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP.

2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.

Kritiks:

Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.

I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.

Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.

That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy.

Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial. A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.

For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.

Critical Affirmatives:

I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic, I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.

If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.

However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.

I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!

Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.

For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.

Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.

To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.

Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.

My threshold for dismissing "conservative" arguments is very high. Especially if I'm not sure what a conservative even is anymore. If an argument wouldn't get a professor or teacher fired, I think it's educational to learn how to clash with it.

"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.

I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue, neither is a microaggression that we can resolve informally. Also I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, feel free to interrupt a speech or wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive game getting in the way.

If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). In the 2002 CEDA Finals I would've voted for Michigan State CM over Fort Hays RR. Both were very close debates for good reason, but that's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.

Theory: It's an organized way of explaining that your opponents have somehow violated the rules or desirable norms of debate. I will admit that I have always felt policed by theory so run it at your own risk. That being said, if you win, you win. I have voted in favor of the interp more than the counterinterp despite my own embarrassment at that fact.

Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow in an offense/defense paradigm.

Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." More rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.

"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.

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!

I have a background in software and had many opportunities to informally debate technology as I was always asked to research and provide input on technological directions for the company.

Judged for the first time in late 2022 (an in-person event) and then again 2 weekends in early 2023 (both online).

Of course, sometimes it is required to cover everything but, speaking at nearly an incomprehensibly fast pace just to include relatively unimportant items doesn’t seem to me to be a good strategy or good for speaker points. In my debate judging opportunities so far, I have already seen several examples of convincing major arguments getting lost in a sea of quickly brought up and too-lightly supported very minor and tangential points.

Name: Emily Carroll

School Affiliation: Homewood-Flossmoor

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 6 years coaching LD & PF. . Completed in policy debate when I was in high school years ago.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- All debaters should be able to clearly understand each other- you can’t have clash if you don’t know what the other person is saying! I will let you know if I can’t understand you, and I expect you to be respectful of what your opponent can keep up with.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- A good summary speech presents the big picture, and then chooses just a few key arguments on the line by line to address. You do not need to answer every argument.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please clearly state what argument you are extending and include warrants and why it matters! Just repeating the name of a card is not an extension.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow carefully on paper. I don’t flow cross x, but I do listen closely and will add to what I have written.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I focus mainly on argumentation; that said, your style needs to be accessible to all debaters.

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, and that includes warrants, addressing class on this issue in the round, and impact analysis.

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? While not every argument made needs to be addressed, speakers should hit the big points of contention on both cases.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No. To be fair, issues should be brought up earlier in the round so all sides can answer. However, there is a difference between a brand new argument and simply going deeper on a point already made.

I view debate first as an educational activity. My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained. I spend most of my time in traditional LD/PF circuits.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

Pronouns: (she/her)

Preferred name: Kat

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

*****IF YOU READ/REFERENCE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/VIOLENT CONTENT I AM NOT THE JUDGE FOR YOU.*****

Debated at Liberty, and I debated policy for 4 years in high school (shout out to Long Branch High!).

My credentials ig:

- 2021 NDT third team

- 2022 NDT First Round (TOP TEN YERRRR)

- First Liberty invite to the Kentucky Round Robin

- Long Branch High volunteer Policy Coach

- Judged Policy, LD, Parli, PF, and speech events

Kritiks:

I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.

If you're a K team, I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with: Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.

If you win the following, you'll win the debate:

1.) Give me the Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.

2.) Impact weighing. I need clash and impact comparison. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).

3.) Alt explanation. I gotta know what it does. In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links. If you don't need to win the Alt, just gotta explain why not.

4.) Judge Instruction. Give it to be straight, what do you want me to do? What is my role in the discussion/in this competitive space? What are the implications of the ballot?

Do these things, and you're golden. :^)

K-Affs:

Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.

Your counter-interpretation is the framing for my ballot as well as the model of debate you advocate for. I'll vote on any, esp if the other team drops it.

ROB's are muy importante in a framework debate.

I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2 minutes. Pls.

Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:

I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense.

I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.

Impact turns are cool. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.

Framework:

1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.

2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me.

3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.

Please do not put me in any T or Theory debates. I can't do it.

***PF***

>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.

>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.

>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.

>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.

>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.

>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.

>Finally... have funsies. :^)

If you're racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.

Rhetoric is a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I'll vote on it.

HAVE FUN!

My PF expectations:

In order to aid my evaluation, each round should have clear arguments, with sufficient road mapping and framing. Ultimately, I am looking to see arguments that are practical, with plans/counter plans thoroughly explained in order to create logical links throughout your argument, and I expect your case to cover a variety of themes, not just specific points; you should be covering all aspects and factors of the motion. Finally, please be respectful during the debate.

No spreading please.

I have debated for four years in high school in Public Forum, British Parliamentary, World Schools, Cross-Examination, and Canadian National Debate Format.

I do not currently debate, so I may be a bit rusty on jargon.

Hi!

I flow

Did PF in high school (on the national circuit)

Go as zoom as you want (speech doc if ur going like Policy level Zoom tho)

Second Rebuttal should frontline turns + defense of offense they are going for - I think second summary is way too late to read new frontlines.

I don't flow cross, use it primarily to understand narratives

Weighing is very very important!!

Ks and Shells are kinda chill, but treat me like a lay judge if you're gonna read them.

Speaks are an auto 29, will give you a 30 if you do a really great job and/or if you incorporate a Bruno Mars Lyric somewhere.

I will disclose at the end of the round :)

Best of luck, be nice pls

I competed in LD four years and qualified to the CHSSA state in Policy. Therefore I will always be flowing the rounds I Judge!

In LD I look for these things:

-cross examination- I like a good cross examination because I find it clarifies what both the AFF and NEG really are arguing. I take note of the questions being asked and if theres any contradictions they tend to come out in cross examination 95% of the time.

-Definitions:if you define something, do not have 4 definitions for 1 word. Select one that is strong. Having multiple definitions is confusing.

- Theory:if you run theory, argue it well. I have judged rounds with theory in them and do not have an issue with it.

- Make your voter issues known in the last speech

-K affs--> I am okay with, however if you are argue with a K aff, use evidence that STRONGLY supports your case and the resolution.

-Make sure what you are arguing is topical to the resolution.

If you spread make it known prior to speaking.

Hi everyone, I am a university debater who has 3 years of experience with Public Forum and am currently doing a business degree. In addition, I have 6 years of debate experience with debate formats such as CNDF, BP, WSDC and Asians and now I coach debate as well. PF jargon mostly is fine.

Content

Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. I do expect a case that has more than just a list of cards so please make sure you have that.

Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, which means there should be more explanation. Any voters need to be extended through to Summary and Final Focus.

Weigh the round so I don’t have to. You don’t want to be in the position where I'm weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.

Cross-fire ends as soon as the timer goes off. You may finish your question but DO NOT go on for another minute. I do not flow cross-fires, if you want me to keep anything on my flow, you need to mention it in your next speech.

If you go over time, I will stop flowing, if you go over by 30 seconds, I will verbally cut you off and it will reflect on your speaks.

Style:

I don't prefer spreading especially online because of technology if you want to spread please send me a speech doc.

Please let me know when you are taking prep time so I can also keep track of time.

I am pretty nice in regards to speaks, usually, I don't give over 29 or below 27 but obviously, that depends on the round.

I love debate and am a debater myself, so please have fun. I'd love to give everyone feedback after the round, feel free to email me at emilyy.cyn@gmail.com. (please include me in your email chains)

hello i'm kaylee i'm a junior at blake and this is my third year of pf

add me to the chain kychen25@blakeschool.org AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com and make sure to label correctly ex: Yale R3 Blake CK (2nd aff) vs Blake OR (1st neg)

*my judging style will be very similar to blake coaches so if there is anything you are wondering that is missing from this paradigm just go to any of these judges paradigms- eva motolinia, christian vasquez, joshua enebo, shane stafford, skylar wang, sofia perri, elizabeth terveen and literally any other blake coaches -- also cork ofc :))

general:

-tech>truth

-pre flow before round

-make a chain, send case and rebuttal docs with cut cards on pdf

-signpost

-dont excessively signal i will not be swayed by ur disgusted face during ur opps speech when i make a decision lmao

evidence stuff:

-send docs

-have cut cards (christian’s paradigm has a how-to)- most of my opinions of para, bracket, etc is in the prog section

-if it takes longer than 2 mins for you find a card i will let your opponents choose whether they want to have free prep or strike the card, you should always have the evidence u read in round ready, don't lie abt having evidence and cut it mid-round

-compare methodology, author creds, date, etc but dont just say "we postdate"- implicate everything

in round:

-collapse

-in-depth extensions in the back half, narrow the round down so its clean and i won't have to intervene and vote on nitpicky things, however, if that does happen keep this in mind:

warranted cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

link +impact extension > link with no impact > impact with no link

comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

-defense is not sticky

-speed is fine. don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise, it will be counterproductive for the debate.

-do comparative weighing and frontline ur opps weighing

-warrants are key, idc if you have an author if you can't explain the warranting I don't buy the arg

-implicate turns always, so if u are going for a turn extend link and impact ------- i wont be happy if u dump turns in rebuttal with no warrant or implication and then do that in summary, whats in summary should have been read in rebuttal

-don't be mean, jokes are appreciated and will make the round more entertaining but that doesn't mean bullying.

-i will not vote for anything racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc and any discriminatory language will result in L and low speaks

-i will time but time yourselves, that is your responsibility. i will not flow beyond 5 secs over time and you'll see me put my pen down. i will let cross go over if you are in the middle of answering a question, just make it quick.

-i will nod or make a confused face, so i suggest looking at me in speeches

-i appreciate witty rhetoric

cross:

-i enjoy an interesting cross but thats not an excuse to not be respectful

-if you want me to vote for something in cross bring it up in speech

-make cross fast, ask efficient questions. it shouldn't be like speeches, avoid long questions and answers unless u feel like its necessary

-call out cards and ev stuff those are my fav questions

prog/other:

-i’m fine with theory, survival identity stuff, fem ir, security, rotb, framing--- but im prob not the best person for deep philosophy stuff so if u do decide u wanna run it assume i know nothing, make warrants clear, and tell me how it should affect my ballot- regardless just send speech docs (if u can make me fully comprehend baudrillard and the hyperreal u get a cookie)

-theory opinions: para bad, os disclosure good, typically tw bad, bracketing bad but i would only read smthg if they egregiously bracket otherwise normal grammar stuff isn't worth it, friv is annoying. all this being said i do vote off the flow but just know my threshold for responses will be rly low

-dont endlessly introduce random ivis, just make it a shell or whatever is appropriate when the idea is fleshed out

reminders:

-every team is beatable no matter what their record is, don’t let anyone psych you out, you got this :)

-have fun and learn! while im walking through my decision i will have feedback for both teams so i suggest writing those down

Rachel Cheung

I am a parent judge. I had some debate experiences in the past and I have also given many speeches to a variety of audiences in the past. It is important to ensure your arguments are sound, relevant and coherent. In addition to elaborate your arguments with evidence, ensure to address your opponent's points clearly and logically.

Speak clearly and in a reasonable speed.

Be on time, and dress appropriately.

Show respect to each other.

and finally, relax and have fun.

I look forward to seeing you at the tournament.

I am a parent judge.

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

I evaluate debaters based on the quality of their arguments, delivery, and overall persuasiveness. Some of the things that i prioritize the most are:

-

• Substance: Strong cases with clear warrants, well-defined impacts, and sound evidence (facts, statistics, expert opinions) are key.
• Style: Clear, concise, and engaging delivery is important. Effective use of rebuttals and logical flow of arguments are valued.
• Evidence: Credible and relevant evidence from reputable sources is preferred. While emotional appeals can be used, they should be supported by logic and evidence.
• Speak clearly, i don't mind if you speed as long as you are being clear on what are you saying. If I can’t get your arguments down and understand what are you saying then you will have an issue at the moment of convincing me about your case.

Before the round begins, I kindly request that the teams send me their cases in advance. This will greatly assist me in keeping track of the arguments and taking thorough notes during the round. Although this is not a requirement, it will help to improve the quality of my decision and feedback. I would like to assure you that the case information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the round. Teams will not be penalized if they choose not to share their case. This request is solely aimed at enhancing the academic outcome of the round.

How I base my decision: Warrants (45%), Weighing Mechanism (45%), Impact (10%)

• It is important to note that while teams may focus on the magnitude of their impact, a strong argument also requires a well-supported warrant and a method for comparing and weighing arguments. A lack of these elements can weaken the overall effectiveness of an argument.

• Tips to Strengthen Warrants in a Debate: 1) Challenge or defend the logic or evidence presented by your opponent instead of simply restating your own argument. This will bring new information to the discussion and help me understand the issue better. 2) During crossfire, ask "how" and "why" questions that focus on the reasoning behind your opponent's argument. Using common sense can also be valuable, as it can support a hypothesis that is backed by evidence and basic reasoning.

• Examples of weighing mechanisms: utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, priority based on urgency or importance, ethical principals: fairness, justice or equality, trade-offs.

Speaker points: Content & preparedness Quality (80%), speed (20%)

Your speaker points will primarily be determined by the quality of your arguments. The rest of the score will take into account your speaking speed. Public Forum debates should be clear and easily understood by all listeners, and speaking at a moderate pace will ensure everyone is able to fully follow and engage with the debate. I am comfortable with average speaking speeds, but if there are any misunderstandings due to excessive speed, it's important for the speakers to remember that it is ultimately their responsibility to communicate their ideas clearly.

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

hey! I debated LD at Oak Park High School (2018-2022). I currently debate british parli @ usc.

preferences:

logically explained and warranted argumentation please. weigh comparatively & metaweigh

i'm a non-intervening judge. unless you say something blatantly false, if you have evidence and mechanize well, then i'll buy it

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range. you can send me the doc if you would like (esp if you spread). however, i would prefer if you just read a shorter case

be nice during cross & don't speak over each other, especially if we're online

signpost, signpost, signpost

don't just tell me to "extend Johnson." tell me what Johnson is & why it's important & why it should be extended

i primarily debated traditional LD, so unless you really want to run a K or run theory, explain it like you would to a lay judge. no tricks pls

be nice and you'll get good speaks!

I have some judging experience, however, consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a reasonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm to someone else.
• The defense isn't sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming to neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in the second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to be the frontline in the second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in the second rebuttal is regarded as conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have a 100% probability

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable, I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• The defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in the final especially since the second-speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not a terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• The defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link, and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

Coaching at Asian Debate League

Debated for 4 years in policy at Boise High School

Email:connordennis@u.boisestate.edu

How I judge:

I am strict about clarity, please read clearly during your speeches. I will ask you to slow down if I can't understand you. After two requests I'll stop flowing. I'm less strict with novices on clarity, but I will always encourage debaters to slow down and read clearly.

I flow the full debate and I generally put more importance on rebuttals and final focuses.

Dropped arguments usually don't decide debates for me, especially for novices.

I enjoy it when debaters go beyond the evidence and produce compelling speeches based on their own words. However, if the arguments in the debate are unclear I will reference evidence to help make my decision.

Courtesy is very important to me. Treat your opponents with respect. I may vote against you if rudeness or bullying takes place in your speeches.

This is my second time being a judge. I prefer less of the jargon and a bit of guidance on what part of the format/structure you are speaking to and clarification on key points that you want to emphasize. I try my best to leave my own bias out and evaluate purely based on how well the speakers convey their points in terms of logic, connecting the dots and evidence, as well as tracking the flow deeply. I really appreciate if you can speak slowly and clearly.

I have some judging experience, however, consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc., all that doesn’t matter to me.
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isn't sticky.
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me.
• absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e., extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blimpy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary.
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded.
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However, at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact.
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side.
• Defense must also be extended.

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive.

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the arguments have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude! Please respect your opponents.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! Speak fast, but don't zoom through your speech! Calm down and speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims. Role fulfillment is a must-do!

Good luck!

I am relatively new to PF debate judging and have judged about 25 PF debates. I am ok with some speed, as long as you are clear when articulating your key contentions, subpoints, and rebuttals. While I do consider delivery, I am a flow judge and the team that is able to best argue and support their contentions with with logic and strong evidence, while effectively rebutting the contentions made by their opponents, will win the match. I place emphasis on when strong contentions (i.e., supported by clear evidence) are made by one team and not rebutted/addressed by the other team. In my view that's an implicit agreement with the contention.

When stating evidence, please ensure you provide the date when referencing.

On crossfire, my expectation is for each team to give each other the chance to ask at least one question.

I prefer for the teams to manage the debate round, including maintaining order and making sure to ask for prep time. I will have a timer, but teams are encouraged to maintain their time as well. I will ask at the beginning of the round, if teams want a 1-minute, 2-minute, etc. warning.

Please be courteous and respectful to each other.

I am a parent judge.(lay judge)

Please speak slowly and clearly. Signpost well so that I can follow along.

Refrain from using debate terminology. Make sure you tell me clearly why I should vote for you in late speeches.

I will take notes, and I will try to vote on arguments, though delivery is also important.

I value good speeches that use rhetorical devices (ethos, logos, and pathos) paired with good statistical evidence. Speaker points will reflect the quality of speeches. I give speaker points in the range of 28 - 30.

Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype.

General

• Because argumentation is a game, technology trumps facts.
  Speed: Please keep your conversation contained and talk at a normal pace. You should know that the quicker you run, the more likely I am to miss anything.
  Any surrendered defence must be made within the speech itself, just after it was read.
  Instead than merely saying "we agree to the delinks," a concession should imply how the defence interacts with your argument.
  Provide trigger warnings; if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, adjust it. I don't care whether you sit or stand, wear professional attire, or anything else. You are free to discuss the merits of trigger warnings for discourse and society, but you should not intentionally damage another person.
  The defence isn't cohesive.
  Tag-teaming speeches/CX and flex preparation are ok by me.
  I'm going to assume a negative vote on policy items and a first place vote on "on balance" topics until shown otherwise in the round.

  Case

  Be merry. Just do what you want.
  Authors that frame their arguments in terms of a case study (like those who write on extinction or systemic violence) have my undivided attention.

  Rebuttal

  As such, I shall have a lower bar for responding to the offensive overarching arguments included in the second reply.
  I believe it's important to make a strong showing in the second rebuttal, but you may use whatever approach you choose there.
  The odds of a conceded turn are always one hundred percent.

  Summary

  There's a catch with the twists and turns. If you extend a link turn on their case, as my buddy Caden Day and I both feel you should, you should also make the delineation of what the effect of that turn is, otherwise I don't understand what the goal of the turn is.
  It would be much easier for me to follow the argument if you listed case offences and turns in order of author. Don't state "extend our link" if you want your argument to be upvotable: "Expand our jones evidence which suggests that extensions like this are beneficial since they are simpler to follow." I want amplification of originality/connection/impact.
  Do not finish your summary with a barrage of shaky, unreasonable statements; this includes arguments that have already been acknowledged.
  Initial Synopsis
  The defence should be pushed back, but if you push it back in the last round, I'll be a little easier on your side. This is particularly true given that the non-native speakers have had two opportunities to address the issue. Nevertheless, it is not a fatal defence at this stage, and it will at least lessen their effect.
  Second Synopsis
  In the event that the weight is not present at this time, I shall not consider any further weighing from your side.
  Defenses need to be made more expansive.

  Final Focus

  Simple repetition; emphasise originality; increase relevance and effect.
  Don't imply meaning where none exists; It is not feasible to check to see if I misheard, and it wastes my time.

  Cross

  The cross is persuasive, but only if mentioned in public.

  Evidence

  Notwithstanding my awareness of the problematic nature of evidence ethics, I will only request evidence if the other side requests it of me.
  If your opponents are deliberately misrepresenting evidence, you should address the issue head-on in your argument.
  A excellent analytic with a decent warrant, in my opinion, is superior than a fantastic empiric with no warrant. Put it to good use
  You have one minute to provide the proof your opponents have demanded before your speaking points begin to be deducted.
  The only exception is if the wifi is terrible or if you need to bypass a paywall.

