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

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

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

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

I look forward to hearing you.

Hi! My name is Shannon Babu, and I'm a parent judge from Concord, MA. This school year (2023-24), I am primarily judging speech events, but I also judge public forum. I am a math and science teacher, so I love to see your clear thesis, your logical process, and a nice tight summary in your speech. My primary concerns in public forum are your logical process: linkages, evidence, weighing, etc.

For speech:

Extemp
Here's some ways to get a high ranking from me:
-Answer the question
-Content > delivery, but doing both is always better. Maintain a slower pace so I can actually flow
-Clever/unique substructure and diversified arguments.
-Answering NO (or whatever is not the obvious answer)
-I’ll generally reward creativity.

In general forpublic forum:

I expect you to keep your own time, but I'm happy to keep time for you - just ask.

It's ok to be nervous, and it's ok if your voice shakes - that means you care about what you're doing! We're all here to learn and help each other, even through a competitive environment.

You may sit or stand, whatever makes you the most comfortable.

You may speak relatively quickly with me, but please don't spread. My ears are only human.

I will allow a few extra seconds for a debater to finish a sentence, finish a question, or finish an answer.

If you have any questions for me during the debate, please ask! It's ok to ask questions between process steps, and asking is ALWAYS better than not asking.

I have the following non-negotiable expectation:

*treat your teammate and opponents with respect and dignity (polite body language, mindful utterances/whispering, professional language, etc).

I'm excited to hear your arguments - I know how much work goes into your preparation, and I'm here to support your process!

Hi, I am 4th year PF debater at Lexington, and you can treat me like a tech judge.

- short version: weigh comparatively and extend your case in the last two speeches, signpost, frontline, and don't have anything new in your final focus that was not in summary.

- weigh weigh weigh, including comparative weighing. If one team runs probability and the other magnitude, I have no idea which to choose.

- signpost. If I don't know where you are, I won't be able to write your responses where you'd want me to and your arguments aren't going to come across cleanly.

- tech>truth. that being said, if you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I will drop you.

- I will vote off the flow, so don't drop things and make sure to extend your argument completely (don't only extend the impact without the link chain or vice versa). Make sure you're frontlining and extending defense throughout. Collapsing in first summary or earlier will help you in this way.

- I am fine with speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, enunciate, make sure your opponents are okay too, and signpost clearly.

- summary and final focus should be mirrored. I will not consider anything new in final that was not in summary and for an effective backhalf strategy, you and your partner should be on the same page.

- cross shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating or responding. Please ask and answer questions in a CIVIL manner. However, I will not flow cross so if there's anything you want me to vote off of that happens in cross, bring it up in your next speech.

- timing speeches/prep time is your responsibility. I will also be timing , but I expect you to be keeping track of how much time you have and how much prep you have - after you take prep, just let me know how much you took. I understand that sometimes you don't finish perfectly on time, so if you're in the middle of a sentence and the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence given that it is less than ten seconds over. Please do not abuse this grace period, I will cut you off.

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I feel like it helps you learn how you can improve in the future. i'm happy to give specific feedback after round as well.

- you got this, have fun!! If any of the more advanced things on my paradigm don't make sense to you, please ask me any questions. Debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary. Follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you.

email for evidence chain: atreyib18@gmail.com

Hi,

I debate for Concord-Carlisle High School. I am in my 4th year of PF and did some speech in middle school.

I think debate should be fun, so please be nice to your opponents and partners. Don't forget to signpost and WEIGH (you cannot win if you do not)!

I am fine with theory and ks but don't overdo it. If you are any -ist (ex. racist, sexist, anti-semitic) I will tank speaker points, so please be respectful.

Most of all work hard and have fun!

- Molly

P.S. WEIGH, WEIGH, WEIGH

hello! i do pf at newton south!

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: saakshichalla@gmail.com facebook: saakshi.challa

please be nice, debate is all about having fun!

if you have any questions about my paradigm/don't understand something, feel free to ask them before round:)

tldr: tech>truth. if you lose the flow, you lose the round.

speed is ok, but if you plan on spreading, send me a speech doc and ask your opponents if they're ok with it.

cross won't affect my decision but it doesn't mean i'm not paying attention to it.

i expect all offense to be frontlined in second rebuttal, this includes turns and weighing.

please collapse on 1-2 arguments. quality > quantity!

weigh! weigh! weigh! I will be very sad if you make me do analysis on my own.

i don't want to see anything new in final focus!!

NO OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS! PLEASE!

theory: i have a super basic understanding of progressive arguments and will only evaluate them if there is an in-round abuse.

if you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, I will drop you and give you 20s.

y'all are all amazing and please don't be nervous! we're here to learn and have fun. if you have any questions about my rfd or just want to chat, email me or text me on messenger!

for lex:

- PLEASE DOWNLOAD YOUR PREP BEFORE THE ROUND! (I really want to stay on time)

• i haven't debated this topic and have very limited topic knowledge so keep that in mind
• if you bring me something yummy i'll boost your speaks:)

Dear Debaters,

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

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

Best of luck to you!!