I am a first time judge so please speak slowly. Avoid jargon and give your speeches in a structured format to avoid confusion. Please remember to be respectful!

Update May 2, 2024.

Questions? Email regan@wcsks.com.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

I am the debate, forensics and speech teacher and coach at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in social justice and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels.

In any debate or speech event, I prefer a moderate speaking pace. I would rather be able to understand every word you are able to tell me than have you fit in so many words that I can't understand what you're meaning to communicate.

Please introduce yourself at the beginning of rounds. Remember that you're representing your school, and do not do anything you would not want your grandparent to see on the evening news.

Be respectful. You're going to tackle some controversial issues. There's a way to do so with tact. Breathe. Have fun!

POLICY (CX) DEBATE

I am a policymaker judge. My penchant for policy comes from my background- real world experience with presidential candidates, governors, US Representatives, US Senators, state legislators and city councilors and mayors. I know what real policy impacts are. If you're going to use an obscure policy mechanism, dot your "i"s and cross your "t"s before you use it in front of me.

Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.

Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point. I want to see negative offense.. show me Ks, CPs and T, especially in higher level debates. If you're going to use those things, though, make them good-- and watch your audience and your opponents before you decide to employ certain K topics. Think!

PUBLIC FORUM (PF) DEBATE

Folks, there has to be clash. Your round structure is different from CX, and your research burden is likewise different. Adapt!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS (LD) DEBATE

If you don't follow basic structures of LD with values and criterions, I do not know how to adjudicate you. Make clear why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution to your opponents.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

Use facts, please. Be inquisitive. Be prepared to hold others accountable, and be able to hold your own when people ask questions of you. The literal point of this event is for ideas to be debatable, folks. That means there has to be a positive and a negative side to your argument. If you make an argument that stops debate, you've lost me. This event was designed to be accessible. Your participation in it should consistently maintain that intent.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- ACTING/INTERP

Follow the rules of your event, first. I know what they are, and you should, too. If the event has a book, I will downgrade you if you do not use it properly. Hold it with one hand at the spine and maintain control. Otherwise, you have no gestures and you give me no ability to read your facial expressions. That means you deliver an incomplete performance, which will really make us all sad.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS- SPEECH AND DRAWS

I do not so much care about what your actual claim is as I do about the way in which you organize your speech to support and defend your claim. Persuade me!

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the arguments have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude! Please respect your opponents.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! Speak fast, but don't zoom through your speech! Calm down and speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims. Role fulfillment is a must-do!

Good luck!

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

Parent judge

Speak slowly and clearly, do not spread

Please be respectful and kind

Don't overuse debate terminology

Have evidence to support your claims

Good luck!

Here is my email for email chains: wenjiefan@yahoo.com

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for mechanisms of arguments, analysis of impact, proper structure when presented, with attention to how you explicate the arguments you believe best sum your case.

When it comes to style, the ability to flow from one arguments to the next and the clarity of presenting your argument is important. That being said, respecting your opponent is of utmost importance.

It is also important to see how you collaborate with your teammate, building on top of their arguments, refering to points made by teammate (without repeating them whole) to better your point

add me to email chain: cfeng005@gmail.com

I have more experience in LD than PF, so I'm more permissive of more "progressive" arguments and styles-- however, I love traditional debating as well so I'm fine with both.

Overall I value link and impact turns > case/internal link quality > impacts. A lot of the time, I see that internal links get lost as the debate goes on and the debate becomes "we outweigh on XYZ impacts" or "in our world XYZ happens," and no clash occurs. This makes it really difficult for me to judge the round versus when link turns and solid internal links are summarized and built upon throughout the round. Also, please make sure to properly extend-- don't say "extend Doe", tell me why the Doe card matters and what it implicates in the round.

On the logistics side:

I'm ok with spreading but 1) if either competitor requests not to spread, then no spreading will be in the round and 2) please disclose your case (email chain!) beforehand if spreading is planned.

I do not keep speaking times or prep times-- time yourself and your opponents.

I don't flow CX, but good CX (questions and answers) will increase your speaker points-- do not use CX as speech time, use it to poke holes in your opponent's logic, and do not interrupt your opponent when they're answering a question!

Tech over truth-- however, 1) in the face of egregious falsehoods/perpetuating hate, I will drop the debater (be nice!!), and 2) a dropped argument does not necessarily make its implications and impacts true.

PF-specific:

From what I understand plans and DAs are frowned upon in PF-- therefore, I do not encourage them in PF rounds. However, I do encourage AFF and NEG to have flushed out, comprehensive arguments within contentions/advantages, with clear uniqueness/inherency, multiple internal links, and impacts. One good, thorough contention/advantage with multiple internal links > 3 mediocre contentions with weak links (depth >>> breadth). Everything in overall applies.

LD-specific:

Theory: Theory arguments (excluding topicality) are arguments that are not persuasive to me unless there's a clear violation and clear impacts-- I don't vote on RVIs. Theory args I've seen typically don't have tangible impacts, and I don't like when theory debate takes up the bulk of the round. For example, disclosure is a common theory argument but I don't vote on it since 1) I don't believe that disclosure has a tangible impact that can't be controlled by topicality (i.e. imo, undisclosed cases are only really a problem if the undisclosed case is extratopical/unfair, and if that's the case, then topicality can control for that), and 2) impacts aren't typically flushed out anyways. I don't want to judge a round on theory, I want to judge it on the topic and case args. However, I like a good topicality debate and will vote on topicality.

DAs/CPs/plans: As stated above, I value clear and thorough internal links and external links (on the DA) on both sides of the round. Opponents should thoroughly contest links and execute link turns to generate offense. Plans should provide a tangible, unique advantage within the resolution, while DAs should be convincing that plans don't solve for the DA. I love a creative plan especially when it includes a unique advantage and shows thorough research.

Kritiks: I have minimal experience with kritiks so I won't be familiar with specific terms relevant to kritik debate. You can run a K if you'd like, but it make sure it has a very, very clear and explicit external link to the AFF and that the broader philosophy behind it is very sound, clear, and has real-world impacts. I have no experience with K AFFs. In my opinion, if you're unsure about running the K, you're better off running the DA/CPs with me since I'm more familiar with those.

I'm a lay judge and this is my second time judging.

Please speak clearly and talk slower if possible. I appreciate logic and supporting facts in your speech.

Good luck to you all and enjoy!

I debated for 4 years (PF and LD) in Alabama. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's not unethical, but here are a few specific things I like:

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to appear in the summary and the Final Focus (PF)

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.

• Make sure to bring up concessions made during cross in speeches
• Theory is a tool used to ensure fairness in debate so please don't try to use it in the forms of abusive argumentation to win debates.

I am a new judge. Please speak deliberately and clearly. It would be great if you can stick to the timings prescribed in the tournament.

I am a new judge. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I will follow the guidelines laid out in the new judge training.

I am new(er) parent judge. I am listening to your arguments while keeping an eye on the clock and will let you finish the sentence but like to keep the proceedings on time.

I am listening to understand the logic of your arguments and how you are building your case. I also like to see you use your chance to ask questions of your opponents.

I have some judging experience, however, consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a reasonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defence isn't sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offence in the round, I'm presuming to neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in the second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to be the frontline in the second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in the second rebuttal is regarded as conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have a 100% probability

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable, I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• The defence should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if developed in the final especially since the second-speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not a terminal defence if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• The defence must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

-Please talk loud and clear at a moderate speed

-Anecdotes and humor is encouraged

-Dont be monotonous

Hi there, I am a parent to a freshman. I have not participated in a judge capacity before. I would like to learn more about the job prior to being one.

thanks,

Bhagya

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

I have judged and participated in BP styles. New to PF.

No preferences for speed but make sure speeches can be understood, and there are no gaps in reasoning.

Ensure cross fire is done in a polite and respectful manner.

Address the framework and any points that you feel should be emphasized throughout the round.

Hope debaters in my room can speak peacefully, not speaking too fast. And I' m very like the characterizations and mechanisms on how it works when we discuss some topics.

I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a "lay" judge and English is not my 1st language. Please speak clearly, do not speak too fast, explain thoroughly, and use simple
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

You can speak fast, but clarity is more important. Any arguments that I can not catch will not be counted in the round.

Tell me the reason that I should vote for your ballot.

Respect one another and respect the rules. Be nice to each other.

Time yourselves.

I am judge in Public Forum (PF) for Dougherty Valley High School (DVHS).

A few notes:

• Please speak deliberately and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.
• Please don't use any jargon.
• Explain thoroughly and do not make any assumptions about my knowledge of the topic.
• Stick to the timings prescribed in the tournament.
• Good luck and have fun!!

SFU English major

add me to the email chain: arnavj214@gmail.com

FOR PF

tech > truth

Everything in ff must be in summary

weigh

turns must be responded to in second rebuttal

all offense not responded to in rebuttal is conceded

cross won't affect my decision so bring up anything important that happens in cross in a speech

collapse plssss

--

“If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

--

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth
• Speed: Don't spread much and speak at a resonable speed please. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isn't sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Don't do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Parent judge

I've been judging debate for a while now (around 5 years) so I'm not completely new to the activity but treat me as a lay judge.

Please talk at a relatively normal pace - no spreading.

Don't run any crazy arguments and definitely no prog.

Please be kind and respectful to everyone in round or I will dock speaks.

Lastly, have fun!

I am a judge in PF for Dougherty Valley High School.

Basic Preferences:

- Please do not speak fast, and try to be as clear as possible when you speak.

- You should be telling me how I should be weighing the round.

- Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.

Good luck!

I am a novice judge who has been judging for year and a half. I believe delivery is important but will prioritize evidence based arguments. Speaking fast, spreading, is ok as long as you are enunciating and speaking clearly.

Lay judge, limited judging experience. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Avoid jargon. Explain your points in the simplest terms.

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

I am excited to be judging public forum for this tournament!

I debated in high school and really enjoyed it.

Please ensure you speak clearly so that I can understand you. If you are speaking too fast so that I cannot follow your argument I will ask you to slow down or repeat yourself.

Remember to address arguments and ensure you are not talking over someone or otherwise taking a hostile tone during crossfire.

I will expect you to time each of your segments for the round.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. Please speak up so I can clearly hear you for virtual sessions.

I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.

What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:

1. Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).

2. Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.

3. Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.

4. Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.

5. Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.

6. Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.

7. Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.

Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.

Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.

I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.

I consider myself a lay judge. I would appreciate if speakers can talk slowly with clarity. I consider evidence and impacts as important.

I will evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not
on issues they think a particular side should have covered. I will assess the bearing of each argument on the
truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. Also I tend not give much weightage to value based arguments.

As a parent judge, I'd like to see the following:

• Organize your thoughts
• speak slowly and clearly with emphasis on the topic under discussion.

I’m a volunteer and this is the first time I’ll be judging an event. Based on my personal and professional experience, I believe the teams preparing for this debate should focus on persuasion, do adequate research on the topic, and consistently deliver the argument throughout the flow of debate.

About Me: I have been actively involved in debating, primarily in the BP and AP systems, since 2019. My coaching journey began in 2021, focusing on BP, and extended to AP in 2023. Additionally, I have served as a judge in several BP Debate competitions since 2022 and six Public Forum Debates since 2023.

General Approach to Judging:

My judging philosophy revolves around meticulous evaluation and fair assessment. When assessing arguments, I prioritize a comprehensive elaboration of the points made, and while I give due credit to assertions, a thorough explanation of the reasoning and process behind each claim is essential. Furthermore, I emphasize the significance of relying on credible and legitimate sources, such as journals and scientific research, to support data, evidence, or study cases.

In response to opponents' arguments, I encourage debaters to provide clear and concise explanations on why an argument may lack validity. This involves showcasing why the anticipated outcome might be contrary to what is asserted or effectively addressing the best-case scenarios put forth by the opposition, always maintaining a tone of politeness and respect.

A critical aspect of effective debating is the ability to compare and clash arguments. I look for debaters to convincingly demonstrate why they believe they are winning in their concluding speeches. Structuring the speech is equally crucial, and I appreciate debaters who employ road-mapping and signposting techniques to enhance the overall organization and clarity of their speech.

I used to judge many speech events. Here are a few things important for speakers in speech events: Effective voice modulation (exaggerated voice is okay too), a bit slower pace (slower & faster mixed pace works better), Use of articulation a few times, gestures (not necessarily all the time), and bigger excitement.

I am new to PF debate judging. I feel better when debaters present enough evidences with confidence and logical justifications for their arguments.
Good luck!

I am a tabula rasa judge. 

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Priya Kukreja (she/they)

priyapkukreja@gmail.com

Hello! My paradigm was wiped (sigh) so here is a TLDR for NYC PF:

Background - I debated in Lincoln Douglas in Nebraska and on the National Circuit from 2014 to 2017. I have experiencing judging PF but I am not an expert with the format - please carry arguments through and articulate why I should vote for you clearly at the end of the round. I cannot do any work for you on the flow, so clash and impacting your arguments is key!

Westside LD:

I feel most comfortable judging critical and phil/framework debate. I'm happy to evaluate T/theory or policy arguments too, but you'll have to slow down, be clear about every part of the argument, and be explicit about the function it serves in the round. Please give me a way to weigh the impacts, e.g. value/criterion, standard, ROTB, etc.

Clash! Engage with your opponents argument. Impact your arguments to your fw/rotb. Take the last few seconds of your final speech to tell me why I should vote for you.

Speed - Stay around 6/10 and you should be just fine. Slow down on tags and author names. Please don't be rude.

Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn and build community, please treat it as such!

Hello Debaters,

I evaluate winners based on :

• clarity / clear arguments
• believable claims
• strong rebuttals
• clean extensions

In Public Forum debate, I will prioritize the students' capability in creating further analysis and not just giving away the facts that they gathered in certain resources. This analysis is important as to show how you process all of the information you've collected before and getting the best output to the forum right away within your time. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner. A deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will contribute more on the matter of debate. The team that wins, would be a team that more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful to us in the future.

hey! i'm ruhi and i'm a junior at blake in minnesota. i debate on the nat circuit and this is my 3rd year doing pf.

please add me to the email chain blakedocs@googlegroups.com AND ruhikurdikar@gmail.com and label it correctly: Yale R3 Blake CK (1st aff) vs Blake OR (2nd neg)

blake coaches have shaped the way i view debate, so if you have additional questions not answered in this paradigm i agree with most things in these ones: christian vasquez, joshua enebo, shane stafford, eva motolinia, sofia perri, and elizabeth terveen

tl;dr tech>truth, no isms, weigh, collapse, read good ev

anything racist/homophobic/abelist/sexist etc. or any other discriminatory language/behavior will result in an L with lowest possible speaks. a little humor is always appreciated, especially in cross.

i will flow and make my decision based off of my flow. i'll disclose/give a verbal rfd if the tournament allows and if anyone has any questions feel free to ask. if you want me to vote off of something in cross bring it up in a speech- cross is binding if your opponent says it in speech. also you can postround me idrc im happy to defend my decision.

i am pretty expressive, so i suggest looking at me in speeches and in cross. if i look confused or you see me pause flowing and its an arg that u think wins u the round, pls explain it more.

don't excessively signal i will not be swayed by ur disgusted face during ur opps speech when i make a decision lmao

general things i would like to see in round:

-make sure to preflow and use the bathroom before round!

-send speech docs for case and rebuttal. this should have all the ev/rhetoric you read (besides frontlines for 2nd reb) in the speech. if you are paraphrasing, you MUST have the cut cards you paraphrased from also in the doc.

-before starting each speech (besides constructive) please tell me what argument you are starting on and signpost. if the roadmap is over 5 sec long i dont want to hear it. don't say 3-2-1 (blastoff??) before starting lol

-weigh. tell me why your impacts are the most important impacts in the round (magnitude/probability/timeframe etc) and compare them to your opponent's impacts! the earlier weighing comes out the better- i'm a lot more likely to lean towards you in a messy weighing debate if your weighing came out in rebuttal. if there's competing weighing tell me which one to prefer (metaweighing) and frontline your opponents weighing. link-ins and prereqs are super underrated- you can win so many rounds on ridiculous link-ins if your opponent drops it just make sure it is warranted (e.g. don't say war exacerbates climate change, tell me how/why). with that being said, if your opponent makes an obviously dumb link in my threshold for responses won't be very high.

-make sure to extend whatever you want me to vote on in final focus (links/impacts/warrants)- if it's not in summary don't bother saying it in final focus. please please extend warrants- for example dont just say "GPC is bad" tell me why. idc what your author says if you can't actually explain the warranting to me.

-every speech after constructives must answer the speech that came before it. for example, in second rebuttal you must respond to all offense the other team put on your case (as well as respond to their case)

-defense is not sticky UNLESS they don't touch the contention at all in 2nd rebuttal and then go for it in 2nd summary

-i'll gladly evaluate framework if you read it, but please don't read "cost-benefit analysis" framework. it's just a waste of your time, framework is meant to be strategic and frame your opponents out of the debate.

-pls pls collapse (narrow down your arguments) in the back half of the debate! y'all should really only be going for one contention from case, and don't try to extend every response from rebuttal in summary/final focus. choose a couple you think are the strongest and you are winning the most, and explain those+weigh them well. in summary you should probably be collapsing on 2-3 pieces of offense (arguments that give me a reason to vote for you such as case or turns) and in final focus you should probably be collapsing on 1-2 and weighing them really well.

-no new arguments in summary or final focus- the latest new weighing can come is 1st final focus

-compare evidence when you and your opponent's evidence contradicts (ex. postdates, author more qualified, etc.). it's also good to know the methodology of your evidence because if you are asked about it in cross and you don't know it's not a great look. i'll also be persuaded by evidence preference args surrounding paraphrasing (that cut cards are better).

-group responses while frontlining! it is way more efficient and will save you lots of time.

sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

warranted cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

qualified source and author > qualified source only > qualified author only > no qualified author or source

link + impact extension > link with no impact > impact with no link

comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

evidence:

-evidence is super important- cut cards good, paraphrasing bad. i will not vote against you for paraphrasing but please do not misrepresent your evidence. if your opponents say you are- i will probably call for it. if ur ev is bad ill be mad and if it's really bad i might drop you.

-if your opponents ask you for evidence you must be able to send the fully cut and highlighted card (not just a URL!) to the email chain. if you can't produce it within 1 min i'll strike it from my flow. don't lie and cut ev mid round and then claim to have read it earlier.

-if your opponents call for evidence and you are unable to send it in a timely manner for whatever reason and you tell me to "strike it from my flow" i'll drop you and give you bad speaks- if you introduce ev into round you better be able to provide/defend it.

-christian vasquez's paradigm has a how-to on cutting cards and even has a link to verbatim if you are unsure about what i'm looking for or how to do it! i'm also happy to help you before/after round if you have any questions.

timing/speed:

-time your own prep please and let me and your opponents know how much prep you took/have left after taking some. if i find out you took prep past the 3 min i'll be really annoyed and probably lower your speaks.

-i will time your speeches and stop flowing past 5 seconds over, but pls still time your own and your opponents speeches. do not start reading a new argument if there is only 5 seconds left- i am not going to flow an argument that you start overtime.

-speed is fine as long as you're clear but dont spread blippy paraphrased args- use speed to read more of a card or more in depth args. also slow down for tags/author names so i can flow- i'm not gonna flow off the doc so if i cannot flow you that's your problem. i'll clear you twice before i just stop flowing.

progressive args:

paraphrasing theory- run it. i will never vote for paraphrasing good. i genuinely think paraphrasing is horrible for the activity and am happy to use my ballot to punish teams who do paraphrase. that being said, if you are really losing the shell i won't hack for it and i'll probably just treat a para good shell as terminal defense.

otherwise- disclosure good (with tags/highlighting, the all-cleared formatting is kinda egregious), trigger warnings bad (unless there's super graphic depictions of violence, but idk if you should even be reading that in the first place), and round reports are silly but i suppose they are kind of a norm now.

please do not run friv theory (if you aren't sure about if what you want to run is frivolous it probably is). do not run theory unless you genuinely believe it makes the debate community a better place. if you run friv theory expect 25s and my threshold for responses won't be very high.

IVIs are stupid don't read them in front of me. if there is a real violation, read theory. if you think there is an ev ethics violation, then just end the round and call one. IVIs are just an excuse to read a ton of blippy "round ending" arguments and it will be really hard to get me to vote on one. also recording someone without their consent to "check for clipping" will result in an L25.

introduction of theory arguments should happen in the speech directly following the violation. out of round violations should be introduced in constructive.

RVIs to para or disclo are domeless. i vibe with RVIs: 1) if you're running a ROTB about topical discourse 2) if the theory is obviously friv. i default to reasonability > competing interps

i don't have much experience at all evaluating Ks and i am not familiar with much of the lit, so i wouldn't read complicated ones in front of me. i'm probably okay for survival stuff, security, and cap but go slow and err on the side of overexplanation. if you are running a survival argument, keep in mind that i strongly believe debate is good as a whole and voting someone up solely based on their identity is bad for the activity. idk what the hyperreal is and tbh you probably don't either so don't read these types of arguments just to confuse your opponents and win the round if you cannot actually explain it in english.

i do have experience running/answering topical identity-based ROTBs and frameworks so i am a good person to run these in front of and i enjoy these debates.

speaker points:

i think that speaks are silly and utterly arbitrary, so don't pay that much attention to them. i'll never base speaks on how you sound, what you wear, etc. however, some ways to get higher speaks in front of me are

- send out case/rebuttal docs with cut cards and/or you are disclosed (if you remind me)

- strategic crossfires, getting the opps to make concessions

- weighing in rebuttal

- good vibes/being funny

- say the word cork in speech

hi josh

My name is Gregory Kwok and I am a member of the English Debate Society (EDS). In a debate, I look for sound, logical arguments with good solid truth. I expect all debaters to respect one another and the panel, not interrupt each other without a proper reason and, most importantly, have fun.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Hello! My name is Ryaan ("ry-on") and I’m a freshman at UIUC. I’m barely older than most of you, so feel free to interact with me casually.

During high school, I competed as an international at the TOC for PF and in various World Schools tournaments. As a judge, I’d prefer to be treated as your average “informed person” (or engineering nerd) rather than a debater. That said, I can flow properly but don’t count on it if you’re spreading.

People tend to perform best when given a familiar environment, so I won’t list out strange criteria or tell you how to debate. Show me the strategy you think is the most persuasive. If you’re still eager to tweak your case to my biases to relieve any pre-round anxieties, you can cater to my love of MATH. Statistics are a great form of evidence, but make sure to treat them with care (aka minimal unexplained “debater math” to extrapolate impacts). If you pique my interest with funky findings, I may call them into question, but I’d highly prefer it to be pointed out during the round first.

In the minutes leading up to our round, put down the last-minute prep, take some deep breaths to wind down and try to remember why you enjoy debate (I hope you do if you're here lol). Let’s have a fun round. See you all soon!

Seeing as my background is in BP, WS and Karl Popper, I tend to give more weight to analytics over evidence and arguments over style. Still, both evidence or rather knowledge of current affairs and style are essential to proper analysis and delivery.

I am a parent judge. I don't have any personal debate nor coaching experience. The fundamentals of your argument is the most important to me. I appreciate clarity and structure in speech so please speak in reasonable speed, and I don't understand debate jargons. Poise is important as I value communications in a civil and educated manner. I appreciate the opportunity to go on an intellectual ride with you and your components, so please speak clearly, be civil, and most importantly show me your ability to think critically.

I've never debated, but I have judged quite a few tournaments at this point. I appreciate debates where the participants take time to speak clearly and reasonably slowly, so that I can hear what they are saying. On that note, I also appreciate debaters who don't speak over others, exercise kindness, and who really make an effort to consider and address other participants' input. Two sided discussions are always more fruitful than monologues that ignore each other. Lastly, I love when participants are mindful of the ways that history has shaped class, race, disability, and gender issues in our society today. Marginalized people and their histories deserve dignity, and a place in all of your discussions. Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!

-Judge Kabang Lauron

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. Public Forum is an event designed to be judged
by anyone - that is what appears in the description of the event provided by the NSDA. Debate
accordingly.

Hi,

I will mainly look at the consistency in argumentation for both teams, and I prefer strong reasoning with concrete examples. Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand. I do not have much knowledge about this topic, so please try to make my job easier by going over the topic.

I am a history professor and a parent judge.

Good luck to all!

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

My PF expectations:

I expect that the round has understandable arguments, with a sufficient level of framing and roadmapping in order to help me evaluate the round. The affirmative should be defending the resolution, conversely, the negative should be defending the status quo. Cross fire periods should be equal and fair, and I weigh arguments that take their competitors charitably.

I am a parent judge. Please talk slow. I value clarity of argument and logic flow. I will not understand any debate jargon. Please do not use it.

My name is YiChuan Li (Bodie). I debated for over 4 years in both CNDC and PF formats. I like speeches that have arguments that are closely linked and supported with evidence. I really like it when debaters signposts at the beginning of their speeches which makes understanding their arguments easier for me as a judge.

Equity and Fairness

• This is my number one priority. Please notify me (if you feel comfortable doing so) if you feel discriminated against, uncomfortable with someone or something, or need help.

Speech/Interp

- I am okay with you timing yourself and will not penalize you for glancing at your clock from time to time (as long as it does not heavily impede your performance) if you are an online competitor.

- Depending on the event, I would like a cohesive story that compels me to feel a certain way (sad, mad, caring, aware of an issue, happy, etc.)

- Hand gestures and walking appropriately are a must (walking between points, appropriate hand gestures during scenes/arguments, etc.)

- Extemp: refer to my congress paradigm for how I like argumentation in this context, I appreciate humorous/informative introductions and conclusions that wrap around to it. Walking from point to point is very important in exempt, same with recent sources.

- Interp/OO: I want to feel motivated after hearing your speech (do so with passion in your tone, dramatic/overemphasized facial expression and gestures, etc.)

- If your speech includes an argument, see my congress paradigm and the constructive portion of my debate paradigm.

- I understand and will work through technical difficulties with you! I am committed to upholding equity in rounds, and if there is a way I can help with that, please let me know!

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas

- I want to see warrant level refutation in the majority of refutation points you have (claim level will be discarded on the flow and data level refutation should clearly explain why their data is flawed/not representative of the analysis they are attaching to it).

- Don't spread :)

- LD and PF: you can use technical jargon with me. I ask that you don't if you know you have a lay judge on a panel with me (again, for accessibility). WSD: this is a more relaxed debate format and tech isn't as important for me when I vote.

- Cross: I judge using cross (and POIs for WSD). I won't ignore this and I want to see really thought-provoking and challenging questions. I will follow your question in terms of noticing when you set traps. Don't use this as an opportunity for extra speaking time though, make sure the questioning gets to the point. Also, be polite!

- Constructive material: Little pre-refutation on the aff, please. Neg is okay to have refutation in the first constructive speech, but I still want the vast majority of the speech to be constructive. Please try and connect your constructive material to your opponents (blend your arguments with refutation of theirs- I LOVE when debaters cross apply).

- I flow everything, so please be organized in every speech and make it clear where you are (roadmap and taglines please). I expect clear voters for the final speech in around for both sides and a clear understanding of what you are doing in a speech. (Ex: "I'm going to do a line-by-line, first addressing my opponent's constructive, then their refutation of my own arguments, followed by the round's voters"; then during the speech, you can say, "moving on to their rebuttals of my first constructive"). Make sure you give a quick summary of your opponents' argument before you refute it though.

- Impacts/Impact Calculus: I'm fair game for all impact jargon. Make sure when you are weighing you bring in quantification (if applicable) for magnitude/severity and you clearly explain based on a weighing mechanism (probability, severity, magnitude, etc.) why your argument wins.

- Argument format: Claim, Warrant, Data, Impact. If you miss any of those, I will likely drop your argument.

- Data: I prefer quantification when they are applicable. Please state at least the month and year of cards (if you can) and the institution they are from. I treat evidence challenges seriously, so don't hesitate to call an opponent out if you can't find their card or think it is faked/unfairly misrepresented. I also can smell when sources are bad (especially if it's a topic I have debated before), so please do not make up or misquote sources for your own sake.

- There is so much more I can say, but the TLDR is that I'm down for advanced debate stuff (speed, jargon) and that I value good and thorough refutation above most things.

Congress

- Most importantly, I VALUE REFUTATION SPEECHES. Judges in congress too easily disregard late-round ref/crystal speeches. For this reason (and because it takes major skill to do this) I emphasize ref/crystal speeches. If you give a good one, you will be rewarded heavily in my rankings.

- I want to see all of your skills, so don't just fill one role during the round(don't only give ref speeches or only constructive).

-Quality is better than quantity for questions(I listen to them)

- POs: I will be keeping recency and precedence for questioning (if it's direct) and speeches. I like good POs. If you are considering POing, make sure you know how to run an amendment properly.

- Organization: Constructive speeches should usually have this format: Introduction, 2 points (claim, warrant, data, analysis, data, impact), and conclusion. Make sure I can understandably follow your arguments.

- Refutation: Same as in my debate paradigm, but if this is ref being added to a constructive speech, make sure you integrate this into your points. If you give a point similar to someone on the other side, I expect you to refute them in order for your point to have validity.

- Half-refutation speeches are great, so is impact calculus

- While I am a much more debate-oriented judge, please have solid and rhetorical introductions and conclusions. Speak at a nice pace (I will understand you if you go fast, but you shouldn't in Congress) and try to mitigate fluency breaks.

- Walking: Walk from your introductions to your points and back for your conclusions. Please don't sway if you can.

- A lot of the same stances for debate and congress, so please read my other paradigm too (the difference with Congress is I also judge based on speaking ability pretty much).

Looking forward to seeing you perform/debate!

Hi!

I've debated and judged at 50+ uni and high school tournaments before on BP, AP, WSDC and PF formats.

My judging habit is to record nearly every single word debaters say and then cautiously evaluate how each part of speeches functions on each clash, regardless of your speaking rate.

1. I don't automatically believe assertions as valid/strong arguments, unless they're proven or supported. Don't worry! It doesn't mean extra burdens on supporting every sentence you say.

But I suggest you to offer your understanding for the materials you use & minimum explanations & mechanism & analysis & reasoning.

2. I believe warrants should effectively support your stance, not just be listed.

I am a parent and I have been serving as a judge in different debates for a few years. I appreciate the effort that organizers, sponsors and particularly students have put into the debating activities.

I am going to skip what students have been doing well since they know that and debate coaches explain that. So let's focus on areas for improvement.

The most important aspect is to make debate points super clear. Students may be busy delivering contents but not delineate their arguments clearly. The net result is that the judge has a hard time to understand the key points.

Number 2, most times students are reading from what they have prepared, word by word. It may be more powerful if they understand the issues / arguments, debate in their own words (of course you can reference what is on paper / screen). That way it is more natural for students to get their ideas across and be convincing.

Number 3, debaters need to think on the feet, especially during cross arguments. When you are answering questions, make sure you understand them first and if not, ask for clarification so you are really answering that question.

Number 4, as for speed, a judge might not be an advocate of extreme high speed. If a debater speaks too fast to make it difficult to understand the point, then it does not help.

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a lot more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

In Public Forum Debate, I will prioritize the students' capability to create further analysis regarding the facts and materials they deliver during their speeches. Facts and materials that have explanations as to how they are materialized will have higher credit than facts without explanations. Numbers shouldn't be the only explanation for your argument. Regarding, rebuttals and responses, I will give more credit to speakers that provide deeper reasons to prove their opponent wrong (not a one-liner). Information and facts from reliable resources like journals or research papers will also have higher credit than other sources like newspapers or websites. The team that wins, would be a team that can provide more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful.

Hello everyone, my name is Emilian Lobodanescu. I have about a year and a half experience judging speech, and a little bit less in debate.

For Speech: I will judge off of the performance of your speech more so than the content. There are some exceptions, but I am looking to judge you off of passion and personal connection, as well as blocking, more so than the topic. Be kind and respectful, and my same disclaimer in debate goes for speech— hateful targeted content in your speech or in the room itself will not be tolerated.

For Debate:

As I am a lay judge, please refrain from spreading (if you must, be very loud and clear-- I will not take your points into consideration if you rush through them). Limit debate jargon, and if you use any, please define it.

Send me your cases/block files before the round begins to my email: emilmari99@cox.net

Things I judge on/ General Tips:

1. Again, please speak clearly (and slowly if possible).
2. Signpost: make sure your contentions AND impacts are very apparent to me (e.g. "Contention 1 is ____" or "Our impact is ___")
3. Give me an off-time roadmap before your begin Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus.
4. I prefer organized cases and clear chains of evidence.
5. Assertive, not agressive.
6. I enjoy quantifiable impacts (statistics, numbers, etc.), and a particularly effective way for you to convince me of your argument is to really double down on your impacts in Summary and Final Focus.
7. I will not give comments after the round (you will find those in your RDF's once ballots come out), but I will disclose if you ask me to

Other:

*****Any kind of racist, sexist, or in any way discriminatory comments will not be tolerated. Immediate 0 speaks, and I will be very inclined to drop you. Please be respectful to each other, and do not be rude to your fellow competitors.******

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?
Defining the topic helps provide clarity about what the debate will focus on. It ensures that all
participants understand the subject matter and avoid unnecessary tangents or confusion. Clearly defining the topic ensures that all participants have an equal understanding of what is being discussed, preventing any unfair advantages or misunderstandings.
How important is the framework to your decision making?
Having a solid framework is essential for navigating through the exchange of ideas, supporting positions with evidence, and ultimately influencing my decision as a judge. It provides a roadmap for constructing and delivering compelling arguments, contributing significantly to the overall effectiveness of the debate.
How important is the crossfire in your decision making?
In a debate, crossfire is crucial in my decision-making because it allows for direct communication between participants, which makes it easier to clarify points, offer rebuttals, and assess flexibility and critical thinking abilities in real time. This stage provides the opportunity to refute the arguments of opponents while also requiring quick thinking to fill in any holes or weaknesses in the arguments. Crucially, a debater's performance during crossfire influences my perceptions, impacting the debater's position's overall credibility and persuasiveness. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the decision-making process regarding the strength and conviction of arguments presented.
How important is weighing in your decision making?
Argument weighing, which entails comparing and evaluating arguments according to their persuasiveness, quality, and relevance, is a crucial aspect of decision-making during a debate. Debaters can distinguish between important points, rank the strongest arguments, and successfully respond to counterarguments by using this technique. Argument weighing guides me as a judge in determining the most compelling and convincing side of the debate, influencing the final decision regarding the debate's resolution by assessing the strength of evidence, logical reasoning, and relevance to the topic.
How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
Persuasive speaking and nonverbal communication are crucial in debate decision-making because they have a significant impact on the delivery and reception of arguments. Persuasive speaking improves the persuasiveness and memorability of arguments through powerful rhetoric and skillful language use, which affects how I evaluate the strength of a debater's position. Simultaneously, nonverbal communication, which includes body language, gestures, and demeanor, supplements verbal arguments by conveying confidence, credibility, and sincerity, ultimately shaping decision-makers' perceptions and having a significant impact on the overall evaluation of the debate's outcome.
How fast should students speak?
Students should generally speak clearly and at a pace that is understandable to the other participants in a debate. Even at faster speaking rates, it's critical to preserve coherence and clarity in debate formats that may promote it. The secret is to effectively communicate arguments without compromising their clarity. Students should strive to speak at a speed that will enable them to interact with their opponents, support their arguments, and make themselves understood by the judge. In order to communicate effectively during a debate, one must strike a balance between speed, articulation and clarity

Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.

Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.

When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.

Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)

I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.

Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.

Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.

Have fun debating!

Susie Mabry

I don't care about profanity usage as long as you are not directly offending an individual in round. Otherwise- generally poor attitude/behavior will reflect clearly in speaker points and RFD.

I have competed in public forum, congressional, and (collegiate) parliamentary debate throughout my academic career.

I am extremely adaptable to speed and style and will flow the round accurately, but I prefer an impressive word economy with less excessive speed.

I'm pretty traditional. I think Public Forum is meant to appeal to a lay-person. By summary and final focus, I should be organized on voter issues. Don't get lost in miniscule points that won't necessarily win or lose the round.

I will call for cards and heavily focus on the quality of your evidence- evidential reasoning should be clear.

Debaters should be familiar with the validity/methodology of their cited studies. You should be citing accurately and intentionally.

My judging criteria is as follows:

1. Truth of claim :

The claim must be proven with strong reasons and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is in responding to responses of your proof of the claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team could attack a link in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response then the likelihood of truth of your argument becomes diminished. The result of this is that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which greatly reduces your chance to win the debate.

2. Impacting :

The claim once proven should be impacted. The importance of the argument is strongly reliant on your impacts. The greater the impact proven the more likely the importance of the argument increases. Ensure your impacts are reasonable within the debate and can be proven rather than looking for a huge impact that is unlikely to be proven within the debate.

3. Responses :

There are two level of responses I think are important within the debate. Responses that are constructive in nature which means you are responding to a rebuttal that was attacking your argument and rebuilding your argument. The second are deconstructive arguments attacking the opposing teams arguments. It is important to have different responses to the most strongest arguments in the round. Firstly because it allows you to mitigate the other teams arguments much more and reduces the likelihood the response is answered by an easy response from the other team. Lastly because you need to prioritize the strongest arguments and respond to those particular arguments within the round because they are the most likely to win the round and time limitations do not allow you to respond to every single argument.

4. Weighing :

Most responses within debate rounds usually only mitigate the other teams arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of this is to understand the importance of weighing after giving your responses, it is because although mitigated some strong arguments are still left within the round that required to be weighed up. You can use different metrics to weigh your arguments such as which one affects more people, more urgent or occurs more often and many others to prove your arguments are more important.

5. Structure :

It is important to have an argument that flows from the beginning to the end of the argument. This is because it makes it easier to track the argument and reduces the likelihood that there is internal inconsistency within the arguments.

Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best !

Who I am:

High school and college debater with 6 years of experience. I did LD, NPDA, IPDA, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Congressional Debate mostly. I have experience with public health and community work, and I also worked on a senate campaign. He/Him/His pronouns.

3 Most Important Criteria (If you read nothing else, read this):

-I am a flow judge, I'll do that work. If you make it easier for me anyways I appreciate that.

-I want the debate to be accessible.

-Give me clear reasons for my decision.

What arguments should we/ shouldn't we run:

Comfortable with procedural, policy, and critical debate. This said the debate should be a challenge but not one that makes it inaccessible.

Don't run classist, racist, hetero-patriarchal, sexist, ageist, ableist, or colonialist arguments. I won't vote on it and it will be grounds for a loss. That being said, I have no problem voting for things I disagree with (on an intellectual and/or theoretical basis) if your argumentation in the round is solid.

I appreciate fully cut cards over paraphrasing, but I do make exceptions if that cut card is particularly big. Use your best judgment here.

Aff: Clear advocacy is what I need. Comfortable with critical cases on Aff, but you need to do the footwork to show me why your critique was the only option.

Neg: You need to tell me why I am rejecting the affirmative's stance. I am open to CP’s and procedural and critical arguments. Again, your choice.

Impact calculus is important to me. If there’s a plan text, I need solvency.

What about style and speed?

If you're gonna spread it needs to be clear. If I cannot understand you, I can't vote on it. I will signal to you that you need to slow down if it's too quick. Other than that, I'm open to all styles. Make reasonable accommodations for your opponent as well.

Technical Difficulties

I get it. Things happen, but I do expect you to be prepared. It comes out of your prep if something goes wrong so try to get that worked out.