Sid

Hey! I'm Tanay(he/him). I debated Public Forum on the National circuit while at Lexington HS for four years. I will mostly judge Public Forum, and if I'm somehow judging another format, take me as a new judge. TLDR is pretty much the miscellaneous stuff.

Add me to the email chain: tanaydalmia612@gmail.com.

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round if you want me to and if the tournament lets me, just give me time to complete my ballot.

Misc. stuff:

I vote off the flow(tech>truth mostly).

- For my ballot, I begin on the weighing, which tells me which side to look to first. If you tell me another way to evaluate the round, do so in your speech.

- I try to be tabula rasa(go in with no preconceived notions)

- Nothing is sticky. Once it’s dropped, it’s done.

- Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh. Weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. Comparative and meta weighing is best.

- I can handle some speed, as long as it's still coherent. If I miss something though, from your speed, that might hurt you when you refer to it later. If you send me speech docs, esp for case and rebuttal, I'm less likely to miss things.

- Logical arguments with no evidence>evidence without warranting

- Don't read blips and blow them up later.

- I don't really presume, so if both teams do something that would make them lose their offense and cause presumption, then I will usually ignore the oversight by both teams and evaluate both, unless I have a reason not to. I hate intervening, make sure to have proper coverage.

- You MUST have evidence properly construed.

Progressive Debate:

I’m not super well versed in progressive debate, whether it be theory, kritiks, etc. However, if you explain your arguments well, I am willing to evaluate them. Do know though, you are probably putting yourself at a little bit of a disadvantage.

Evidence:

Teams can call for evidence, and while the other team is looking for it, no one's prep is used. However, do not take forever and do not steal prep during this time. If you're jotting like a quick note once, I'm fine with it, but not more than that. It wouldn't be fun for anyone if that became an issue. If you take too long to find a piece of evidence, you either have to choose to drop that evidence or take running prep to finish finding it.

Please use good evidence. If one team declares that a piece of evidence is misconstrued, I will look at it on the email chain and if I agree, I'll scratch it off my flow. If it's a huge misconstruction, I might even vote the violating team down and/or reduce speaks. If one team calls for a round-ending evidence challenge, we will follow the tournament's direction on that.

I'm fine with paraphrasing. If there's an issue though, I'll evaluate it the same way I do a misconstruction issue because that is essentially what it is.

Speaks:

If the tournament provides me with a list, I'll use that instead.

My average is 28.5, and I'll move up and down from there.

Novices automatically get 1 point higher than what I would have given them in JV/Varsity.

29.5-30: Superb debating, you didn't have many big flaws or any in your debating and strategy, and you articulated extremely well.

29-29.5: A really good job, a few flaws, the execution was still on point, and articulation was quite good.

28.5-29: Above average, some flaws but I still liked how you did overall, and good articulation.

28-28.5: Pretty average, you did a good job but there were definitely flaws, and you spoke pretty well.

27.5-28: There were some issues with execution, but it was still passable. You might have paused a bunch or seemed confused at times, but I mostly knew where you were.

27-27.5: There were a bunch of flaws or one huge flaw that you probably want to tidy up. Your speaking was lacking in some way, but I see potential.

26-27: Multiple major flaws on your side. Significant misses in speaking.

Lower than 26: Pretty rare, you must have done something really big.

If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible. Just don't please.

Final thoughts:

Feel free to ask me anything before and after round. Or just talk, I'm chill with that.

I'll be pretty laid-back, so let's have a good time.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi everyone! I debated for 6 years through middle and high school in PF, parli, and world schools. However, I will likely be unfamiliar with the resolution, so remember to explain everything thoroughly!

Some notes about my judging:

• I will flow the entire round and make my decision based off the final standing impacts
• Don't just tell me what your contentions/impacts are– weigh them against your opponents' arguments! Draw on specific weighing mechanisms (e.g. magnitude, scope, probability, time frame... etc)
• I don't flow crossfire, so make sure to mention anything notable again in a later speech so it makes it on the flow
• I can follow fast speaking, but please don't spread!
• Any comments/arguments/discourse that is racist, sexist, discriminatory... etc in nature will dock your speaks.