Prep ends once the email is sent.

File transfers are grace time, don't abuse it, please.

Anything else?

Be nice! I don't mind heated/ exciting rounds but there's a line. Don't be abusive.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN.

Email me if you have questions :)

First time judge

Please speak clearly and slowly so I can understand your points and can assess to the best of my abilities.

I'm a parent judge with limited experience. I'm looking forward to a civilized debate. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace so that I can hear and understand your points. I don't prefer spreading. Thank you, and best wishes.

Hello!

I am a lay judge that will lean towards the team that speaks the most clearly. Please speak slowly and clearly as I value clarity over speed. If your arguments are organized and understandable, I will be able to flow them. The team that presents their cases clearly, confidently, and concisely will end up getting my vote.

Judge Experience: two years of speech, one year of debate.

Philosophy: no against any philosophical view

Speak: clear and fluent, not just speed. Prefer to have some rhythm.

Argument: no bias, have patience to listen all argument evidences, opinions in crossfire, prefer to the message delivered by line-to-line.

Over all, I am a flexible judge to take notes on key points at each section. The winner will be based on the weights of all section performance.

Nothing will lose my favor or interest faster than a debate on the rules of debate. I appreciate well-researched cases and strong link chains, but I find spreading to be borderline intolerable. I want to see unfavorable points negated with elegant use of evidence and logic. Attempting to dominate a round with jargon and technicalities overshadows the sharing of ideas and the ability to learn from one another, which in my opinion, flies directly in the face of and casts a shadow on this art form. That being said, don’t be afraid to bring attention to outright abusive argumentation - just be prepared to back up what you’re saying in a way that is just and truthful. I like your personalities to shine through and for your communication styles to have an individual essence. Please don’t make me have to judge rounds based on who is the fastest or trickiest robot. It truly breaks my heart.

Manage your own time so that I can pay attention to what you’re saying. You may a timer that I’ll be able to hear (or not), but if it goes off, complete your thought as quickly and neatly as possible without just dropping it. Any new points introduced after time will count against you. I’m a fidgety sitter and prefer to flow by hand so I’ll usually turn off my camera while people are speaking, so as not to cause a distraction as I flip pages and scribble away. Please let me know if you’d prefer I didn’t do so. Also, no off time roadmaps - you should be writing/speaking well enough to inform me throughout your speech of where you are and the points you're making!

I am a former HS debater (2002-2006, Morristown West in Tennessee), and I had the most success in Public Forum - although I also enjoyed Congress & LD (I don't think Parli was available on a HS level yet or I probably would have tried it, too). I didn’t get really serious about PFD until about halfway through my high school speech career, and by my senior year, it was my main event. That year, my partner and I won both our NSDA (formerly NFL) National Qualifying tournament, and our state’s local organization’s championship. These accomplishments remain the highlights of my time in high school - not just because of the affirmation and recognition of my effort, but because of all the time spent and memories made with my teammates and closest friends along the way. I had tremendous passion for and gratitude toward Forensics, and I tried to embed that into my approach. I always prided myself on my relaxed, easy going, evidence and logic based, and respectful but fun speaking style. Remember that most of your judges are not former debaters and that you have an enormous opportunity to educate adults and maybe even change their minds about some things when you communicate effectively and in an accessible manner - consider the Ancient Greek foundational communication philosophies of logos, ethos, and pathos.

My favorite thing about judging is getting a glimpse at the future leaders of our nation’s government and workplaces, and you all give me a tremendous amount of hope. Thank you for your participation and congratulations to all of you, always, for your hard work and boldness in showing up for yourselves and your teammates today!

I tend to favor speakers who speak a bit slower!

I am a 25 year professional at a high tech company in the Silicon Valley. This will be my first time judging.

Here are some things that I care about:

1) Speak clearly and at a moderate to slow pace. If your audience (judges) can't understand you, then you aren't likely to win.

2) Base your arguments on facts. I deal with data everyday and make recommendation based on facts.

3) Don't assume I understand the jargon of the topic. I probably don't.

4) Have fun!

Hello! My name is Nathan McLaughlin, and I am new to judging. Please make sure to speak clearly and loudly enough that I can hear and understand what you are saying. If you are using any acronyms, please make sure to explain them at least once. I care about facts, but I am more interested in your persuasiveness and confidence. Good luck!

I am a lay judge. My background is in journalism. Please speak slowly and clearly and avoid using any specialized jargon.

Hi! My name is Divya Mehrotra (she/her), and I'm a third-year at the University of Chicago! I competed for Dougherty Valley in primarily Congressional Debate & Extemporaneous Speaking for 6+ years, and I still coach for the Dougherty Valley team. I do have some experience in the other debate events, but I spent most of my debate career in Congress and Extemp.

Congress:

• Presiding Officers: I highly respect you all for sacrificing speaking time to serve as a PO. However, that doesn't mean automatically being in my top 6. You are still expected to lead the chamber well and make minimal mistakes to be ranked by me. There is no guarantee that you will rank by solely serving as PO. My idea is that you've done a great job if I can't tell you were there in the first place. I will not penalize you for taking some extra time to be correct. Other things are that I'll definitely smile if I see a colorful PO sheet (it won't influence my rankings, but it does make me happy) and that I like funny and personable POs! A few occasional comments to liven up the round don't hurt! Also, as an update for the Tournament of Champions, I expect that all presiding officers are keeping track of precedence and recency on paper or on the chalkboard/whiteboard available in the room (basically, NO use of computers/tablets to track precedence and recency).

• Cross-Examination: Being ranked in my top 3 means constantly participating in cross-ex. No one is above cross-ex, so please be sure to participate whether it is before your speech or afterward. In terms of evaluation, cross-ex can be the deciding factor in my ranks. I'm not big on having to remain civil during cross-ex. This is one of the only instances where you can clash with others' arguments, so feel free to be more aggressive if that's your personality.

• Indirect: Please ask questions that are not answerable with a yes/no. Point out flaws in their argument and force them to confront any loopholes or flaws in their argument.

• Direct: Please do NOT talk over each other constantly if you can. However, if you need to cut someone off to continue your line of questioning or reclaim the ability to speak, that's all good. These questions need a strategy to them; please have a direction that you are trying to take the speaker in.

• For the TOC/Nationals: it is unacceptable for you not to participate in cross-examination. I will NOT rank you if you do not participate in questioning. You are supposed to be the best competitors in the country; there is no reason for you not to be questioning and participating in the round.

• Flow of Debate: I greatly value all types of speakers. Whether you are giving the authorship or the final crystallization speech, you are contributing to the flow of debate. PLEASE be sure to give the appropriate speech for the part of the debate that you are in. Nothing peeves me more than crystals in the 2nd & 3rd cycle and constructives in the last cycle.

• Authorship/Sponsorship: Intro should be relevant to the bill & organic. Indicate the problem to me, how your bill solves the issue, and the impact of passing this bill. The speech should set up affirmative advocacy. You need to address both the solvency and impact debates with this speech. If you set up a solid framework, I'll be incredibly happy!

• First Negative: Intro should also be relevant to the bill & organic. Tell me why the aff doesn't solve the issue and what the general net harm of passing this bill is. You NEED to address both a lack of solvency and a net harm; the absence of either will hurt you in my ranks. If a net harm is difficult on a bill, I LOVE points like complacency or the bill's failure in the political realm (being meta like that is something I enjoy). Be sure to either address the author's framework or CONTEST it.

• Constructives: I don't mind the speech structure here. Just be clear about your impacts, include refutations, address solvency if you can, and add nuance to the debate. NO rehash (I'll feel so sad). However, do not use arguments that are so nuanced that they are out of the realm of the legislation. Intros can be creative and organic here (I love humorous intros)! Overall, just do what you do best with these speeches. Everyone brings their own style to them, and they are valuable because of that.

• Refutation Speeches: These can be more line-by-line refutations. That does not mean just namedropping someone and going into your completely different arguments. You need to fulfill the FULL requirements of a refutation: address their point with evidence or logic and tie it up with why your argument therefore wins. I would also LOVE it if you weigh impacts against each other. I love the debate jargon, so feel free to use it in front of me.

• Crystallization Speeches: I'm okay with canned intros here. I prefer the content in these speeches anyways. You should either categorize the round through general arguments that have been covered or through questions that the round has been centered on. This is NOT the speech to introduce new arguments. Weigh on what the round has been focused on & tell me which side wins and why they do. If you don't weigh impacts in this speech, I just won't consider it as meeting the requirements of a crystal. You can and should introduce evidence that you use to weigh impacts. For example, "the aff wins b/c we prevent the most number of lives from being lost by decreasing air pollution" can be followed by evidence that explains how many lives can be lost to air pollution. Other than that, be VERY clear about structure in this speech & try your best to explain the round to us. The best crystallization speakers know how to posit themselves as the clarifying voice in a very confusing round.

• Motions/Parliamentary Procedure: It honestly doesn't matter to me when ranking whether you were participating a lot in pre-round discussions or proposing motions a lot. What will positively influence my ballot is someone using parliamentary procedure to help include their fellow competitors. The use of parliamentary procedure to shut out someone or to exclude someone WILL drop your rank regardless of how phenomenal your speeches were.

• Content v. Presentation: 80% content v. 20% presentation --> I firmly believe that this is a debate event. I will judge you accordingly. Please have solid warranting, arguments, refutations, weighing, and clash. Props to you for creative introductions & conclusions though (you'll definitely see me laugh if it's funny)! Though, you still need to value eye contact, an aspect of presentation that is even more important in person. It makes you all the more personable.

PF, LD, Policy:

• I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments, so you can consider me to be more of a traditional judge in that sense.

• I'm mostly comfortable with faster speakers, but I will indicate for you to slow down if I can't understand you.

• I will not flow cross, but I will be paying attention. Please be strategic with the questions you ask; they can contribute to your rebuttals if successful.

• I'm truth > tech. PLEASE make sure that you are warranting well & that you are weighing impacts.

• Speaker Points: I start off at 29 and go up or down based on your fluency and overall presentation. I will not give you below a 27 unless you have made the round unsafe or uncomfortable.

• You all can time yourselves for prep. I'll defer to your timing unless there are any issues raised.

General:

• Do NOT create an unsafe space (no sexist, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, etc. language)! I will drop you in that scenario, and your speaker points will be quite low.

• Please reach out to me if you have any questions! I'm more than willing to clarify anything said above and to add additional information. My email: divyamehrotra08@gmail.com

• I'll be flowing regardless of the event!

• Also, feel free to eat small snacks & drink any appropriate beverage as you see fit! I know that everyone has their own circumstances, plus y'all are probably prepping a lot in between rounds & forget to eat. So, I'm not going to penalize you for making sure that you're staying healthy by snacking during the round!

• Overall, have fun! I loved this activity as a competitor, and I hope that you enjoy it too!

Hello Debaters,

I am a parent judge and I have judged a few times before. Please make sure to make eye contact. Be respectful of your opponent. Please be aware that we may be hearing your argument for the first time, so please do not rush.

I appreciate debaters that view debate as a strategic activity that requires effective communication and persuasion. This is not to say that you shouldn't go fast, but it does mean that debaters who are fast, clear, emphasize important arguments both in tone and time, will get high speaker points.

Most importantly, be confident, and have fun! You have prepped a lot, and you know what you're doing. Good luck!

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I am a debate coach in Vancouver, Canada. I consider speech delivery and presentation as one of the most important factors in debating. Tone of voice, volume, eye-contact, and persuasion is key.

First time judging

I do not speak English very well

hi I’m Arya (she/her), and I'm a sophomore at Emory. I did PF in Minnesota, and competed on the national & MN circuit for 4 years. if you have any questions before the round, please ask!

tldr: normal flow judge, collapse, extend (warrants not just taglines), weigh, have fun in round

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round, reach out on Messenger or email (arya.mirza23@gmail.com)

general:

- if you're gonna spread send a doc

- tech>truth

- implicate your responses - tell me what they mean in the context of your round instead of card dumping

- signpost! I will not know where you are if you aren’t signposting and will probably miss stuff

- warranted analytic>unwarranted evidence

- collapse

- don't spread against novices

- I'll presume whichever team reads a presumption warrant, and if neither does, I'll presume first

- you can postround just don‘t be rude about it

- read content warnings for sensitive topics with an option to opt out. form template here, feel free to make a copy and use this.

crossfire:

- don't be that one person that cuts everyone off and doesn't let people speak

- nothing from cross flowed unless you mention it in a speech

2nd rebuttal:

- frontline

- don't read DAs or offensive overviews in 2nd rebuttal

summary and FF:

- defense is not sticky, extend it in both summary & FF if you want me to evaluate it

- weighing is the most important part in the back half of the round, please make a comparative. 3 second blips of buzzwords is not weighing.

- extend your argument fully–uniqueness link internal link impact–otherwise I can't vote off it

progressive args:

- please stop having theory debates where you're not engaging at the basic level, like reading a CI but not responding to no RVIs, it makes it really hard for you to win the round

- I don’t know K lit well so if you’re going to run one, explain the argument super clearly

- I am predisposed to thinking friv theory bad but I won't auto drop you just for reading it

evidence:

- paraphrasing is fine, just do it ethically please (and don't paraphrase 12 paragraphs in one sentence)

- every card you read needs to be cut; if any evidence is called for, send the cut + the paraphrase that you read. if you don't have the cut card it's off my flow

speaks:

- entirely based on strategic in round decisions, not speaking style, way you dress, etc.

- speaks go up if you start weighing in rebuttal

- speaks go down for bad extensions (a tagline is not an extension), misconstruing evidence, and hacking prep

- do not be any kind of -ist or I will intervene

overall, be nice in round and have fun :)

Parent of a middle schooler and new to judging.

Best of luck and enjoy this learning experience!

Philosophy - I have no philosophy of judging debate yet since this is my first time judging a debate tournament and i hope to develop a philosophy and style of judging as the tournament progresses.

I do have certain beliefs which I feel will play a hand in my role as a judge:

1. Being a respectful to your opponent ranks highest in my list. You can be extremely affirmative with your own view points and extremely against the idea of the the other, but you are opposing an idea and not an individual.
2. Enjoying the entire process thoroughly should be your goal (along with trying to win), and the more your enjoy, the more I will enjoy - which is definitely my goal ???? as a first time judge.
3. I have every intention to be as non-interventional as possible and hence looking at the debaters to be mindful of the time and other rules etc. I will jump in if you force me too ????.

I have had a lot of help preparing for the tournament from my son who is debater and he seems to be more stressed about how i will do more than I am.

I understand the debate topic well for this tournament, but I do not intend to bring my own knowledge into the judging and really looking forward to hear your ideas. The judgement will be on the merit of your ideas. All the best to all the participants.

I am looking for clear and jargon free exposition of the contention, linking of evidence to contentions in a persuasive way which makes it easy for me to follow you to your summary; in summary you will explain why you won the round. I don't appreciate overly combative and/or sarcastic cross - you can contend, but remain respectful.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

My paradigm is based on evaluating the best team/competitor according to the specific speech and debate format, the compelling nature of the arguments presented, and a qualitative assessment of which team/competitors did the best job in persuading me as a judge.

Aside from this criteria, I have no hard biases which factor into my evaluation. I believe it is up to competitors to present persuasive and compelling arguments within the format of the forensic competition in question. With that said, everyone has implicit biases and preferences and to this end I have a preference for policy debate, Lincoln/Douglass and Public Forum where I prefer good research and persuasive argumentation.

Additionally, I believe that speech and debate contest should be competitive. In specific speech and debate activities where there is an affirmative and negative side, and neither team meets the burden of generating competition, I default to theories of affirmation and negation where I will prefer the team that either affirms a compelling change from the status quo, or vote presumption assuming that the status quo is superior to a non competitive affirmation which doesn't overcome the inherent barrier of presenting a unique affirmation of a course of action superior to the status quo.

If there are not two sides as is the case in some speech activities I will judge each competitor/team based on the above criteria insofar as it is applicable to the specific format of the individual forensic activity. In terms of rules, the only hard rules I evaluate are time constraints. I believe all other aspects of a contest are up for deliberation.

My background includes over 10 years of experience with traditional and non traditional positions so I am well equipped to fairly adjudicate a wide range of arguments which means debaters should be comfortable advancing the positions they feel are the most persuasive and competitive regardless of their particular dispositions. I vote for the best competitors and not necessarily the best argument which means I evaluate the totality of circumstances in a round before making a decision.

As a new parent judge, I haven't formed opinions or preferences yet. The only exception would be that I have trouble understanding rapid speech, and so would prefer a slower presentation.

Experience: Debated in high school and college, now coach.

Paradigm: Persuade me. 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 an argument is important, make sure you've clearly communicated it. If it's an online debate, make sure you repeat or slow down when making important points.

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

A few other things:

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

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

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

email: david@notiosolutions.com

My debate background: I used to debate in high school and as a university student. I have acted as a judge in different debate competitions.

How I judge: I base my decisions on both arguments and delivery.

On speed/pace: All speeds are okay as long as the speech is clear.

Benjamin M.

I take on my role as judge from an impartial view to whichever side of the topic a team has been assigned to but rather observant to how each team have embraced their side of the argument and the delivering of such in a clear, concise and convincing fashion.

I assimilate with much more ease facts and true figures rather than personal opinions or unprovable references. I also value beside s the delivery of the main argument the physical performance itself as connecting to audience, gestures, stance, speech speed, eye contact.

As tribute to the effort put in their preparation for the event, I dedicate my total and undivided attention to the speaker in order to absorb the performance in its entirety in order to make a fair and unbiased decision of the outcome.

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

For all debates regardless of event, I do flow but take into account both the flow and persuasion in my ballot.

PF: I'm a flay judge, and I ask that everyone remains respectful and polite throughout the round. I ask that you don't speak too fast as I will likely not understand you. I have been told about things such as theory, but I do not really understand them, so it'd be good if you didn't run any theory. PF jargon is fine, and I will generally understand it.

Parli: First time judging parliamentary-style debate, I also ask that everyone remains respectful and polite throughout the round. Parli jargon is fine, but as stated earlier, the most important thing is a respectful debate.

** I will not tolerate any form of -ism (ie: racism), discriminatory language or hate speech

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

Hello, I am a parent of a freshman. This is my first time participating in parent judging. I would love to learn more about judging techniques.

Thanks,

Mi Eun Nam

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

K

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Hi everyone,

My name is Namrata Nanda. I’m a lay judge and I’ve been judging both speech and debate for a year or so for DVHS. I’m familiar with the format of PF and its rules. I have also judged speech and Parliamentary Debate, and I have a daughter who does Public Forum. Here’s the basics of what I want to see during a round:

Speaks:

Please do not spread! I cannot stress this enough. I’m taking off speaks for anyone who spreads. Like I said, I’m a lay judge, so the clearer you are, the better ????

Ethics:

Just be respectful to one another. If someone is being racist or sexist, it’s an automatic win for the other team and I’ll will be forced to report.

How to win:

Tech>truth

As mentioned above, be respectful and talk clearly so I can understand. Cover both sides well. I tend to vote off weighing, so make sure it is explained well! If your opponents drop a point or a response, say that in your speech so I can make note of it.

Timing:

I’ll be timing your speeches, but you should also be timing yourselves. I allow for a 15-second grace period, and if you go over that I won’t hesitate to interrupt and cut you off. If your opponent goes over the 15 seconds, you can cut them off as well, I won’t take off speaks.

CX:

I don’t mind if you’re talking over each other, but don’t say anything inappropriate. I don’t flow cross or pay close attention to it, but do what you need to get your point across (I won’t judge based on cross).

Debate terminology:

Again, I’m a lay judge, so I’m not too familiar with debate terminology. If there’s anything you think I won’t understand, feel free to call it out and explain it to me.

FF2:

If we’re in the second final focus and your opponent brings up new evidence, just tell me right after the round and I’ll take it into consideration when I’m writing my RFD.

RFD:

I’m not going to give my RFD immediately after the round ends, I will need time to decide and give feedback.

Lastly, have fun guys! I’m looking forward to judging everyone. Good luck!

No expectations, do your best

I'm a volunteer. I've read over some information about the format and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging public forum.

About myself and my judging style.

• Judged in speech and debate events for two years.

• Value content over presentation style.

• Value Quality over Quantity. If I don’t understand the content, I can not give you credit for it. Please slow down if you are looking for better scores.

• Expect teams to respect the time limit, play nice and be polite and respectful.

Hey, this is Brenda!

I am an engineering professional with strong interests in judging. I have over 3 years experience in judging. I enjoy debates that flow well and have distinct framework as this makes the debate well structured. I believe logic and evidence go hand in hand and well thought through debate. Moderate speaking pace, clear speech and confidence is what wins!

Hello! I am versed in PF format and structure and will be "flowing" throughout the round. Please avoid theory and Ks (if you do not know what those are, don't worry about them). Debate is an excellent form of civic engagement, please keep it respectful. I am excited to see what you all researched - good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge, with 10 years of experience.

Important:

Please speak clearly, avoid over speed, and explain your points thoroughly.

Online Debate:

For online debates, prefer cameras on and you are fully visible.

Relevant Thoughts:

• Evidence quality is important. Good data and analytics can beat bad cards.
• My experience is policy-heavy, and it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.
• You as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.
• In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech.
• Speed is fine with me in beginning speeches but make sure your speed doesn't affect the quality of the argument.
• Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Email: vl_pavlov@hotmail.com (yea. seriously. it gets my emails to me on time and im not really looking for a change. i know the world uses gmail)

Please add me on the email chain.

NSDA things and thoughts

Ill add tournament specific things as we go through the weekend.

-- PF/LD notes at the bottom. TLDR -- with a couple minor exceptions I view my role very similar to how I judge Policy rounds. IMPORTANT: for PF make sure to have impacts. I find those are underdeveloped a lot of the time in PF. So for example if youre saying the bad thing is CO2 emissions, why is that bad? Are people going to die? Will the environment collapse? That's the next level analysis that I think will be VERY helpful to get my ballot in PF.

-- I have zero thoughts on the topic. I probably did a little coaching at the tournament so I know a little but by no means anything concrete.

-- Debaters get complacent with spreading -- blast through tags, cards and analytics. Dont. Have a clear transition word for tags and on analytics slow WAY down so I can actually differentiate between what argument is being made.

But Vlad, I wont get through my all my arguments!

Ok. I promise you'll still be in an infinitely better position if you do the above adjustments than if youre blitzing through everything.

-- I think I more and more lean away from giving affs the benefit of the doubt on theories of power or models of debate that they endorse. I think when we get to the 2AR and you basically drop and the aff and go for "our theory of power is..." or "our method of debate is..." but never actually warrant out why thats in any way true, my threshold for presumption neg ballots goes waywayway down. This just feels like lazy debating. Not a big fan.

-- I'm in law school now. I think the implication is Ive learned about more and more shitty things in the world and I've learned more and more how engrained institutions are. So what does this mean for debate. I think discussions about reformation of institutions are super valuable and its a shame that debaters generally fall squarely into the camps of "yay state" or "reject all instances of state". Specific criticism of the state and reformation tactics I think are valuable. This isnt to say that if you dont youll lose, in fact I dont think my actual debate judging stances have actually changed...just a thought on the discussions I think would be cool to have.

Side note: If you want to chat about law school, whatever aspect of it youre interested in, feel free to reach out (email or any time at the tournament) Id be happy to chat. Its a big decision so Id be happy to talk to anyone considering it.

Top 'things everyone should be aware of with me judging' level

I debated for NYU for 2.5 years. Most ran policy/soft left affs, but have gone for many things on the neg. Since I've coached and judged on just about every level from Middle School debate to College at the NDT.

A DROPPED ARGUMENT IS ONLY TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU EXPLAIN IT. The only thing that a dropped argument means you will get 100% of the explanation that you GIVE. It does not mean you get to say 'they dropped X so we get Y argument and we win (the flow/debate).' If anything you should be sitting on the argument for an extended period of time and not 5 seconds. Especially if its a good piece of offense.

I usually wont take any longer then 15 minutes deciding a round. At most. I strongly believe that once I start thinking longer then that I start making connections that were not made in round and end up inserting more of my own thoughts and think about things that I dont have on my flow. My process is mostly limited to the following: I will do my best to vote on the flow, when I look at my flow I look at arguments and warrants made by both teams and how they clash on my flow. If I am able to coherently come to a decision based on arguments and evidence in the round, I will. If there is a block in my decision making I evaluate what is causing the blockage and read evidence to resolve the block. I will refrain from making any extrapolations and building argumentative connections that were not in the round.

**while the above is true, there are two exceptions -- gross misreading and misrepresentation of evidence is a droppable offense EVEN IF the other team doesnt call you out. Other exception is author criticism, specifically if the claim is that authors perpetuate problematic systems, is likely where author criticism will elevate to a voter issue. Otherwise, I THINK its most likely a reason to reject an argument, not the team. I think its important that literature in the debate space isnt written by awful people. If that claim is made, but not super clearly and there is contestation, I might google more about the author to verify who they are. I'd rather make the right decision in regards to authors, rather than keep it within the scope of what was said in round.

Im happy to judge policy v policy, clash of civs and k v k rounds. I will however caution high theory teams against prefing me. While I will vote on it, a lot of high theory K teams seem to rely on a lot of jargon that doesnt mean much to me. (EX. if you framing for the round only extends to the following phrase 'our framing for this round is libidinal economy' that means basically nothing to me). If you want a judge who will hear that phrase and immediately have that mean something to them, in full transparency, you probably should have me lower on your pref sheet. If you are able to give real world examples and implications of your theory to the aff and the world you should be ok, but I do think these are the types of arguments I have the highest threshold for voting on. If you choose not to pref me, fair enough, but if you do get me as a judge dont change what you do best. I will do my best to vote off my flow and stay as objective as possible.

Impact framing makes my life and yours easier especially in clash of the civilization rounds. When in doubt, do it old skool, spell out why you win simply and how your args short-circuits the ability of the other side to access their impacts [too few negs do this and without that step, the 2AR has a lot of ground to play with unencumbered]. If both teams are winning impacts but no one tells me how I should evaluate the impacts it leaves it in my hands which impact is more important and leaves one team feeling sad. This goes for any round.

Timing ends when you tell me it ends. If the email chain takes over a minute to send Ill probably just start running prep again.

I started flowing on computer but I still actually type and im not the fastest typer ever. I also dont EVER just copy and paste things from speech docs onto my flow. This means, especially for rebuttal speeches, that if you make a blippy argument and move on in your speech, dont get offended if I dont vote on it since Im not able to get it down properly as I'll be moving on to the next arguments youre making and trying to get those down. If its a killer argument SLOW DOWN, FLAG IT and SPEND TIME ON IT.Generally a debate is won in the rebuttals by 5 very well articulated arguments, not 40 terribly executed arguments. Focus in on those 5 arguments you need to win and make sure you win them. If your strategy is to make 40 blippy arguments TBH I probably wont flow 50% of them and I certainly wont try to figure out why those arguments win you the round.

Generally Tech > Truth, but if a theory argument is dropped by a team but is just 100% not true I wont vote on it. For example, if the neg claims the aff severed from their aff but thats not the case I will not vote on dropped severance theory.

Affirmative: You do you.

Often times affirmatives get caught up in neg arguments and dont refer to what they are trying to defend. At the end of the debate I want a clear articulation of your affirmative story and what impacts Im supposed to vote on and why your stuff outweighs.

Case Debates: Really enjoy good case debates, unfortunately they dont seem to be very common. Smart analytics and close reading of aff evidence can get the neg far. Yet teams seem scared of going hard on case and feel like they have to win an off case position...you dont. If a team cant defend its aff, by all means, let em have it. Ive voted neg that was 6 minutes of just case in the 2NR. I think a 2NR thats 100% presumption is kinda hard to win. I generally presume that an aff likely does even just a little that I can vote on. Thus, you probably some offense somewhere.

Neg: You do you, and Im fine with voting on it. I think love hearing things that divert from typical strats. Ive gone for anything from DAs, to Ks, to T so Im familiar with a wide range of debates.

DAs: I like them. BUT. DO NOT READ 30 POWER TAGGED CARDS THAT HAVE 4 HIGHLIGHTED WORDS EACH. You've been warned. Generally the Links and internal links are pretty weak in most DAs, so try to have a clear articulation how you get to your extinction scenario. The more clear this is, the more happy ill be to vote on it. Topic specific DAs are cool. A great part of debate is the research and knowledge about the topic that debaters gain. When you read a well thought out DA it shows a great knowledge and effort into the topic.

CPs: Go for it. Im fine with PICS or consult CPs. Have a clear net benefit.

Ks: I think Ks are great and I love judging em. Lately there has been a frustrating trend where debaters have become real lazy with links. 98% of links feel like links to the SQUO and just 'you use the USFG'. I find this to be incredibly lazy debating and makes me sad. I have increasing had a higher and higher threshold for voting on these links. Make of that what you will.

I prefer alts to exist and I prefer that you have real world explanations of how the alt results in something. These are the best and most persuasive alts. Jargon without how it applies to the real world doesnt do it for me. Without an alt, usually I only vote neg when the aff horribly messes up.

FWK: Happy to vote on it. While I ran mostly topical affs, since I stopped debating Ive been coaching more borderline/non topical affs and definitely understand the benefit and necessity of non topical affs. I dont think I have a predisposition for FWK either way. Win the flow, win the round.

Fairness is an internal link, NOT AN IMPACT. Im sure Ive voted on fairness as an impact but I probably wasn't thrilled. Goes for T as well.

T: Especially this year there are some weird plan texts floating around. if its a well thought out violation Ill probably be happy to pull the trigger on it if its well executed.

Performance: Overtime Ive been finding myself judging more of these rounds. While its not something I've ever done and not literature Ive read, as long as you can clearly articulate why your aff is a good idea Ill be happy to vote on it.

Theory: Teams cheat. Ive seen affs in the 2AC sever out of the entire 1AC. Thats probably bad. Thats probably abusive. Theory makes sense. Teams read arguments that are probably unfair. If a team made it hard for you to debate let me know. I might vote on it. These arent my favorite debates to judge, but I also understand that 5 conditional worlds are hard to debate against.

Please dont read violations that didnt happen in the round or REALLY didnt impact your ability to debate at all. New Affs/Non-disclosure bad are uphill battles for me, I heavily lean towards both those things being legit and decent enough debate practices.

Generally becomes a debate of two teams reading blocks of text against each other with 10+ points. Unless one side horribly mismanages this flow it probably wont mean too much at the end of the debate. If you go beyond reading walls of text, and actually make an argument out of the Theory argument you go for, this could become a voter at the end of the debate. Although it seems like its really rare that a deep debate happens on this flow.

MISC THINGS:

1. Dont tell the other team to 'do X (flow, debate, read, etc.) better' and similarly dont say things like 'clearly only one team know what theyre talking about and thats us'. You arent perfect either. Nor am I. Above all else I view debate as an activity to hone vital life skills that debate uniquely promotes. I dont think policy or K or performance debate is any way exclusionary, but I sure do think that 'arguments' that directly attack debaters and their ability to perform in this space are exclusionary and problematic. If this is how you answer CX qs or if this is an argument you think is good, your speaks just became non existent. Im not sure where these types of 'arguments' are coming from but they are popping up and I really hope they get stamped out ASAP. UPDATE: Good news, havent heard this in a while. But just gonna keep this here for a little while longer anyways.

2. In final rebuttals: 3 very well articulated arguments >>>>>>>>>>>> 57 blippy arguments. If you ask why I didnt vote on your 47th blippy argument its probably because I was still trying to process your 28th blippy argument.

3. If I look tired, I probably am. Its also probably not your fault. I also probably just spent all night doing law school work.

Novice Things: If youre a novice and got down this far, congrats. Here are things that if I see in a novice debate your speaks will go up some arbitrary amount.

1. Time yourself.

2. I kinda hate to say it but use your whole speech time. Even if you feel like you said everything you need to say, trust me. You havent. If you feel like youre about to basically just repeat yourself, thats fine too. Theres a chance you might frame or articulate an argument that puts you ahead in the round. Maybe you need to take 30 seconds to think of something to say, thats fine too.

3. Overviews are cool.

4. Less cards, more engaging with the other teams args.

5. 2nrs that go for one off case position. (Or CP with a DA as a net benefit)

PF

My foray into PF has been fairly limited but I found myself evaluating most rounds according to the above. If thats incorrect...sorry. But here are a few thoughts and feelings:

1. I know final focus is short. But that doesnt mean 'we extend our card, that takes out their case' is an argument. If that card does in fact take out their argument, you gotta explain the card. Even if the other team doesnt respond to it, it's your responsibility to make sure I still evaluate it. If you dont explain it, I wont think about it, I wont read your evidence, I wont vote on it.
2. Impacts are cool. I think a lot of speeches, especially in the final focus forget about actually explaining why things matter. So what if the economy gets better under your resolution? I urge you to think about the broader implication of your impact, are there deeper issues that youre solving?

LD

I judge a tournament or two in LD a year. So far I havent found the need to evaluate these rounds any differently than Policy rounds. But I suppose here are just a couple thoughts:

1. I dont know what a trick is, but Ive been told by other LD people and coaches that I would hate them. So unless its absolutely necessary I will default to those coaches whom I trust. Lets keep me ignorant of what tricks are.
2. A couple years ago this thing happened where people would read MASSIVE underviews with 25 arguments, and each argument had 4-5 different subparts and decide to blow up dropped underview arguments in later speeches. IDK if it was just a glitch in the LD system or if that a pervasive thing that people do and Ive just been lucky since to not hear that anymore...If that was a weird year, great! We all move on. If thats still a thing and your A-level strategy is to do what I described above -- please strike me. Or if Im judging you I strongly suggest you switch up your strategy for the upcoming round.

Head coach at the Vancouver Debate Academy. PF, Worlds, Congress experience; taught all of 'em plus LD, BP, CNDF, and the speech formats.

So, I enter my rounds tabula rasa, meaning that I enter without prior knowledge or experience being weighed. Just because I heard something in a past round or I know something to be true, doesn't mean that I'll weigh it in this round. Now, if you tell me the sky is green, I'll know you're lying. I'm not gonna let y'all walk all over me. But I won't hold what you should've said or should've argued against you. You give me the material, and I decide which I buy more. That's who wins.

Also, don't be rude. You don't have to kill each other to win a debate round!

We Out Here.

I have been debating competitively for around 10 years now. 2 For PF/LD, 2 in American Parli, 4 in British Parli, 3 as a coach/instructor for PF/LD.

I make decisions sticking to the flow of the round, but still exercise common sense discretion. Evidence must be properly explained and introduced, link chains need to be explained, and impacts weighed for me using the rounds framework. For example, chains leading to nuclear war and extinction require a lot of time, evidence, and analysis for me to weigh out.

I give credit to both practical and philosophical arguments as long as they are based within tangible impacts, examples, and/or logical chains.

I am against spreading as a tactic as the online space already makes understanding of cases difficult for some debaters and spreading is antithetical to the educational value of debate. I can understand and keep up with quick speed, but spreading is too much.

I also tend not to credit Kritiks or T-Shells unless fully and properly explained within the context of the round. Even then, engagement with the opponents case/argumentation is necessary.

Clash is necessary within a round, proper responses and engagement with opponents cases are needed. Blanket rebuttal or generalizations about a case are less accepted. Weigh arguments individually, unless you can prove they have mutual exclusivity to another argument you have already refuted.

Happy to answer clarifications on paradigm.

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota and glenn high school in texas as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.

I am a parent judge. This is my first year judging PF tournaments after a break.

Speak clearly and please try not to spread.

Good luck

My name is Satish Ponnaluri and I am a parent judge

Congress -

I value speeches that are rightly timed in the progression of the debate. This means I will equally weigh an author who explains the status quo as the same as a speaker who gave a crystal with minimal refutation rehash. I value speaking a lot as well. You need to convince me why I should believe you. That being said, I will drop senators who give rhetoric in lieu of evidence and logic chains.

PO will usually get the top 5 on my ballot if you are adequate with few mistakes. Overall round presence is extremely important, this includes effective cross-ex, round leadership, and familiarity of motions. Other than that, be kind to everyone else in the round and have fun!

Speech Events:

I give weightage to quality of arguments and the evidence provided.

I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.

I am a first-time lay/parent judge, and I will try my best to flow at the pace of the debate. However, please be sure to speak clearly and at a comfortable pace, and refrain from spreading.

Please be incredibly clear in this debate. This includes signposting and frontlining. In your speeches, tell me which argument or refute you are referring to, as well as what your refute is about. This applies to impacts as well; Make sure to weigh, as this is the most important part of the debate. I will time the debate, but please time yourselves as well.

Most importantly, be courteous and respectful to your opponents, each other, and myself. This will be a major factor in deciding speaker points, along with the clarity of your arguments and your overall presentation.

Good luck to all!

Hello! I am so glad that you're here!

I competed in some combination of congress, PF, parli, and extemp for 8 years. I appreciate line-by-line rebuttals, and I will take note if you drop subpoint rebuttals, so don't just carry taglines and unwarranted rebuttals. I don't usually flow cross but I will take note if something particularly important occurs. Since I don't typically flow cross, if you want to make sure that I count a concession, omission, or other notable point during cross towards your side, you should incorporate it into your speeches and weigh. Debate is an opportunity to employ logic and reasoning, not just repetition and intuition. Make your evidence make sense- it won't do that for you. PF speaking times are not optimal for discussing critical theory but I'm willing to evaluate theory if you have a strong grasp on what you're talking about. If you run a K, please don't assume that it will automatically win you the round- really think deeply about what you're trying to accomplish. Often a K is just a framework or an argument, so think about the intended outcome of your approach. Similarly, I am comfortable with PF cases that prioritize non-traditional values or ethical principles. There are always many good ways to analyze a resolution.

I highly value strong and unique speakers. I will evaluate speaking style in your points, and I do not preference cookie cutter speaking styles. Creative and dynamic speakers are often more convincing, so use this to your advantage. I can also see through convincing speaking styles and gesticulation to evaluate the content, so you need to be strong in both.

You should provide a weighing mechanism and framework, and this should be carried through the round. If you want to win, please don't forget to tell me how to evaluate the round. If your opponent offers a weighing mechanism and you provide no reason for me to doubt its validity, that will be the the way that I evaluate the round. If neither team tells me how to evaluate the round, I will run down my flow for dropped arguments, then evaluate winners in clash, then look at the strength of the original arguments.

Brief roadmaps are okay if necessary but should either be at the beginning of your speech (after time has started) or no more than 5 seconds off time. I will keep time, but please keep your own time so that I don't have to interrupt you. I also understand the need to call for cards, but it should be within reason. If your opponent asks for a card and it is revealed that your framing was blatantly misleading or the evidence just does not exist, that will reflect very negatively on your speaker points and potentially my overall ballot. Be honest! It doesn't serve you to lie.

Most importantly- I'm excited that you've chosen to participate in debate. It is non-negotiable to me that you are reasonably courteous to one another and take seriously the opportunity and responsibility to discuss issues that impact real people every day.

Debate for fun

I did Lincoln Douglas for 4 years in high school. Pretty unfamiliar with PF but argumentation is the same in all debates. Make good arguments, extend and weigh impacts, and roadmap your way to the ballot.

For online tournaments, please send speech docs/add me to the chain: muhurtorahman@gmail.com. I will be muted the entire round. Just assume that I am ready before every speech.

tldr; Don't be rude. I like substance. Weigh and collapse.

--------

everything else:

I'm comfortable with spreading but have been out of circuit for around 2 years now so slow down on tags and send me your cases if you spread. Talk at whatever pace feels comfortable for you.