I will boost your speaks if you do one of the following: (full speaks if you do all four)

• Use the word "unctuous" three times in a speech
• Sing the first minute of your constructive
• Correctly pronounce the word "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" on your first try
• Incorporate a nursery rhyme reference in a speech

Good luck!

general stuff (tl;dr) :

• I'm annie. I do debate. LHS '24//UChicago '28 (btw I know nothing about sports. this doesn't make me more likely to vote one way or another but if you're debating the student athlete topic just know I'm about as well-educated on that as your average hermit)

• My job is to adapt to you! This paradigm gives you a guide to my default style but if you have any preferences feel free to ask me to adapt to them. This is just here so I seem like a serious person :)

• Don’t be a jerk! I understand rounds can be heated, but there’s no need to get mad over the US sending things to alaska. Also, if your actions end in -ist, I’ll be the destructionist of your speaks

• No need to speed! The best rounds are tech rounds that are still at a conversational pace, now I can flow faster rounds but if you choose to go fast make sure you are clear (NOTE: Spread at your own risk. Stay 250 wpm or below, lest you want me to not flow something)

• Tech>truth: This means that I will be okay with voting on any arguments as long as they aren’t problematic or exclusionary, if the argument wins on the flow I will sign my ballot for it

• Ask Questions! There might be a bit of jargon in my paradigm that might not be easy to understand so if you aren’t sure how to do something, need clarification on certain parts of my paradigm, or want feedback after the round I’ll be more than happy to help!

• I like raccoons: and if you make a joke about one that would be nice, but no speaker points boost im afraid :(

Substance round:

• I evaluate rounds level by level: I start with the weighing - whose impacts are more important? Then, I ask who wins the best link into that argument? That’s where I’ll sign my ballot

• Please extend and collapse: Choose your best piece of offense (contention or turn) to go for in the backhalf, and when extending the case (giving a quick narrative summary of your argument) in summary or final, please please please actually extend the argument instead of just reading the card name ie “extend smith ‘22” is not a full extension, explain it from uniqueness to impact

• We could be weighin but you playin (in other words, please weigh!): I know this comes up a lot on paradigms, and it’s because weighing helps judges determine which impacts are more important. If both teams win links into different impacts, it’s up to weighing to determine which impact is to be prioritized

• Evidence Ethics/Calling for Evidence: I generally won’t call for evidence unless I think it’s important or if someone in the debate tells me to. I prefer evidence shared on docs because then teams won’t spend too much time sending evidence over the sub-par wifi, but it won’t affect my decision. Miscut evidence would hurt your speaks and, if miscut enough, might lose you a few arguments

• Defense is NOT sticky: sticky defense means that if a team reads defensive arguments or responses in rebuttal, second rebuttal or first summary doesn’t need to respond to it. This rule was made back when summary was only 2 minutes long but now that it’s been extended to 3 minutes there is no reason for defense to be sticky

• I presume First: If nobody wins any arguments at the end, I will presume (vote automatically) for the first speaking team. would prefer rounds not to end this way

THE REST OF THIS PARADIGM IS FOR PROGRESSIVE DEBATE! IF YOU ARE A NOVICE DON’T SWEAT IT BUT SINCE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ARE SEEPING INTO NOVICE ROUNDS THIS WILL STILL BE HERE FOR REFERENCE!

Theory (if you must):

• I have no theory biases except trigger warnings are good and disclosure is good, I won’t hack for either of these but if you run theory otherwise you might want to keep that in mind

• If you make a trigger warning you should use a trigger warning form that is anonymous for respondents, I generally think that war/poverty impacts don't need trigger warnings (but you can argue otherwise and I will consider it like any other argument) but you do need trigger warnings for anything else that could be potentially triggering (feel free to ask me if you want me to clarify) eg trafficking, genocide, mental health issues, etc

• I default to competing interps and no RVIs unless told otherwise but I have no biases on this and which way I end up evaluating the round depends on what yall say

• Extend the full shell through every speech otherwise it’s considered dropped, I have very tiny threshold for “spirit of the shell” especially if it’s frivolous theory

Ks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

• I will treat evidence challenge IVIs as round ending issues, but if I vote on an IVI I need it to be developed and warranted instead of a 3 second blip about why they should be voted down for doing X

• I am alright with prefiat frameworks but it’s better for them to be warranted in addition to the cards so the reasons why your framework means you should be voted up make sense even to debaters who aren’t familiar with prefiat arguments

• I am suspicious of “link ins are not allowed” arguments, not that I automatically vote against them but reading these arguments need a lot of good warranting for me to be open to it

• If Kritiks are read, they need to be slow and warranted, the same applies to T and perm do boths if you choose to read them in response

• If neither side wins or weighs between K and theory, I default to evaluating theory first but that changes depending on how you debate the round

• I’m not entirely comfortable voting on identity Ks against debaters of that identity, I won’t vote you down for this but it could potentially affect speaker points

Speaker Points Guide (I tend to be SUPER lenient about speaker points my coach yelled at me for giving too high speaker points so take that how you will)

29.5-30: debating was excellent, very well articulated, no big flaws in debating or strategy!