Tech over truth but don't make the debate space insufferable.

Decent at evaluating progressive args but you probably shouldn't be running it here if you don't need to. Not a fan of tricks.

Theory should only be used if there was genuine abuse, it's up to you to prove that it's genuine.

Read trigger warnings it's a good norm.

Timers/Roadmap - You are allowed to use your own timer for reference. I will allow you to finish your sentence after time is up without impacting your speaks. Aside from this, if you go over time, I will take off from speaker points. I take off-time roadmaps or just give me the order.

Respect is important to me. There is a difference between being rude and being aggressive. I'll let things slide more in cx.

Framework makes the gamework. weighing impacts under a framework gets you lots of speaks.

Constructive: Your arguments should be well warranted and have strong links. If it's squirrely I'm less likely to vote for you. Overviews: If your overview is a way to give your team new offense (i.e. sneaky 3rd contention) or abusive, I'll flow but drop speaks. I like overviews that are weighing/overall responses. Rebuttals: The responses to rebuttals must be said in the following speeches otherwise it's dropped. If you access it later I will take off from speaks. If your opponent tries to do this, I will probably notice but it will be better if you just tell me.

Summary and Final Focus: The Final Focus can only bring up arguments that are stated in the summary. These speeches should mirror each other. I won't evaluate anything in final focus unless you only start weighing there. Please weigh early. I won't count just a buzzword as weighing. Make sure you are interacting with your opponent's weighing.

Flex-prep: Generally good with this unless it's abusive.

Progressive: I did LD so I understand progressive arguments. However, I'd rather you engage in substance in PF. If you do choose to run anything progressive, explain to me why it matters. Running it against someone who has no clue how to respond tanks speaks, but I'll still evaluate.

Theory or T's I'm most comfortable with. If your opponent is abusive but you are inexperienced at running theory, just give me reasons why what they did is bad.

K's are fine, just make the alts and solvency clear, warrant it out well. Not really hip to a lot of literature now.

CPs - I'd rather you not run CPs, especially in PF. If you do I'll still flow it through but the chances of me picking you up will not be that high.

Phil/LARP/Spikes - Love Phil debates a lot. I'll vote off spikes if there's really nothing else, but honestly please don't collapse on them.

Tricks - Don't really think PF is the place for these.

Speaker Points:

Here's a rough framework of what to expect: <27 - you did something offensive or unethical, 27-28 - below average, 28-29 - slightly below, at, or slightly above average, 29-30 - great debater, should be in late elims

nastiness is not appreciated

I evaluate Public Forum Debates based on strong logical arguments, supported with evidence. Slow down , since I can flow only what I can understand. Abusive/Disrespectful arguments are not tolerated.

I competed in PF for 3 years in high school and am familiar with the event/ debate in general. My threshold for speed is decent, but if you’re going too fast I’ll let you know.

I like when overviews and frameworks are stated outright- I think they keep the round organized and provide a good roadmap for me to evaluate your team’s performance. On this note, I also appreciate signposting in summary and FF. I also need to hear author name/year for all evidence, and may call for cards if necessary. I will drop arguments brought up in FF that weren’t in summary.

I award speaker points based on clarity through all speeches and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are offensive, sexist, racist, etc at any point in round, I will likely vote you down and dock your speaker points.

Good luck!

Hello all,

I am a parent judge , i look forward to judging as the energy of the debaters and the passion they bring to the topic is commendable. I appreciate the participants to respect others and the diversity in opinion that is being presented. Debaters bring in their individual style for presentation of the case and the arguments which is well appreciated. The consideration for debaters would be to frame the argument and presentations as an effective communication thus depicting clarity of the argument.

Hi I'm Rohan. I debated PF at Harker in high school. If you have an email chain please add me (rohan.v.rashingkar@vanderbilt.edu) but I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to.

--

If you have 10 minutes, I highly recommend watching this video on learning how to give summary speeches. I'd also recommend the rest of the videos on their channel for learning other PF skills.

--

Here's how I judge a round

1. I see who's winning the weighing debate
2. If that team is also winning their case, they win the round
3. If they aren't winning their case, I evaluate the other team's case. If the other team wins their case, they win the round.
4. If neither team clearly wins their case, I have to personally intervene to choose a winner (This will probably not go your way)

--

Things I like to see

• Weighing (Tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's arguments)
• Signposting (Tell me where on the flow you are; numbering your responses; ex: "We have 3 responses to our opponent's 2nd contention. First, ...")
• Extending your arguments in summary, making sure to not only focus on your own argument but also to address your opponent's responses to that argument (frontlining)
• Frontlining in second rebuttal (This isn't necessary, but it would be to your advantage especially if there were turns read on your case in first rebuttal)
• Not stealing prep (Don't prep outside of prep time like when your opponents are pulling up evidence)
• Not running Kritiks, theory, or other progressive arguments unless it's absolutely necessary
• Speaking at a conversational pace or slightly faster but nothing more than that, otherwise I may not be able to flow your arguments.
• Extra: I'll listen to cross but it's mostly for speaker points and won't affect my decision unless you bring up concessions in a speech.

--

“Victory comes from finding opportunities in problems” - Sun Tzu, Art of War

Email: astorbredhead@gmail.com

Glenbrooks Update

If you want my ballot you need to effectively write my ballot for me. There are a few things that I mention in my paradigm that I love to see that people seem to forget about. Namely extending and weighing. You need to extend the warranting for whatever argument you are going for and extend the impact. If your opponent does not do this PLEASE point it out because in my opinion with 3 minute summaries you do not have offense unless you give some extensions. With that said, to avoid losing my ballot please signpost your extensions. Say to me "Judge please extend our first contention where we say ____ which leads to ___ which gives us our impact of ____". If only one team extends, as long as that team has some access to their argument they will probably win. This also goes for weighing. I as a judge do not want to intervene. Weighing is the easiest way for me to compare your arguments, so please weigh. If only one team weighs, as long as they have some access to their arg they are probably going to win because it doesn't matter how hard you are winning your argument if you do not tell me how to compare it to your opponents arg. In an ideal world both teams have a couple pieces of weighing by summary and then both do meta weighing in FF. Same thing goes for weighing in terms of signposting. Please directly tell me you are about to weigh and please tell me where to weigh it.

CSUF/LD UPDATE

I have not ever judged LD and really do not know much about it. Please treat me as a flay judge. You can read prog arguments in front of me, but realize that I likely do not really know how evaluate them. I can handle some speed, but definitely not a lot. If you have circuit and trad cases please read the trad ones. Even if you aren't going fast I would appreciate getting put on the email chain. Please let me know if you have any questions before the round.

TW - IMPORTANT (Specifically for PF)

If you are reading something that is potentially triggering please read a TW, and give your opponents the opportunity to opt out. If you read an argument that could obviously trigger someone like sexual assault without a TW I will be mad and not like you. I understand that some people may feel this is a stupid rule because they think that it is unreasonable to force debaters to have multiple cases, but I would say it is a lot worse to force someone to relive trauma.

Parli

I think Parli rounds are typically either really good, or quite disappointing, mainly because I think there is a big divide between teams that know how to prep, and teams that don't. Parli is not a debate about who has the best cards the way that Policy, PF, and LD are, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that I as a judge don't value cards, I think that I have an obligation to. In my opinion the best cards to try and find in Parli by far are impact cards. You can use logic to make link chains, and you don't need evidence to define basic political facts, but you can't just assert that the electrical grid being damaged kills X many people. Having quantifiable impacts is such a huge help especially in the weighing side of the debate.

In terms of progressive debate, I am not opposed to it, but know that I am not the best judge for it.

I think weighing is incredibly important when you don't have cards, as such I think weighing should be like your main focus in Parli. You should probably start weighing as early as you can. I am also a huge sucker for meta weighing because I think that it is super under utilized, so if you do that I will be quite happy.

Although I don't think most Parli rounds should be judged on a strictly line by line level, that doesn't mean that you should abandon the flow. In fact chances are if you go line by line you are a lot more likely to get my ballot than if you don't.

A lot of my PF paradigm applies as well, so probably read that if you have time. Otherwise if you have any other questions just ask me.

PF

I did PF. I can flow moderately fast but don't go too fast. If you spread I will insta drop you (please be aware I define spreading very liberally so to be safe just go slower). I am definitely not opposed to hearing K's or theory debates, but please be aware that I do not have a lot of experience in that realm of debate and as such I am definitely not the best judge for it. With that said, please be aware that I come from a school that did not have any support for debate and as such, although I do recognize the positive change that can run from running progressive arguments (especially against other good teams who know how to handle those arguments), I also recognize the inherent inaccessibility that prog arguments possess. I mention this so you know that I support you running prog arguments, but also am subconsciously more likely to support and vote for the team not running those args.

You need to weigh, if only one team weighs I will default to them.

Extend warrants and not just authors.

2nd rebuttal should probably frontline, but prioritize turns. Defense is sticky in 1st summary.

For the most part I am only going to call for cards if either one of the debaters tells me to, or if the card seems kind of outrageous. If I call for a card just because it seems outrageous I will only check to see if it is blatantly fake, all other evidence analysis should be done by the debaters. Any other questions just ask me.

One last thing. PLEASE EXTEND. I have had to drop multiple teams now that were dominating the round simply because they only extended their impact. You need to extend the warranting. To be safe signpost your extending. Don't just frontline and extend somewhere in your frontlining. At some point in Summary or FF say to me now extend my whatever contention.

DROPPED DEFENSE DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXTENDED IN SUMMARY

But it does need to be in FF

Dropped offense must be extended.

SIGNPOST I want to know where I'm flowing your arguments. Jumpy responses confuse me. If I’m confused by your speech you are less likely to win.

WARRANT I need you to explain why your turn is a turn to extend it. Tell me, “extend the turn on their C2, where we tell you _______ according to _______.” I won't vote on a turn without warranting.

COLLAPSE Don't make the round about 10 different arguments. Narrow it down to something you can flesh out at the end of the debate. This has become a huge issue. If the other team doesn’t collapse and you do, I’ll be more likely to vote for you because I’ll have a better comprehension of your case.

WEIGH Tell me why I prefer your argument PLEASE! SEVERITY, REVERSIBILITY, MAGNITUDE, TIMEFRAME; USE IT. If you weigh and your opps don’t; guess what? You win. Weigh.

Things that will ding your speaks/get you dropped:

1. Bad evidence ethics. If you very blatantly misrep evidence then at best I will drop your points by 1. If your opponents call for your card and then tell me to read it and drop you for bad evidence, there's a chance I'll drop you for it. Bad evidence undermines education.

2. Sexism, racism, and general excessive rudeness with get you L20ed instantly.

When giving my rfd, I am not opposed to clarifications of the debate from both teams (like postround me, hard (this doesn’t mean you get to argue with me. I’m for postrounding to clarify my decision, not to continue the debate.)). Hopefully this clarifies the debate and prevents any team from feeling like they got screwed. A judge should be able to explain their decision. I'll ask questions if I think I'm missing something.

For the most part I will support anything you run, but just ask me about it before the round.

If are going to do an email chain please put me on it: astorbredhead@gmail.com (To be clear, although I want to be on the email chain for convenience sake just in case I need to look at a card, I do not plan on/want to have to be looking through your cards)

P.S. If something happens during the round that you don't feel comfortable talking about publicly (i.e. misgendering) send me a dm in zoom, an email, or any other way of conversation.

I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.

Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.

Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.

For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

In judging, I will prioritize the students ethics and their general arguments as first. Then, their speech will be the another important main factor. Attacking the opponent's argument is totally acceptable but I'll prioritize those who do it in elegant way and cause less ruckus.

Hello!

I am a college judge and I have debated PF in high school. I've also done Duo Interp and doing British Parliamentary now. I like to see a lot of engagement and lots of clash. Please be respectful of your opponents.

Case: I vote on case, not much theory.

I like to see signposting foremostly and I also like to see clear arguments with warranting, a link chain, and impacts. Constructive speakers need to be clear in each argument and back up each step of the link chain with empirics. Address everything that is relevant. Please do not spread and PLEASE WEIGH. I also don't really like definition debates.

Rebuttals:

Try to cover each argument and respond. Make sure to rebuild your own case as well. Weigh comparatively and using weighing mechanisms.

CX (PF):

Be respectful and ask content based questions. Do not talk over each other and make sure you don't take all the time for yourself.

Have fun!

I am a parent judge and have volunteered for both speech and debate competitions. Please speak clearly, cover all your arguments, and do not go too fast. Keep your cards ready and promptly present them when asked. I will not be timing and I let the teams be responsible so that I can focus on the rounds. For your final focus, the summary will be very important for scores and my decision. Good luck and have a great round!!!

I am Rafiush, a debater hailing from Bangladesh. I have been debating for the past 6 years and have represented the national debate team of Bangladesh in numerous international tournaments including World Schools Debating Championship. My experience in debating can help young debaters formulate a mature understanding of debate and I am really looking forward to judging the tournament coming this week.

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

I'm a freshman at Rice University doing NPDA/parli, and I did public forum with duPont in high school.

I'll judge lay or tech, and I'll vote off of anything; T, K, tricks, whatever as long as it's not offensive. I'm the judge to try out your new, silly, or otherwise unconventional arguments on... HOWEVER, if you run these arguments against a novice debater who is clearly unfamiliar with progressive strategies as a cheap win, I will drop you with low speaks.

Speed is fine, but please respect slow/clear calls from your opponent.

If you're passing text, I'd like to see it at the end of the round.

I don't flow cross and try not to listen too hard; if you want to make an argument from cross you need to explicitly bring it up during your speech for me.

Please, please, please terminalize arguments. I can't vote off of a turn if you don't tell me what the turn means for the impact debate. Same goes for weighing and extensions: I'm not going to fill in anything for you, you need to spell everything out for me.

If we get into a definition/topicality debate and you aren't explicitly running T, I still want to hear some form of standards for your interpretation.

If no weighing is done, I'll default to strength of link (but please make sure to weigh).

I think a lot of weighing evidence can be a waste of time, and unless you have good reason to indict your opponent's evidence, I'd rather you clash with the actual argument. Nine times out of ten, I'll prefer good analysis without evidence to simply reading a card. Saying "we give evidence and they don't" is not a response that I will evaluate if your opponent has provided good warranting.

On that note, I almost never flow card names. If you're extending, extend the warrant not the author (you can do both but I'm probably not going to have the name on my flow unless it becomes really important).

Also, I believe anything if it's conceded (if the aff tells me the Earth is flat and the neg drops it, then for the purpose of the round I now believe the Earth is flat), i.e., tech >>> truth

Please keep your own time.

I always give 30 speaks unless you're racist/sexist/otherwise rhetorically violent.

I'm a volunteer and I'm new to judging. I've read and researched some information about the topic. Here are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If I can't get your arguments down or can't understand what you are saying then you might lose the round.

2. I preferred empirical/statistical evidence - I am a Bachelor of Science Nursing graduate, which makes me pretty skeptical of emotional arguments that are backed without good explanations and reasoning.

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.

5. Do not be rude to other debaters or judges.

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

I am a parent and a novice judge. Although I am new to the academic world of speech and debate, as a journalist I have covered many political debates and current events. I would ask you to speak clearly and not too quickly, to think about your presentation in terms of eye contact and projection, and to be confident in your facts and rebuttals.  I will be judging the round based on the strength of your argument and command of the material. Enjoy the experience and kudos to you for participating!

I am a high school teacher and this will be my first time judging for speech and debate. Please be sure to articulate and defend your points clearly, support them with evidence, and speak at an even pace. Be respectful to your opponents, exhibit confidence, and have fun!

Hello, I am a Sophomore at Carleton College. I competed in PF on both the local (4 years) and national circuit (2 years).

Things to know about me:

I am a flow judge.

Make my life easy and do extensions starting in summary.

Make my life even easier and weigh.

If you run an argument that is "progressive" i.e. off case you must go for it and it must be the main thing in the round for your teams. This includes but not limited to Ks, theories, and anything resembling either version. To be clear, I am okay with these types of arguments.

Cross ex can do a lot for you if you use it correctly. That being said, anything you say in cross that you care about bring up in the next speech.

I will call for cards if they are bad or sound to good to be true. I.e. have good evidence ethics.

The more absurd the argument the more absurd the response to it can be.

I start my speaker points at 28 and move up and down from there.

Watch my reactions I have no poker face.

Email: gabewseidman@gmail.com

Debate backround:

No previous debate experience.

Judging:

I value clear and concise speaking, good presentation, and well mannered debaters.

I care most about your effectiveness as a speaker, your content, and being a courteous person.

I do not care for spreading, cramming, and being rude to opponents.

I am a flay judge - lay judge who flows through the debate so I am looking for effective arguments, flaws in opponent cases and persuasive speaker.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Judging Types: Public Forum

Judging Style:

I am familiar with current world news

Being a parent judge please do not spread/talk extremely fast or use debate terms

Enunciation and clear voice are important

Set organized and well-constructed framework

Clear communication of points and be prepared to make highly articulated arguments

Provide Relevant support of claims

Restate and summarize thoughts at conclusion

Treat opponents with respect

Be passionate and speak with confidence.

I am a new volunteer and first time judge.

I am a parent judge with some past experience. I value debaters who enunciate and do their best to not speak too fast. I plan to take notes as you speak so please be clear and if you are making a particularly important point, perhaps at least slow down when doing so. Tone matters to me as well. You can be argumentative and passionate with facts and positions without being combative so please be sure to treat your opponents with respect. I keep up with current events so please make sure facts are supported by your sources! :) I like to see people have fun too so don't forget to smile now and then!

Please speak at reasonable pace. I personally don't like a lot of materials dumping, so please be clear on the main points and impact weighing. I tend to buy in more analytical arguments, so heavy mech is welcome.

Welcome, debaters and speakers! I am glad to be here as your judge bringing with several years of judging experience. My goal is to ensure a fair and constructive environment for all participants.

Debaters:

• Value solid logic and reasoning. Build a strong case, present clear arguments, and demonstrate your ability to critically analyze and respond to your opponent's points.
• Advocate your position effectively. Persuasion is key, so make sure to articulate your stance clearly and provide compelling reasons for your audience to embrace your perspective.
• Utilize evidence judiciously. Cite credible sources and integrate evidence seamlessly into your arguments. Be prepared to defend the reliability of your sources if questioned.
• Maintain professional decorum. Respect your opponents and fellow debaters. Keep the discourse focused on ideas rather than personal attacks.

Speakers:

• Clear organization is crucial. Your speech should have a logical flow, with well-defined introductions, body, and conclusions. Ensure that your audience can easily follow your speech.
• Reasoning analysis is fundamental. Delve into the core of your topic, providing insightful analysis and demonstrating a deep understanding of the subject matter.
• Effective delivery is key. Pay attention to your tone, pace, and emphasis. Engage your audience through your voice and body language. A well-delivered speech is often as persuasive as a well-constructed argument.

Please take this opportunity to showcase your speech and debate skills. I am here to encourage growth and provide constructive feedback. Good luck to each one of you, and have a wonderful event!

I am a parent judge judging for about one year . My golden rule is to just do your best and have fun with what you do . I want everyone in the round to be respectful while still making their point clear . Just have a good time :).

Add me to the email chain/card doc: smoneysh@gmail.com

I flow but I don't consider myself completely tech (Flay judge)

Talk at a decent speed, don't go overtime (I don't flow after 10 secs overtime)

1. Signpost - This is is crucial, tell me where you are so my flow doesn't get messy
2. Frontline - If your team is first, summary frontline, if second, rebuttal frontline
3. Do weighing - tell me WHY I should vote for your impacts over your opponents
4. During crossfire be clear and confident (Clarity is where I give speaker points)

Just say "Aloha" when you introduce yourself for extra speaker points

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

This is my second year regularly judging speech and debate tournaments as a part-time teacher of the sport.

My college major was in history and I have an ongoing career conducting public policy research across economic, educational, and environmental fields.

I do my best to flow throughout all debate speeches and ultimately weigh your arguments on their magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

The quantity and quality of your evidence as well as the logic chaining of your arguments will be the most important components in my consideration of these factors while regular road-mapping and a clear speaking voice will help me avoid mistakes in making objective evaluations.

I do not flow during or take into consideration any arguments made during cross.

Please make any pre-speech organizational or road-mapping statements within your allotted speaking time.

Hi

Send me CASES AND REBUTTAL DOCS: aryansonii934@gmail.com

PF Paradigm 2022-23 Season:

Past debate 3 time qualifer to toc Tech>truth

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internals links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contention you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate downkritical,theoretical, and/or pre-fiatbased roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century I have been converted that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I still believe theory is used as an easy way to avoid substantive debates but you do you. I will always prefer a round sans disclosure theory but can no longer for intellectual consistency stop you from running it. Still highly suspicious of paraphrasing theory as your "full-text" cards are super power clipped and disclosure solves back but you do you. TL;DR:I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me.I am more skeptical of paraphrasing theory than disclosure theory.Lastly, if you look back at the last 32 rounds or so I've judged with theory as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced theory in the round 7 of 32 rounds. Meaning I vote for theory 22% of the time when it's the voter. Take that as you will. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can.

Little Things

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time.If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus.Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus.I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
• DA's in general or second rebuttal?You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much.
• I will pull cards on two conditions. First,if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second,if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards.Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
• If you spread that's fine.Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
• My favorite question in cx is:Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
• My favorite phrase in debate is:"Prefer our warrant or evidence" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses or raise your phone. Don't interrupt.

Ramblings on Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First,I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

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

Background-

I am the two-year incumbent president of the University Essex Debating Society. I have coached BP for over two years at university level and I regularly judge in PF debates.

Public Forum

Tech vs Truth:

Truth vs Tech is not a static either/or but rather an expanding and contracting cleavage given the unique context of each round.

For example, the greater the imbalance between either technique or truth, will subsequently result in a larger weight on the specific area of imbalance. Any great imbalance will take a president in the judging.

When differences in rounds are marginal, I initially do a technical overview where I determine where each team sits on the technical threshold below. I will then compare this to the threshold of truth.

I judge one over the other based when technique and combined who. For example, if one side has produced untrue arguments but shows great technique, and the other shows poor technique but has truthful arguments, victory will be decided upon a combination of, the quality of technique + quality of the truth claim.

Technical Threshold:

Flow

Structure

Rebuttals

Depth of analysis

Link

Demonstration of Warrant

Impact

Weighing

Solvency

Truth Threshold:

Who has provided a better warrant to what 'should' happen? I evaluate 'should' over 'likely' as most questions are not asking a debater what the probable outcome is but what their solution is. However, this does not discount the need for a warrant to include feasibility, therefore all claims need to be reasonably mechanised in the round, as I cannot fill in the gaps. I highly weigh the solvency of all arguments in relation to their 'truth'.

Kritique:

I like K, I think it's very valid, but note K cannot stand alone and the team must provide a reconstruction considering their kritique. I do not evaluate K as being inherently more abstract than a practical mechanical rebuttal would be. The theoretical nature of the rebuttal does not decrease warrant however like a traditional mechanism K must be fully analysed and linked directly to the question in order to be merited. Simple asserting, for example, that capitalism is a harmful and destructive system bears no weight if it is not linked to your evidence and answering the question.

Theory

Interests me very little.

Evidence Ethics:

Calling into question evidence legitimacy. Questions to bring up; Why is their evidence disreputable? How does this affect the warrant of their argument? Why is your evidence more trustworthy? After these questions are answered I will consider the impacts evidence quality brings to bear.

I prefer resources from academic resources over journalism articles if the article cites a YouGov poll find the link to the original YouGov poll and do not assume newspapers are doing their due diligence.

I am not massively concerned about evidence being biased unless a debater makes a specific mention of how it is. However, if a team is depending on evidence pieces to justify a claim with limited analysis, I am going to be more critical than if they provided analysis supported by evidence in the debate,

Speech:

My speech preferences are pretty lax, spreading I never encounter much in PF but I prefer people not to.

Misc:

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Politics DA is a thing----------X-----------------Politics DA is not a thing

Give me solvency or give me death !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

For EMail chains - Nadyasteck@gmail.com

Hey y’all, Nadya here, I’m glad that I’m getting the opportunity to judge you in this round! For the sake of a pre-round TL:DR-

I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way. I am fairly familiar with Policy, Kritik, and theory debate, do what you want. I will give you the best possible feed back I am capable of at the end of the round. I am most familiar with NPDA and NFA-LD.

Some more specific things for when you have time to read more -

General Things -

- Unless told otherwise I vote tech over truth, I am compelled by arguments to throw out my flow and eval the truth claims in the round as they exist in their entirety and will listen to them, you just have to win that I eval them first

- I find that people have gotten less interesting clear in their impact calculus as of late, I would like more explicit and clear articulations as to why I should care about what impact. Absent being given this context in a round I will default to probable over high magnitude impacts.

- My experience with debate, I was the Director of Debate at Lewis and Clark College for the last 5 years. Before that I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD for 5 years in college. I read a little bit of everything as a debater but had some particular favourites (Queer Pes, D&G, DeCol, Impact Turns)

- I have no problem voting on terminal defense if the round comes down to it, but I am always much more excited to get to actual vote offense in a round.

- I’m fine with you going fast if you want, its not really a huge problem so long as you aren’t weaponizing speed to exclude other people in the round go wild. I have a pretty low threshold needed to be met to vote on speed theory

- I don’t vote on disclosure, don’t take this as a challenge, I DO NOT VOTE ON DISCLOSURE, I do not care if its conceded, I do not care if you think you’ve got the version of the argument to get me to finally change, I will not vote for it under any circumstances.

- Please please please, read analytics, be smart, just saying an argument isn’t an argument because it doesn’t have a piece of evidence immediately attached to it doesn’t mean that an argument wasn’t made, as long as its explained an analytic is a perfectly valid argument and needs to treated as such.

• I like creative extensions of the aff, I like well structured overviews, and in general am always excited to see what weird new things you all come up with, so please show me what you’ve got, I love seeing the limits of what debate is capable of
• It’s something I never really thought to put but after judging with a few folks and some convos with other judges I think it bares stating, I don’t auto presume presumption flips aff just because a counter advocacy of some type is read, I believe that the negative always has the status quo as an option, you are welcome to make arguments to the contrary and I’ll happily listen but if I don’t vote for your presumption trigger it’s probably because you didn’t make the argument.

Theory Specifics-

I will vote on theory read in basically any speech within reason, I think that if abuse happens in the 1NR than the 2AR has a right to read arguments about it happening, it doesn’t mean I will automatically vote on it, but I will at least flow and eval it.

• Some jurisdictional issues regarding theory. Theory is by default Apriori, you can always make the argument that it isn’t or that I should evaluate something else first. “This is an NFA-LD rule” is not a voter its a statement, the action of them breaking a rule has a result, that is your voter. Fairness and Education are bad voters, please contextualize them, what kind of fairness, education about what? Please make sure you have a clear interpretation, please please please make sure its clear, I will hold you to the interp you read out of the first speech it is read out of. I will default to competing interpretations as an eval mechanism unless told explicitly not too.
• - lighting round, Yes I’ll vote on 1AR theory, Condo is fine until it isn’t, Dispo is okay until it isn’t, Pics are good until they aren’t, Floating pics are great until they aren’t, CP theory is always a good option, I’ll vote on spec but I won’t be happy about it, Potential abuse is fine but proven abuse last forever.

Kritik Specifics

- I am familiar with most common critical authorship that has been popular in the last decade or so. This includes; Cap of all flavours, Queerness stuff, Blackness lit, Decol and Set Col stuff, PoMo stuff like D&G, Ableism stuff, and a few fringe things. Feel free to read whatever kind of kritik you want to in front of me and I will evaluate it to the absolute best of my ability.

- I’m not super picky about how you read a kritik, but I do think that every kritik needs to functionally make three claims in order to function. First, a Kritik must make some kind of evaluative claim, what should my ballot focus on and what impacts should be prioritized. Second, a Kritik must have a link to the specific actions either advanced explicitly or methodologically endorsed by the aff plan. Third, there needs to be a clear and explicit alternative that has a clear solvency claim.

- If you want to read a K Aff go wild, I did it a lot when I was a debater, I am usually sympathetic to them and enjoy a good K Aff, that being said, I do still expect you to fill your time and be strategic. If you’re rejecting the topic wholesale fine, but tell me why, give me a reason why the topic should be abandoned. Make sure that you are advancing a clear methodology in your 1AC as well, I don’t so much care what that method is just make sure you stick to it, I find that I am exceptionally compelled by a a good contextualization or warranted analysis of the 1AC vs theory etc. out of the 1NC. A sneaky 1Ar/2AC restart will almost always net you high speaks in my book, its a hard thing to do well but if you can manage a tricky restart to the debate in the second aff speech I won’t shut up about it.

- Rapid Fire, Links of omission are bad and warrant link turns of omission please be specific on your link sheet, you can read a K and theory at the same time I find that I not super compelled by “you read theory which is a form of X violent practice so it links to your K” like if you want to go for the double turn go for it but like its not a strong arg, K and theory operate on different levels which I evaluate comes first is up to you and your opponent, floating pics are fun please read them strategically but make sure you can answer the theory sheet first.

Policy Specifics

- I am fine evaluating a good Case vs CP and DA combo. In fact a good DA/PIC combo is one of perhaps the most fun strategies that exists in the negative tool box. I am fine with any sort of case argument. I will vote on terminal defense, the sqo is neg ground and if the aff can’t solve than the aff doesn’t change the sqo, so I vote negative. I am not happy to vote on terminal defense, but as they say, the status quo is always an option I guess.

- I find that too often people read uniqueness args at each other but never think about the way those arguments actually interact with each other. I think that the best way to win a policy debate is to win the uniqueness level. Who cares if the aff solves an impact if the sqo already solved it right? I think that too often we focus on impact debate and link debate and forgo some of the fundamentally important arguments that are needed to win these claims. If you’re reading this now, take it as a reminder, when was the last time you updated your 1AC uniqueness? Cutting updates should happen before every tournament, don’t let yourself lose because you didn’t stay on top of your research.

- Straight Case is perhaps the best thing a 1NC can read, if you read straight case in front of me you will almost certainly net 30 speaks no questions asked. I’ve almost never not voted on this strategy, just case defense and impact turns or link turns is such a compelling strategy and as you’ll find out, a lot of people are a lot less ready to actually defend their case than you may think.

Some last minute fun things -

- Try to have fun, I love voting on goofy stuff and am fine to have a good time. The only argument that has a 100% win rate in front of me is Wipe Out so like who cares what I think anyway right?

y name is Harry Steinman and I'm retired. My career required excellent communication skills, as I was a salesperson and a teacher--English as a Second Language.

I listen for two thingsbeyond the logic. First, can I understand you? If you talk too fast, you won't be understood. That could cost your team a win. Second, look at the judges! Look into your camera. Remember, it doesn't much matter what the other students think of your presentation. Present to the judges!

Good luck!

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

anthony "andy" stowers forest (they/any pronouns)

anthonymstowers@gmail.com

My personal bright lines (updated for TOC PF):

#1: I will drop you if you claim that victims of human trafficking, child abuse, and childhood sexual assault are more likely to be criminals. This is unnecessary and harmful, do. not. do. it.

#2: Please omit graphic depictions of SA, child abuse, and human trafficking.

#3: My yarmulke is not an invitation for you to make hateful comments about Muslims or Palestinians, nor is it an invitation to make weird (and usually ignorant) virtue-signalling comments about Israel, Oct 7th, or the Holocaust. In rounds, these comments happen often. Please be cool, I love my Muslim friends very much and they love me very much too.

Technical debate preferences:

-SPECIFY SCOPE.

-Any speed is fine w/ me. If your opponent is spreading and you don't want to, that's also fine.

-K is fine, as long as it's genuinely well-considered and sportsmanlike (eg don't run K against a novice who clearly doesn't know what K is.).

-Speak with respect about all groups of people. I have beloved friends from China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria.... It's really tough to take xenophobic arguments seriously when I've been received with unbelievable hospitality by the people you're talking about.

-Please don't waste the entire debate arguing about the rules: make verbal note of the violation and move on. I can take it from there.

-Please do not make your main impact in every round nuclear apocalypse or climate apocalypse (or claim your argument can uniquely prevent them). I think those things are high-probability no matter WHAT, and I don't think it's realistic to say that one side or the other will uniquely cause or prevent them.

-Differentiating people and government is critical. The Russian government makes extremely questionable choices. Russian PEOPLE have fed me repeatedly when I was a stranger to them, showed me cool sights in their hometowns, and made sure I was safe visiting dangerous places (both in Russia and in the US). I really do try to be tech over truth in a lot of ways, but it tends to be laughable to me when I hear broad generalizations about Russian, Chinese, or Iranian PEOPLE (etc.) being anti-American. I need you to make that people vs. government differentiation because otherwise some of the claims being made are absolutely laughable in comparison to what interactions with these groups of people are actually like.

Hi I'm Cathy

cathysui1072@gmail.com

I debate varsity LD at Dulles High School

Pref short cut -

1 - Theory/Policy

2 - Phil

3 - Common Ks

4 - Identity/pomo

Strikes - Non-T Affs, Tricks

Hi!

What matters to me most in my room is your capacity to justify your arguments, especially on moral and philosophical points. I also appreciate a rather well structured speech in which the speaker explains their arguments clearly and rather methodically from point A to B. Next, don't be afraid to think outside the box, as I do properly enjoy the occasional interesting take or side on a rather conventional topic.

Good luck everyone!

Hi everyone, I'm a lay judge.

Email chain: geraltan@gmail.com
*Please send speech docs if you can so that during your speech I can try to follow through with what you're saying.

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter, but be smart about it.

Guide
I won't understand any progressive arguments.
Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary.

Speed
Generally please be slow at around conversational speed, but cases (during the first constructive) can be read a bit faster. Note that if I cannot understand you, I will not work to understand you.

Speaks
Speaks are given based on presentation.

Speeches
Be clear, simple and give warrants whenever you can. Explain why I should vote for you.

I have some experience in public forum but please speak slowly and clearly. Be respectful to everyone.

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

I only have one suggestion: assume I know nothing. All of these topics are nuanced and if you assume I know all of the details and think I know what you’re talking about, you are sadly mistaken.

Credentials:

• I am a university-level debater with extensive experience both in debating and judging.
• The majority of my debating/judging experience is in British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Canadian National Style.
• I have broken (judge/debater) and placed in the top 5 speakers in many tournaments on the CUSID West circuit.
• have attended many international tournaments including the World University Debating Championships (WUDC), North America University Debating Championships (NAUDC), and North America Parliamentary Debating Championships (NorAms).

How I judge (if you have any specific questions, email me at torwalt@ualberta.ca):

• I value analysis in a debate. It is important to fully flesh out your arguments and explain why they are true, why they are likely to happen, and what the impacts of them are. Quality > quantity of arguments
• I also highly value explicit weighing in rounds. If I am forced to implicitly weigh arguments, there is a risk that they will be weighed not in your favour. Tell me why your points matter more on the metrics of likelihood, scale, and/or frequency.
• My favourite style of debating is case debating. I find these the most interesting, and also that the engagement and clash is most clear in case v. case debate. Explain your case clearly and impact out why it matters more than the other side's case.
• K debates: I am okay with K debates, however, I find them more likely to be unclear and more difficult to weigh arguments. If you are running a K v. Policy debate, you must explicitly explain the theory, impacts your opponents' way of thinking, and suggest alternatives. I will not vote on arguments I don't understand. Explain your arguments, and you'll do well :)
• Crystallize your winning voting points in your final focus. Make it super clear why I should vote for your side over your opponents'.

General things:

• I am not a lay judge, but I am not super familiar with PF debating. Keep in mind that most of my debate jargon/buzzword knowledge comes from the CP and BP circuits.
• If you sign-post (roadmap), I will be able to flow better. Please do this.
• Speak at a reasonable speed, but since I am a debater, you can go pretty quick and I'll likely catch it. You can spread if you'd like, but don't drop arguments.
• I appreciate a sense of humor in debate
• If you claim your opponents "dropped an argument" and they actually didn't, I will catch it. My flow is solid.
• Do not be homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, or ableist. If this occurs in a round, you will get a very bad speaker score.
• If you have accessibility needs, let me know before the round and I will accommodate. I have a disability, so I know what it feels like to be a debater with a disability.
• Avoid sweeping generalizations, especially of marginalized communities.

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Hey everyone,

My name is Jack I’m a junior at Fordham University studying Finance and Econ. I did PF for 4 years in HS and loved it. I’d say I’m pretty flay. I will be flowing but I also value things like crossfire (assuming they still have that) and overall debate perception, that is who it seems won the round. That is an important aspect out of the PF world. I currently do Mock Trial at Fordham, PF is way better. Don’t be a jerk, but also totally okay with calling out opponents out for logical inconsistencies. Looking forward to the rounds!

Hello debaters,

As your judge I value clear, concise and polite speakers. Content and presentation are both equally valuable, and I will be carefully observing the quality of your speeches and questions asked. During crossfire, I expect questions and answers to be straight to the point.

I have debated and judged debates for about 5 years now. I have experience in more than 6 debate formats.

I encourage debaters to be keen throughout the round, be precise and mechanise their arguments in addition to weighing in of clashes in a round. But most importantly, I encourage debaters to learn from each and every debate regardless of whether they win or lose.

Rebuttals should be as concrete as your constructions because they carry as much importance.

I am okay with spreading.

I possess over a year of experience as a judge in mainly PF debates but I also have experience with the BP style of debate as well. With that being said, I am more of a flay judge as well. My preference is to evaluate arguments based on their substance rather than style because the latter can be a disadvantage for ESL participants. Additionally, I prioritize convincing arguments over speed. (Please do your best not to spread, my old ears aren't as good as they used to be, and I might not be able to process your argument.)

During rebuttals, I urge the debaters to allow their opponents to respond to their questions. Furthermore, I strongly recommend that the debaters structure their arguments logically and succinctly. I am open to accepting cards and paraphrasing for evidence as long as the presented information is accurate and reliable! While I am not too nitpicky on evidence, I must emphasize that I will not tolerate deceitful claims such as lying that cows are pink or grass grows upside down.

Lastly, I wish all the participants the best of luck and encourage them to enjoy themselves!

Hi! My name is Sam Unabia, a legal management student from the Philippines.

Some of My Prior Debate Experiences:

1. Philippine Intercollegiate Debating Championship 2022 - National Octo-Finalist
2. National Debate Championship 2022 - National Union Cup Grand Finalist
3. Debatable Open 2022 - Open Grand Finalist
4. Loyola Debate Open 2022 - Open Grand Finalist
5. 11th Zamboanga Debate Open 2022 - Open Grand Finalist - 4th Best Open Speaker & Open Finals Best Speaker

Some of My Prior Judge Experiences:

1. The Alfaaz Open 2022 - Open Semi-Finals Chair and Grand Finals Panel - Overall Best Judge
2. Bangladesh Debating Council Nationals 2022 - Open Grand Finals Panel
3. Philippine Schools Debating Championship 2022 - Open Grand Finals Panel
4. GRRIPP-DUDS South Asian Debating Championship 2022 - Open Grand Finals Panel
5. Doxbridge WSDC 2022 - Silver Grand Finals Panel

My Judging Philosophy is simple, I tend to look for how well the arguments were built quality-wise, how it engages on the case of the other house, and how it ties back within the given motion

As a new parent judge, I would like to communicate the following guidelines for a successful debate experience:

• Speak clearly and concisely, using a reasonable pace.

• Show respect for your opponents, and encourage a friendly yet competitive atmosphere.

• I will make an effort to keep track of your arguments and to understand the impacts of your points. When evaluating the debate, I will consider quantifiable impacts that are presented clearly.