29-29.5:I thought your debating was good, maybe a few minor mistakes but nothing particularly bad

28-29: average, good debating overall but some mistakes, but not too bad (this is a pretty big range so the extent of a mistake or speaking style is going to impact where you fall on this scale)

27-28:made some pretty big strategic mistakes in this round

sub 27: There were a lot of large mistakes in this debate, or you were very unclear

I won't go below 26.5 but if you say something problematic. Then, I'm dropping your speaks to the lowest possible in the tournament .... just please don't UwU. We want to keep this a welcome space for everyone! If you feel unsafe please please please let me know ASAP - your safety is more important than a random high school debate round!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!!!!!

Hi everyone! I'm Bella, a public forum debater at Newton South.

Some general things to know before round.

*Please be respectful.

*Comparative weighing and analysis is really important for voting.

*I can do speed, but I prefer a general pace.

*Make it clear where I should be voting in the round and when something is conceded.

*I'm not gonna vote off what you say in cross, so if its important please bring it up in speech.

*I do not like Theory.

If you have any questions, just ask me.

Hi friends! I'm a debater and all around cool person.

About me:

I've been doing PF for four years as (mostly) a second speaker at Lexington High School in MA. local and state level. she/her

Debate stuff:

- Keep the round clean. (a) Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddled, that's hard for me to do. I would far prefer to vote off a conceded, well-implicated turn than an arg riddled with conflicting warranting. (b) signpost. (c) collapse in the second half of the round. (d) tell me why I'm voting for you in your final speeches. Make my job as easy as possible!

- Implicate everything: explain the relevance of everything you extend, ie. warrants, impacts, blocks + explain why the arguments your opponents dropped matter so I don't have to do any analysis

- i would advise against spreading. heres an overview of why i think its bad: (a) there's a sizable chance your opponents won't be able to understand you (b) concision is good (c) it can encourage worse argumentation, it’s really hard to listen to a debater dump 30 bad quality turns on their opponent and collapse on the 2 obscure turns they dropped.

- I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory, Ks, disads, pre-fiat args, counterplans, or any other non PF argument you're gonna need to explain it to me in the simplest possible terms.

- I don't time speeches or prep.

- Debate respectfully. If you're unnecessarily patronizing or rude, I'll dock your speaks. I also won't evaluate any discriminatory arguments.

- Have good evidence ethics: your evidence highlighting should be consistent with the intent of your author, avoid paraphrasing in general but have full cut cards readily available if you do paraphrase, etc. I'll call for evidence if you ask me to. If evidence is bad, I basically just evaluate the round as if it didn't exist. im tech>truth unless you say a statistic that is factually incorrect, don't lie.

lastly (a) feel free to ask me any questions before round, (b) i'll disclose and give feedback after round if you want it and the tournament allows, and (c) have a great time!!!

email: mbgordon@outlook.com

I debated for Acton-Boxborough! Msg me on fb or email me if you have any questions before the round.

My email: aliciaogu186@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

tldr: I’ll vote for the team that wins the best weighed offense in the round, quality > quantity. Other than that, just debate however you feel most comfortable! I’m a pretty average flow judge.

General stuff:

- Frontline in second rebuttal

- Defense is sticky in first summary

- Theory and Ks are fine but explain everything like I'm 5 (I don't have much experience debating prog args)

- Spreading is okay if you send a speech doc, but if you're not speaking comprehensibly your speaks will be affected

- I won't flow cross but it is binding, so bring up any concessions in a speech

- Have all your cards ready; if you can’t find a card within a couple minutes I’ll just drop the ev

- Please time yourselves (and don't cheese prep time)

Things that I don't like:

- Offensive overviews/DAs

- Rude comments

- Racism/sexism/homophobia etc. (you will lose the round immediately)

Things I like:

- REAL weighing/metaweighing

- Quirky lines--make the round interesting!

- I love sassiness but keep it fun and fresh

- Bring me something yummy and I'll give you 30s

Hi! I am currently a junior at Lexington High School and have been competing for the past three years in Public Forum debate. I will be a flow judge. Here are a few things I would like to see:

1) Do not read cases too fast, if I miss something in case it will only hurt you!

2) Please extend contentions and links throughout all speeches

3) Interact with your opponents' responses-- too much card reading is often unnecessary.

4) provide a speech timeline before speeches

5) In final focus, tell me why I would be voting for your side of the debate.

6) If you see that your opponent is bringing up new evidence or new responses in summary speeches, or something was left unresponded to: BRING IT UP!

I debated for UniversityHS in PF for 3 years a while back.

I have judged mostly PF over the past couple of years and only recently started judging mostly Policy and LD sporadically.

So I'm not really debate term savvy. You may need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you normally would. You may also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so keep I can adjust.

Not a fan of spreading but if you must please be loud and clear, very clear.

I vote up for creativity.

But please make sense of what you're trying to portray.

I vote down for wasted time.

I rarely give feedback depending on how rounds go.

Email chain: Alaiyahharris21@gmail.com

REMEMBER: be passionate and have fun!