• Speaker points will be awarded based on your speaking ability and delivery style.

• Please make sure to time yourselves and stay within the allotted speaking time.

I am a parent judge. I believe this is a great learning platform for all of us. I look forward to learning from your ideas, arguments and reasoning.

1. Greet everyone and introduce yourselves.

2. Demonstrate respect and professionalism. Adhere to time limits.

3. Be original and be comfortable. I will adjust to your style of presenting.

Please highlight maximum 3 main arguments for your case along with 3 supporting evidences. Additionally, pay attention to other team's arguments and respond accordingly.

My decision will be based on the strength of reasoning, impacts, rebuttal and weighing in Summary Speech(SS) and Final Focus(FF). Any additional weighing that is not stated in Summary Speech will be quantified in my choice. No new cards or arguments should be made in Final Focus(FF).

Hope you will have great learning experience and have fun!

While I am not new to the Bay Area Speech and Debate scene with CFL, this is my second year judging Public Forum.

I look for thoughtfully reasoned ideas, the logical flow of the arguments, and the augmenting evidence presented to support the team's position. I also think a good use of time (running down the clock to take advantage of the allocated time) demonstrates a higher level of preparedness and comfort in dealing with the topic.

I do have some speech and debate experience.I'm not lay but also not super technical

Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me.

Here are my some preferences -

Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. If you typically speak quickly, then adjust your speed to match my judging style. If I am unable to follow your arguments and comprehend what you are saying, then you will not be successful in the round.

I prefer arguments that are backed by empirical evidence, rather than those that rely solely on emotional appeals. You will not win the round by trying to persuade me through an emotional argument.

I appreciate a well-planned and logically sound case. I prefer to see a clear connection between your points and ideas.

While I am capable of taking notes during the debate, I may not be as skilled at doing so as someone who judges Public Forum Debate (PFD) regularly.

It is important to remain respectful during the debate. While assertiveness is acceptable, actions such as screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head-shaking, and showing contempt are not appropriate. Even if you win the round, you may receive a low score if you display such behavior.

Good luck.

Logistics

- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)

- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here

- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth
• Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Dont do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
• I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Progressive stuff

• there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
• Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
• Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
• I will vote for one team and one team only
• I will evaluate theory
• Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
• Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
• if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
• Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
• I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
• I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.

Donts

• Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
• This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
• Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
• having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

other events

• im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
• if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important

I am a parent judge with very less experience. I am looking forward to a well-mannered debate. Please speak clearly and make it so that I can hear and understand your points by speaking at a reasonable pace. Thank you, and good luck!

Hi! I am a second-year university student studying biochemistry and forensic science. I have done a few informal debates in my classes, but this is my first time being a judge. I will be as objective as possible with my decisions.

I value the flow of logic in an argument; I think it is crucial that a point is clearly expressed and that it makes sense. I would also like to see well-supported arguments. So when a point is made, I expect to hear it elaborated. That said, I will try to be fair and not harsh with my grading.

Good luck and I look forward to your debates! If you want more feedback from me, feel free to reach me at ashleywangxm@gmail.com!

I'm a fourth year university student at SFU studying Health Science.

Generally, I'm open to every argument, but please (please!!) keep your delivery slow and clear. It's more important to have quality evidence than quantity of evidence. Please do not be rude or cheat. At the end of it, I vote based on the flow and the debate round.

Feel free to contact me after the round if you need more feedback. You can reach me at Jasminewxb01@gmail.com.

(Debaters better send your cases to the email in advance :) )

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

Hello I'm kristen, i debated PF for three-ish years

I am not a very technical judge. I have a working knowledge of prog arguments like Ks and theories and such but have little experience evaluating them. Feel free to run them if you want at your own discretion. I am also quite bad with speed -- if you start speaking at over 250 words per minute my flow will be weird. Debater jargon is fine but personally prefer not to have to hear fake words. Speaks never dip below 27 unless you're like racist or something.

Some things i like to see:

• warranting all the time
• weighing/comparative analysis in rebuttal responses
• timing your own prep and speeches

basically just follow basic norms and u'll be alright!

Use the pronouns people ask you to use. I will end the round if it gets brought up, but that's not the reason you should respect other people. I am a parent judge who primarily focuses on speech. Delivery is very important to me, but I will be taking notes. I hope to enjoy a respectful and educational round, good luck and have fun!

Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylarrwang@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Notes for 12/2 -I'm not familiar with this topic, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating!

General:

- Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on

- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing

- Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.

This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this

- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!

- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted.

- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.

More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."

- I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to Ks than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory)

- Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read.

Back half specifics:

- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted

- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus

- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary

- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks

Speaks:

- I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- avg is 28

- will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior

Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.

I debated for 5 years for VDA in PF and currently debate for Rice University in NPDA Parli.

Please include me in the email chain: ww53@rice.edu

Some general expectations for rounds:

1.) The singular most important thing for me is terminalization, warranting and weighing. Please do not just extend taglines and author names. I might not have them down and I'll be really confused and upset. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. I like critical thinking. Well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time. PREETY PRETTY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TERMINALIZE IMPACTS.

2.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument.

3.) Must frontline offense in Second Rebuttal. I view any dropped offense that are read in first rebuttal, ie turns, as conceded if second rebuttal does not frontline. Second summary is way too late to present any new frontlines or responses.

4.) Progressive Argumentation. I am familiar with progressive argumentation such as Ks, Ts, etc. If you feel the necessity to run these argumentations, I will evaluate them. If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks.

5.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. If the arguments that both teams present to me are uncomparative, then I will be forced to intervene. One team will be unhappy.

6.) Tech > Truth. I view debate as a strategic academic game with arguments as the game’s pieces. I flow and will vote on anything so long as it is warranted, impacted, and weighed against other arguments in the round, and is not offensive or exclusionary. I default to Neg on presumption if there is no offense from either team. I vote strictly off the flow.

7.) Please signpost! It makes it really hard for me to flow if you don't signpost. And if I can't flow, it makes it hard for me to evaluate the round. I'll likely miss what you're saying and we'll both be frustrated at the end of the round because you'll think I made the wrong decision and didn't consider what you said.

8.) Please don't be abusive. Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal. I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these. My threshold for what counts as a good response to these is extremely low.

9.) I do not flow cross. If there is something that you think is important that came up in cross, bring it up in the next speech. Nonetheless, the last thing that I wish to see in cross is people yelling over each other. So please be polite.

10.) Racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

11.) Speed. I am fairly comfortable with speed but definitely not comfortable flowing anything that is going Mach 5 speed. Please ensure that you are clear or send a speech doc before hand!

12.) Hate calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if a) you tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so, b) I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or c) your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Every reference to Twoset will boost your speaks by 0.1.

Above all, be nice and have fun!

I have limited debating and judging experience

Don't speak too fast.

Explain ur points with plain language.

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.

Name: Mike Wascher

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 8

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery As long as it is clear, speed is not important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Turning point in the debate where the debater should take from the line by line the arguments they envision as being the decision points. Whether it is organized by the same order as the line by line or re-cast in voting issues makes no difference.

Role of the Final Focus Tell me what arguments you win, explain why those arguments, when compared to your opponents arguments, means you win the debate. The comparative work is crucial. If the debaters don’t do it the judge has to do it and that is a door debaters should never leave open.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches While I have no autocratic rule, I would imagine that something you plan to go for would be something that is extended throughout the debate. If argument X is a winner it just seems reasonable to me that it should be included in all speeches.

Topicality Sadly, this argument isn’t advanced much because the time it takes to present it is generally critical time lost on case arguments and the trade off is seldom worth. Having said that, I would vote on a T argument.

Plans Specific plans are, by rule, not allowed. Generic ideas about solving problems necessarily discusses policy options. The general idea of those options is the resolution when were have policy topics.

Kritiks If Public Forum is supposed to be debate about how current events are debated in the real world I find little room for theoretical ideas that are not considered by real world policy makers. If, however, the critical argument has specific links to the topic, (and history suggests that few I’ve heard do) it should not be rejected because it is critical.

Flowing/note-taking I flow the key parts of the argument and sometimes flow authors. I find myself noting dates when they seem to be old (and possible dated). I listen to cross fire and sometimes make notes when I heard something worthwhile.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument and I especially value warrants (which aren’t tag lines) that explain why your claims are persuasive.

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? Not a hard and fast rule with me but I can’t imagine why a winner would be left out.

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? Also not a hard and fast rule with me but strategically it is probably important you get back to some of your case, unless you plan to win offense on turns on your opponents case.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Never!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. The three things I would like to hear more often in Public Forum debates are:

1) Comparative work. Explain why you win the debate not just win some arguments. You can win every argument you discuss but still not have a better story than your opponent. Take the time to explain why the arguments you win form a better story than your opponent’s offering.

2) Warrants. Claims are not persuasive. Why your claim is true, significant, harmful, etc., make for a persuasive argument. The best claim from the most qualified author is generally useless and it is sad when those “Best” authors write warrants and debaters fail to cut that evidence and read it.

3) Paraphrasing. I recognize that the PF world is at this point. I don’t like it. I believe there are ethical issues when one cites three different authors, for example, and none of the three are working on the same argument but rather writing one line that fits in and is found in a google search. I also find it problematic that some think they can summarize a master’s level work in six words. Paraphrasing opens the world to a lot of potential evil. I read a lot on our topics and do not be the person that is misrepresenting an author by a poor paraphrase. It’s as bad as clipping. Given the power to change the world I would mandate we go back to reading evidence but then again I can’t find enough people, maybe even one other person, willing to give me that power. So we will paraphrase but we will properly represent the evidence.

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

I've competed in and taught speech and debate for 25 years in a number of formats, so feel free to run whatever you'd like. I enjoy old school case arguments as much as Ks, performance, and theory, but expect strong link and impact work regardless of the argument. I am very high flow, so shouldn't have an issue with speed or tech, but will try and get your attention if I'm having trouble following you. Specificity through good research wins positions, generally. Comparative weighing is a must. Feel free to ask before the round if there's anything specific you'd like to know about and have fun.

My duty and responsibility are to monitor the mobilization of the Forum Debate which I will emphasize on objective evaluation. The pivotal element that becomes the parameter to decide the value of the participants is how they carry out their arguments to stay on track with the theme and how veritable their foundation is to generate the arguments. In case the participants encounter some issues during the event, I am willing to become the assistant to alleviate their problems, as long their questions are not subjectively assisting them to win or detriment the other participants.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Krishnamurti Wibowo

In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:

CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.

LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.

Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.

Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.

I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.

I competed at the national level in PF for 4 years. The most important thing I need to see in a round is continuity -- I would rather hear one/two strong argument evolve and develop throughout the round than hear four/five arguments get spottily extended across the flow. Don't make me do more work than I need to when making my decision, so pick a narrative, stick with it, and clearly give me a comparative weighing mechanism against your opponents. Beyond that, some specifics:

I am fine with speed, but, seeing as this activity is meant to be inclusive of the average person, please try and avoid spreading at all cost;

I am okay with the first speaking team extending defense from rebuttal to final focus, as long as they do not make it a reason to vote for them (i.e. only terminal defense). Any reason to vote for you (i.e. offense) must be in summary in order for it to be in final focus;

Big fan of jokes/humor in round, but stay civil and respectful of the event and one another;

Tell me why I am voting for your side in the latter half of the round. Explaining why you're winning an argument is helpful, but not nearly as imperative as explaining why that argument translates into signing my ballot for your side.

Things to do for boosted speaker points:

• Funny analogies/metaphors
• 1-off Case
• Varied use of hand gestures
• Inclusion of pop culture references
• Impressive vocabulary

I am a parent judge. I used to do S&D in high school (Arcadia HS) and have experience with FX, Impromptu, L&D, PF, Parli, etc. The fundamentals of your argument are important to me - clarity and conciseness of argumentation along with responsiveness to the key points addressed throughout the debate. Civility is of course, expected.

I am a parent judge, here are what I expect from all participants:

Don't speak too fast

Deliver coherent and consistent story with consideration of depth, breath, and impact.

Emphasize points clearly with variable tone and (reasonable) body language.

Be polite and respectable

Finally, have fun and enjoy the process.

I have not had prior debate and speech experiences, and I am new to being a debate judge. However it is always welcoming to hear well constructed arguments coming from different perspectives. I will try my best to follow the principles of impartiality and objectivity, and to base my decision on how well constructed, supported, and convincing the arguments are.

However, being inexperience in the art of adjudicating, I would like to ask the participants to pay special attention to the clarity of your articulation. This does not mean to be slow, but to delivery your arguments in a clear and understandable manner. After all I won't be able to judge fairly if I fail to hear what you are saying :)

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread and speak slowly. Also, please send me your speech docs before round to zhongxiong@gmail.com

Westwood HS

2022-2023 Season Update:

Senior at Westwood High School this year.

Most of the things below still apply when I evaluate a round. However, I have switched to mainly judging PF, and I have more topic knowledge on PF topics than CX since I have not debated CX for quite a while now.

If I do get put in the CX judging pool, yes, I will still know how things work, but when it comes to more complicated arguments such as Kritik or Theory, It might take me a while to process these arguments. So, please be careful when you choose your strat and be clear in the round.

He/Him, you can also just call me Sean

Put me on the email chain before the round:

condobad@gmail.com

PF:

- 30% Truth, 70% Tech:I believe the nature of PF is a bit different than CX and that truth should be evaluated. However, it does not mean that you can just throw out random truths in the round and call it a day. Empirical evidence is important in any debate and should be evaluated first. It is your job to prove to me why these truths matter in the debate and how they should be evaluated.

- Disclosure (Sending Docs/Open Sourcing): I will not make you send your case docs to each other, but I do strongly encourage disclosure on both sides. The consequence of not disclosing will be reflected in your speaks. I would appreciate it if you do choose to disclose, but please DOWNLOAD your docs from whatever software you use and then send it. I do not want to see a live shared google doc in my mailbox.

- Speed: you can go as fast as you want, but again, If you do choose to not disclose your document, I would not be able to flow your speeches if you are not clear. Also please give a roadmap before every speech.

- Theory: I have a good knowledge of the different types of theories and how they work, at least in CX. Here are some thoughts on theory:

1, Topicality (I guess you can put it under "theory"...) GO FOR IT! Topicality is definitely underused in PF and should definitely be an "official" argument in the future. I will evaluate it if it's used correctly, but If I see some randomly copied CX blocks on T...it won't go well:)

2, I am biased in some ways...If you debate theories such as "disclosure bad", "paraphrasing good", or "sweater theory", I most likely won't evaluate them in the round.

3, Perf con always exists

4, Go look at AMOGH MAHAMBARE's paradigm, he's cool.

- Kritik:To put it in short, I know what a K is, I have some knowledge on specific Ks and philosophies, I have some knowledge on how it can be used in round (in CX), and I have no idea how it's used in PF.

- Speaks:same as CX, except if you choose to not send out your docs, speaks will cap at 29.

CX:

- Generic Thoughts:

P L E A S E time your own prep time and speeches.

Tech > Truth, don't rely on "common sense"

Don't be overly aggressive in c-x, if you turn c-x into an interrogation I will take away ur speaks.

For more info, James Li has a pretty good paradigm.

- Speaker Points:

Please do not do things like disabling the navigation pane by doing special formatting in your word document, I will destroy your speaks.

I take off speaks with a .25 increment.

- Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear.

- Counterplans: The more explanation the better, I know most of the generic CPs.

Counterplan Theory: I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team.

- Theory: I do think that sometimes the neg just gets too much “cheat”, but I’m not gonna just vote Neg down if they run multiple contradictory arguments if the Aff doesn’t do anything about it. However; I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the aff to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. Most likely I will not vote for cheap short theories even if they get dropped.

- Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.

- Kritik: I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it.

I think reading K Aff in novice yr is abusive.

Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.

⁃ Please be respectful in the round

⁃ Talk as slowly and clearly as possible, things that I don’t catch will not count towards the round

⁃ I will give speaker points based on structure, clarity in speeches, confidence and connectivity, and how you defend your argument (PF)

⁃ No tolerance for inappropriate behavior, be professional with others

⁃ Feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round

⁃ Have fun and good luck!

I am a lay judge, so please speak at a normal pace.

Speaker Points:

Be to the point and concise

Be organized: Give roadmaps

Don't cut your opponents off in crossfire

Weigh in summary and final focus: Tell me why you win

Extend in summary, don't bring up new topics as second speaker during summary

Final Focus:

-Voter Issues

Hello, I'm Sarah, and I'm a first-year university student. I am a first time judge with some experience in CNDF and public forum. If you run theory or K's I'll try my best to follow, but I don't have much experience in that area.

Background: I come from a background in high school and university debating.

Decision-Making Factors:

1. Weighing Arguments: The ultimate factor in my decision-making is the weight of the argument. While I do pay attention to the flow and organization of the debate, what matters most to me is the substance and impact of the arguments. I want to see debaters prioritize the significance of their strongest points.

2. Progressive vs. Traditional: I am open to progressive debating with theory or K's, but I encourage debaters to keep in mind that a more traditional approach can be a safer strategy.

Role of the Judge:

1. Tabula Rasa: I strive to be a tabula rasa judge, which means I will evaluate the round based on what transpires during the debate, rather than bringing preconceived biases or preferences.

Respect and Conduct:

1. Respect is Crucial: Respect is crucial in debates. Please avoid any passive-aggressive comments. I can recognize when things turn that way, and it will be taken into account in my judging.

2. Enjoyment Without Harm: Let's have fun with our arguments, but not at the expense of someone else's experience.

Feedback and Communication:

1. Questions and Comments: If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask before or after the round. I'm available for feedback after the debate.

2. Speaker Scores: I typically assign an average speaker score of 27, unless your blow my mind or drop some jokes (risky).

3. Contact: You can reach out to me at georgewujizhang@gmail.com for post-debate feedback or for pre-debate email chain purposes.

Please speak clearly and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend. I prefer you provide me with a roadmap before the speech so I can follow each of your arguments and their supporting evidence. Good luck and have fun!

Hi! I'm a fourth-year university student studying international relations and business admin. I debated for 6 years in CNDF, BP, WSDC, and PF so jargon is mostly fine. If you run theory or K's I'll try my best to follow, but I wasn't a progressive debater so you might want to play it safe by just being traditional.

Public Forum

Content

Tech > Truth

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you.

Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus. You must extend responses in summary if you don't intend on me dropping the argument. I also expect extending on defense too, or I will assume it to be dropped. (If you're in varsity you can extend authors)

Weigh the round so I don’t have to. You don’t want to be in the position where I'm weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands. I love impact calc :))

Literally run me through how I should vote, this is the easiest way for you to win.

Cross ends as soon as the timer goes off. To pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer. Please be polite to each other.

The Second Rebuttal MUST frontline. The First Summary MUST frontline. Please frontline. Thank you :))

Please collapse in summary or final focus, makes the debate way cleaner to evaluate and trying to win on everything is going to make everything a wash.

If you go over time I will not cut you off, I will simply stop flowing. Please don't make me intervene.

Style

If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and signpost properly. I’ll give extra speaks if you make a joke. This is NOT an invitation to be rude.

Please do not pause for a long time between speeches, if you're taking prep time let me know. If you pause, I will start prep time :))

I'm generally pretty lenient with speaks, so unless you were rude or the debate was extremely messy, I usually won't give lower than a 27.

I will give a 30 if (only have to fulfill one):
- You and your partner each give 3 Taylor Swift references

- You and your partner can guess ONE of my favorite kpop groups + my bias in that group

I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback. Feel free to ask me for my email or other contact info!

Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.

I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.

Hello!

I am a parent/lay judge who is new to judging.

If I am judging you don't fret! We are all here to have fun.

A few notes about me:

• Please don't use any jargon
• Don't spread
• Don't assume that I understand the topic (please explain and warrant your arguments)
• Time yourselves (please point out if your opponents were overtime)
• Be respectful to your opponents