Hi, I'm Natalie! I'm a freshman at Harvard, and I debated PF for four years at Newton South. I am a flow judge, but sometimes I flow in my head.

Preferences

• I won’t vote for theory
• No spreading (I won’t read speech docs, I only flow what I hear and understand)
• I like clearly explained warrants and thorough comparative analysis
• I don’t like blippy arguments and evidence or statistics that are not clearly explained

Speaks

• +0.5 speaker points if you work in a Taylor Swift reference
• -0.5 speaker points each time you're disrespectful in cross

Good luck and good debating! Let me know before the round begins if you have any questions or need any accommodations.

Hi! My name is Anaya (she/her), and I'm a 4th-year PFer at Lexington

Lots of circuit experience (nsda and toc if that matters to you)

add me to the email chain, no gdocs please: 24stu049@lexingtonma.org

A quick note: Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socioeconomic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate allows you to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals to their individuality when presenting arguments, I'll drop anyone who reads arguments that may be sexist, racist, or discriminatory in any way. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament, and most importantly, respect yourselves.

Novices:

- Weigh weigh weigh, I evaluate weighing above all link-level clash (but remember you need to win your link to access the weighing)

- Make sure that your cards have WARRANTS, and if you don't have a card for a particular argument, be brave and give me an analytic. The more you can rely on your logic as opposed to cards, the better at debate you'll become.

- Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win than "the government is run by lizards".

- I compete 1-2x a month, so I usually have topic knowledge. This means that post-round, you can feel free to ask me questions about the topic/how to run specific arguments.

- TLDR of my progressive thoughts if we want to go there: disclosure is probably good, paraphrasing is probably bad, I presume first (but please read presumption warrants), send speech docs before speech if you're spreading (no marked docs, just signpost), and please don't have terrible evidence ethics or I will be very sad :((

Everyone else:

- I will vote off most arguments including theory/k/framework if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high so try at your own risk I guess) and not used to be exclusionary

- I love speech overviews and lots of good rhetoric, as they are what make PF unique. I highly suggest doing either of these in the back half, since they'll help you win the debate both on the flow and in my heart.

- Do a lot of weighing/meta-weighing (not just for me, it's also strategic if you're lost/have time) and make sure it is all COMPARATIVE (i.e. don't say "we outweigh on scope" without actually taking the time to compare the # of ppl affected by your impact vs your opponent's impact).

- Start collapsing as early as possible in the round because quality>quantity especially considering short PF speech times.

- I'm good with any speed, so you can spread as long as you: make sure your opponents are okay too, slow down on authors, taglines, and analytics, signpost clearly, and always offer speech docs. If you get too fast, your opponents and I reserve the right to clear you.

- Feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I think it usually helps you learn how you can improve. Plus, I might have made a mistake (in which case I'm sorryyy).

- NO TRICKS this is debate, not Halloween

- Lastly, debate is a game, so don't take it too seriously. Please follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make this activity more accessible to you. Have fun and good luck!!!

Speaks scale

I default 28.5 for novices and 28 for varsity

Below 27: you were abusive, you said something ___ist, you will be reported to tab

27.1-27.5: you made some pretty large strategic errors that lost you the round or you were a bit rude/annoying

27.6-28.0: slightly worse than average, you made some small and large errors, you were a bit hard to understand

28.1-28.5: average, you did what you needed to do but nothing exceptional. 50% chance that you won the round

28.6-29.0: better than average, you spoke clearly and passionately, you made the right strategic decisions, 60% chance you won

29.1-29.5: really good job. you didn't make any technical errors and your speaking was excellent. 90% chance you won.

29.6-30.0: crazy good job, 100% chance you won

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

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

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

Minimal PF/debate experience. Don't rely on theory—treat me like I'm lay. You can speak fast, but at a speed where everybody can understand. I'll be flowing. I'm big on weighing impacts—you give me bigger numbers with strong links, you win. I'm lenient with time; you can go a bit over time, but too much and you'll see that reflected in speaks. If a question is asked at the very end of crossx I'll give the other team time to respond. If you go over prep by a little, that's ok—five seconds over isn't going to change the outcome of a round. And most importantly, don't be rude!

Hello!

My name is Katherine Lee and I am a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. I did Public Forum debate all four years with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts and had some experience in Original Oratory in middle school.

I don't know much about speech, but I will try to follow along and judge as objectively as possible.

Please feel free to ask me any questions when we get to the round or via email before:

kzlee@sas.upenn.edu (email)

Hi! I debated in PF during high school and am a freshman in college.

I can keep up with speed, but if you think I'll miss something, please offer a speech doc. Signpost and weigh the arguments in rebuttal. Make sure to interact with your opponent's arguments. For second rebuttal, you can frontline terminal defense and turns. Anything not covered in the summary will not be considered in the round's evaluation. Extend any contentions, blocks, and frontlines to collapse on. During final focus, please do not introduce any new responses. I can evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.

As long as you are respectful during the debate and do not make any insensitive comments, I will give you reasonable speaker points.

Add me to the email chain: angieleung24@gmail.com

Hello! I'm Henry (He/Him), and I look forward to judging your round. I debated PF for four years on the national circuit.

• I'm a pretty standard flow judge.

• I'm a sucker for really good weighing that is comparative and well-implicated. Blippy, non-comparative weighing, on the other hand, won't score you any points with me. Start weighing as early in the round as possible.

• Please signpost.

• Please extend stuff in summary + FF. I'm not a stickler for super detailed extensions, just be sure to re-explain the argument.

• Turns/1st rebuttal offense should be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

• I don’t care about cross.

• I'm generally pretty nice with speaks, especially if you make me laugh.

• I have some experience debating/judging theory rounds, but not much experience with other kinds of prog args.

• Be respectful!

If you have questions about my paradigm or anything else, I'll be happy to answer them before the round starts. Good luck, and I'm excited for a great round!

Hi! My name is Lotem Loeb and I am a first-year college student. I am traditionally a Public Forum debater with four years of experience. During a round, I primarily focus on the flow and your speech (how you articulate arguments, volume, and a strong speaking voice). The most beneficial and important things to do during your speech are:

• Provide brightlines for all major arguments. This clarifies the round and reminds me of your important points.

• Weighing in all speeches (including comparative weighing)! If you do this, I can more easily assess your impacts.

• Extending links throughout the round.

• Cross should not be a continuation of debating, make sure to ask relevant questions and not explicitly further your arguments.

• Please be sure to frontline starting in Second Rebuttal or First Summary.

• Do not under any circumstances make any offensive arguments. I do not tolerate any arguments that come at the expense of any groups or specific individuals and I will dock speaker points. Also, make sure to be respectful of your opponents during round.

• If you use a theory/K I will only vote for you if it is presented well (I would prefer you do not since your opponent may not have experience with such).

If you spread during speeches that is okay, just make sure to emphasize clarity in arguments and enunciate.

You will do great and make sure to have fun!

Email: lotem.loeb@gmail.com

Hi!

My name is Laila Mamdouh, a senior at Lexington High School and I judge PF.

A quick note: If I’m not judging PF or LD, treat me like a new judge please and thank you!

I'm going to start off with the list of things I prefer you don't do while debating:

• I’m not a fan of theory, so please don’t run theory, it'll make me very sad to flow it :(

• No spreading, unless your super duper good at it!!

• Please don't paraphrase UNLESS you have the actual evidence that goes with it (and if so, then just read the evidence) --> Don't even start the Paraphrasing theory with me

• If y'all want to look at each others evidence, please don't wait till your opponents are taking prep to ask for it, not cool and could result in evidence ethics problems that we could all just avoid.

• Please Don't bring up arguments after Summary, I won't flow it :(

Case Reading: Personally I like judging Lay but if you are going to do Tech, totally fine just let me know before the round starts so I can mentally prepare. It's four minutes for reading but I'm so kindly giving you a grace period of 10 seconds after that, I stop flowing. Please have moderate speed THROUGHOUT the four minutes, and good emphasis = higher speaker points :)

Crossfire: Please be nice and respectful and don't say stuff that you can get called out for or in general. Also minimize interruption --> comes off as rude = less speaker points :( I don't flow crossfire so if it's something important you gotta bring it up in your speech. (With this in mind, I am very nice with Speaker points as long as we can stick to these simple rules :))

Rebuttal: Please signpost if you know how so it's easier for me on the flow. **If you have time: WEIGH. You can never go wrong with weighing. Friendly reminder to please WARRANT your responses. Also please Terminalize your impacts!! (good emphasis here is good as long as you're not yelling please). Frontline your terminal defense and turns. Having link-ins from your case only makes it stronger. Don't drop arguments that you want me to vote on, that'll be very sad.

Summary: DON'T JUST SUMMARIZE the round. Tell me why you win the round and your opponents don't: Weigh, comparative weighing would be even better as long as you're telling me why you outweigh and what kind of weighing you plan to use. Still enough time to bring in responses if you're desperate, again warranting.

Final Focus: Tell me what I should take away from the past hour and why YOU deserve the win.

A few things I need to mention:

• Please Signpost! This helps me map the whole debate on my flow and it makes my life SO much easier.

• In your later speeches, if you want to bring up cards, tell me the content of the card and not the name like Jackson 21 and leave it at that.

• Quantifying Your impacts!! I can't stress this enough, what is the impact of the 2 Billion program if you're not gonna tell me?

• You have to let us know about any Trigger Warnings before the round, you can't just say it like it's part of your speech.

• Please don't misconstrued your evidence, it looks so bad on many levels even if you aren't caught.

• Please be respectful. Certain lines shouldn't be crossed and I believe we are well versed on that.

Here's my email if you need to contact me: Lailamamdouh611@gmail.com, if you will run a chain, please add me to it, Thanks!

MOST IMPORTANTLY: HAVE FUN!! Your life doesn't depend on debate. A Win is a Win and a Loss is also a Win :)

Hello!

My name is Vivek Manchala, I am a junior in Highschool and have been debating in Public Forum for 3 years.

Here are a few guidelines for you to follow

email - manchalavivek9@gmail.com

- disclose your case at the start of the round so I can follow along

• Any offensive statements to ANYONE in the round will lose you the round

• BE RESPECTFUL TO ALL

• I will judge based on the flow.

• Im fine with speed in speeches, dont go to fast though.

• If you are fast make sure I can understand what you are saying

• Extend your arguments or I wont consider them.

• Pet Peeve - Dont say things that are false or bring up new arguments after first summary.

• Please begin to frontline in second rebuttal, and first summary for the team speaking first.

• MAKE SURE TO WEIGH AND INTERACT WITH YOUR OPPNENTS WEIGHING

• HAVE FUN

newton south’s subpar wifi deleted my paradigm ???? i echo emma chen & alicia gu, so read both ‼️

tldr: i've debated for acton-boxborough, on the local & nat. circuit, for 3 years (and hv debated at big lex every yr!!!)

if you are mean, you will leave w/ a 20

for the love of god, collapse; implicate; and weigh, but do NOT call me judge

NO card dump; it's atrocious

probability weighing is fake !!!!

+0.5 for every taylor swift or tiktok reference

30 if you hv candy for me AND follow @sammy_liu526 on instagram before round

feel free to fb message or email me (sivapriyamp@gmail.com) w/ any questions/concerns!

happy debating ????

Hey all, I am a graduated Varsity Public Forum debater so I have a solid amount of experience with all sorts of cases and debating styles so you won't have to worry too much about complex language or speed. That being said, I still am a public forum debater meaning that I do not have much experience with spreading in public forum. However, if you do have me in another form of debate, I can handle spreading and Ks as long as you break it down, please do not assume I know about the K you are running.

Flows: I'm not a huge fan of repeating yourself and over-explaining, so no need to get caught up or over do it. On top of that, I really appreciate good signposting and roadmapping so I can make as much of a lovely and organized flow possible. Also, I can identify when stuff is dropped usually, but, I still want you to show and explain why it is important that they dropped.

Speaking: Again, I've watched and participated in lots of debates, so no need to break things down too much. However--especially in the online world--spreading is usually lost on me, don't speak too fast and try to focus on diction. Coherency makes me a happy camper.

One additional nitpicky thing, I'm not super serious about strict debate formalities but I have one pet peeve regarding respectfulness. I, the judge am your audience so please do not address your opponents as "you", it can come off as hostile, please refer to them as "they" or "my opponents".

If you have me in Policy or LD, I have experience judging these types of debate so I do have a general knowledge of them but still, assume I am lay.

Thanks for reading and happy debating,

Aidan

Experienced PF judge, First time LD judge

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

I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good warranting and sound reasoning. Explain your evidence rather than just stating it.

Bring any meaningful cx points into your main speeches.

Be respectful to one another.

Slow down, I have to be able to understand you to flow. If I can't understand you, that is bad

Rounds should NOT have any theory arguments.

I am new to Judging. I'm looking to learn from listening to the debates. I debated a long time ago in my school so am interested in listening to different arguments and the counter arguments. I want debaters to be respectful.

I've been judging PF debate for two yea and have taught in both middle school high school. I deeply appreciate clarity of argument and for debaters to speak slowly enough that I can understand what is being said. I flow on the entire debate including cross

This is also my first year as a LD judge. Likewise, clarity is essential. Please don't speak too quickly!

This is the first time that I've judged this event. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

• Group Behavior
• Organizational Behavior
• Object Oriented
• Functional
• Jogging and running

I am a current high school English teacher and college composition professor. Although I never debated in high school or college, one of the focuses on my graduate study was in argumentative writing as a focus through composition, so I will be looking for debaters to form effective and solid arguments through evidence and solid logic as a basis for my judging. It is important that you speak at a conversational pace, so I can hear and understand all of your contentions for the issue you raise on your side. I will work hard to focus on the effectiveness of your sides issue for each round and by thoughtful about comparing the effectiveness of each side fairly against one another. The best debaters, in my opinion, are respectful to one another while clearly building a strong and effective argument for their own side of the issue before focusing on the weakness of the opponent.

I am a first time judge, so I'm not too comfortable with fast speaking speed or debate terms. Feel free to email me your cases so I can look them over, rebuttal cards, etc.

First things first, please respect everyone in the round. I don't tolerate racism, sexism, or anything. Even if you're winning and you're not being respectful, I will reduce your speaks.

I look for clarity, please tell me why you're winning and organize your speech well. Every point matters, but watch your time constraints. Please give me your best arguments backed by solid evidence. Thank you.

rajendra10031@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years. I am now a senior at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. If you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that. Tabula Rasa

FOR RIDGE:I haven't judged since the end of last season. This is my first tournament on the federal debt topic, but I have looked up topic analyses' on it so do with that information as you well.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

Good luck debaters!

Please abide with the following:

1. Start weighing at summary and carry weighing throughout the round.
2. You are responsible for keeping your time.
3. Sign post with arguments not authors.
4. Collapsing after summary speech is prohibited.
5. Do not run theories and/or K's - K's are abusive in PF.
6. Do not forget to warrant and link.
7. Remain respectful to all debaters.
8. Speak slowly and clearly.
9. Be sure to frontline speeches
10. During final focus, absolutely no new evidence should be presented. Speeches should clearly tell me why your team wins the round - make my decision easy and simple!

Remember - this is a fun experience and a learning opportunity for all debaters!

· I am a parent judge, but I've been judging for the past three years. If you need to reach me, please do so using: kastencik@gmail.com

· Please speak clear and concise.

. You can spread but keep in mind. I can only write as fast as I can hear. If you’re spreading way too fast there is a chance I can miss something important.

. Please signpost during your speeches. It helps me flow.

· Clearly frame your case, watch the time, and show enthusiasm.

· I would appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus.

. Do not show disrespect for your competitors.

I'm a freshman in college, and I debated in public forum in high school. I judge a lot, so I'm happy to give advice and answer questions at the end of the round.

Add me to the email chain: rv2529@barnard.edu.

• I'm open to theory and progressive arguments when ran well.
• I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

• In both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

• For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns.
• PS: I like link-ins from case and preq. arguments a lot. I don't like when teams use their case arguments as their only responses ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate (interact with the individual warrants and links!)
• In summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another.
• I like meta-weighing -- tell me which mechanism is better.
• Not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
• The final focus speech is a good time to slow down and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. Please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.
• I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. Still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.
• Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

• I like framework when it is well warranted and unique... I don't like "cost-benefit analysis" framework

Thanks for reviewing my Paradigm. I'm a parent judge, who enjoys hearing public speeches and debates to learn the logic, rationales and strategies of your contentions and rebuttals. It is not always easy to express ourselves concisely, articulately, respectfully with strong persuasibility. Therefore, it takes courage, effort, and enthusiasms to debate. I'm excited to be here with you, as a judge but more as a learner to hear your arguments, and to witness your growth on your increased publish speech capability.

I do not have any additional requirement or preference other than the official rules set for the debate. Please make yourself comfortable, and I focus on the content of your debate rather than anything else. If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
Thanks again,
David

I base my decision on both a properly outlined and properly defended argument. Quick speaking is expected but rapid fire speaking that cannot be followed will cost you a round. If I cannot follow your argument and I can follow your opponent, your opponent has won. I like to give constructive criticism to the best of my ability, my goal is to help the students improve and come back again. Nuclear war/end of world arguments never work. This is an activity we all enjoy so it should be fun for all the parties involved. I do not have a lot of tolerance for rudeness and this will be reflected in both speaker points and comments.

Hi, I'm Joshua, a freshman at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has debated in pf for 4 years.

Speed if fine as long as you are clear, don't spread. Don't be mean, weigh plz; tell me why you win the round. Signpost.

In-depth preferences:

- Just like, don't be mean in cross. I understand the distinction between assertiveness and aggressiveness, but aggressiveness will greatly lower your speaks. Don't go over the time limit as I will not flow it. A few more seconds is fine to finish your sentence or point. Also if you're going to steal prep, don't be obvious about it.

- Make sure to Signpost, tell me where you are on the flow so I can follow and write down your arguments!

- I do not flow cross, if something important comes up, mention it in your speeches.

- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- First rebuttal: don't go back to your own case and re-read what's in it. Feel free to weigh their case against yours, or make new analyses and even sub-arguments, but do not simply reread what's already in the case that I heard the first time again. If you're really done, end early.

- Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important. I don't care if you tell me that this program will cost the U.S. $50,000 if you don't tell me what that means in the wider context of things. Will healthcare funding also go down? Will taxpayers have to pay extra? Will we have to cut other government programs? Tell me what is going to happen as a result of the numbers you tell me.

- I give really good speaks, perhaps to good, you basically will always get above a 28 as long as you aren't like mean in cross.

-Let me know if you have any questions

For last chance: I did not prep the s230 topic so make sure to explain everything well!

senior + PF captain at bronx science!

add me to email chain: zainos@bxscience.edu and bronxscipf@gmail.com and pls make the subject "Tournament, Round, Teams"

please time yourself and be honest with your time

to win: weigh turns. don't drop turns. warrant. frontline in second rebuttal. weigh as early as u can. extend everything through the round well. don't give messy speeches. signpost. cut cards.