I have judged a number of events including PF, LD, CX, and Speech. I consider myself a more Traditional Judge who values the educational experience of this activity and would rather judge actual clash in a round than having to weigh for you.

LD:

As mentioned above, I am a traditional judge and I need to see clash in a round.

I do not tolerate disrespect and if you can't respect me or your opponents, you are almost certainly guaranteed to lose the round.

Values Debate:

You can run whatever you want in your framework, but I need to see the logic behind what you're running. Even if the VP is as simple as Morality, tell me why you win.

If there is no VP clash, and the VPs are the same, rather than just set the VP as the set premise for the round, tell me why your opponents view of Morality/Justice/etc. is flawed and why you uphold it better. Go ahead with defining it but I would rather see why it is important.

Value Criterion debate is probably the most important section on the flow for me. If the criterions are the same what I mentioned before still applies. Make sure you extend the debate across the flow or else I have no choice to vote for your opponent. Additionally as you establish your framing as the established values for the round, make sure you carry it through with you across the speech.

Argument Debate:

Same thing as the values, I need to see the logic behind your arguments. I couldn't care less how you structure your contentions, make it easy for me to flow. Subpoints are definitely ideal when writing a case, and emphasize your taglines. I value Truth > Tech, I recognize the abstraction in LD so I'll believe what you say as long as the logic you provide justifies your warrant.

Sign posting is extremely important and make sure you number your responses when you begin to break down the case. Impact your arguments out!

Impact Debate:

All your arguments should have an impact to them or else there was no point for me to listen to what you just said, therefore when you go to your final speech you can give proper impact-calc that makes it easy for me as a judge to weigh.

In the era of progressive debate I tend to see impacts either be existential (we're all gonna die) or just we couldn't care less about this problem x, y, and z are happening and therefore who cares about nuclear arsenals and standardized tests.

Impacts for me need to be logical and weighable, and don't make me scratch my head for 15 minutes wondering how I'm supposed to consider this.

PF Coach @ The Potomac School,

W&M '24,GMU '22

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

Policy

*UPDATE for Wake 2022*

I have not researched/coached at all on the personhood topic so pls do not assume that I knowthings.

Online things - pls slow down a lil - I already flow on paper and if you are flying through analytics online there is a good chance I wont catch some stuff

TLDR: I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.

Policy v Policy

Cards: I will read them to answer questions about my flow or to compare the quality of evidence of well debated arguments (this is not an excuse for poor explanation) .

T: The standards I prefer and find most persuasive are limits/ground and real world context. I default to competing interpretations if no other metric is given. However, I err aff if I think your interp is reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp is slightly better. Otherwise, just defend your interp is a good vision of the topic.

Theory

I am generally fine with unlimited condo. However, will be much more inclined to vote on condo if your vision of unlimited condo is 7 counterplans in the 1NC with no solvency advocates. Fail to see how that is a) strategic or b) educational. I will certainly vote on condo if it is dropped or won tho.

I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends.

99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

K v Policy Affs

Specificity of links go a long way. This doesn't mean your evidence has to be exactly about the plan but applying your theory to the aff in a way that takes out solvency will do a world of good for you. Please remember I haven't done research on this topic, so good explanations will be to your benefit.

Make sure the alt does something to resolve your links/impacts + aff offense OR you have FW that eliminates aff offense. (Having an alt in the 2NR is definitely to your benefit in these debates, I am less likely to err neg even if you win a link to the aff without some resolution).

However, I probably tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff, key to fairness, etc are all arguments I tend to find persuasive. I also think a well developed argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will go a long way.

Good impact framing is essential in the majority of these debates. For the aff - be careful here, even if you win case outweighs, the neg can still win a link turns case arg and you will lose.

Contextual line-by-line debates are better than super long overviews. I will not make cross-applications for you.

K Affs v Policy

K Affs should probably have some relation to the resolution. They should also probablydo somethingto resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. If it isn't doing something, I need an extremely good explanation for why. TLDR: if I don’t know what the aff does after the CX of the 1AC, you are going to have a v hard time the rest of the round.

Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Fairness is an impact. However, go for whatever version of FW you are best at. In the same vain as some of the stuff above, being contextual to the aff is critical. If you make no reference to the aff especially in the latter half of the debate, it will be hard to win my ballot.

Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like & why that vision is better. Or if the negative team does not have a superb counterinterp - impact turn the affs model of debate.

K v K

If you find me in these debates, make the debate simple for me. Clear contextual explanations are going to go a long way. Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

PF

Flow judge, tell me how to evaluate the round

Here are a few thoughts:

1. I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. You will probably be rewarded if you just send cases/rebuttal docs before each speech because I will less annoyed. If you are asking for opponents to write out/send analytics, you are self reporting, I know you aren't flowing.

2. Links and impacts need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus. Please do not tagline extend your argument, do some comparative analysis in regard to your opponents arguments. Please go beyond just extending author names as well - most of the time I don’t really flow authors unless it matters.

3. Tech > Truth

4. I don’t flow cross, but I am listening. If something important happens in cross it NEEDS to be in your speech.

5. Theory: I am comfortable evaluating theory, although it does annoy me when debaters read theory on teams that clearly wont know how to answer it just because they think it is an easy ballot, I will tank speaks for this. Either way, theory is just another argument I will evaluate on the flow, so make sure you are doing line-by-line, just like you would on any other argument. However, generally I think disclosure is beneficial and CWs are good when they are actually needed.

6. Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. I think there are ways to run them and be effective, but I think it is extremely hard given the time constraints of PF. I hate link of omissions though. pls stop

Hi! I did debate in high school, have subbed in for debate classes at my school, and judged for the first time last year.

I'm a back-to-basics kind of judge. Demonstrate your skills. Be clear. Be respectful. Listen well. Respond to your opponent. Get creative but not unfounded.Remember we're all here to learn! Every debate where you improve is a victory.

That said, I often learn fromyou. If you're highly skilled, show me what your argumentation style is all about.

With all that in mind, let me reiterate the basic things I'm looking for which you already know how to do:

-First team, define terms and frame the debate.

-Second team, if you disagree with the framing, dismantle it and wrest control over the discourse.

-Make strong claims. Build them out to consequential impacts.

-A few strong pieces of evidence cited properly and interpreted well are preferred.

-Leave none of your opponent's points unanswered.

-Speak clearly. If I can't understand you the argument is essentially non-existent. Go at the fastest pace you can still articulate well.

-Be confident. Don't worry if you 'make a mistake'. I may not know you slipped up!

-Adjust to your opponent's arguments. I like to hear you apply your reasoning skills on the fly. Anyone can read cards. Dismantling your opponent's arguments or using them to further bolster your own claims is your true time to shine!

-Have fun.

Good luck!

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program. I've been judging since 2018. Email: melaco@gmail.com

School Affiliation: Summit HS, Summit, NJ

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years

FOR PUBLIC FORUM:

If you read nothing else, read this: Be very clear in Summary/Final Focus on why you are winning the round. State clearly what impacts you have access to and what those impacts are. I favor a clear path to well-defined impacts in summary and final focus with weighing. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. Go ahead, in final focus tell me the RFD you want me to write!

The Basics: I strive to be a flow-oriented judge. I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. I strive not to intervene, so I expect teams to clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. I value argument over style.

I don't vote on anything in cross-fire, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on arguments first raised in summary or final focus.

I like a little aggression, but I don't like rudeness. In other words, show kindness to the other team before & after the round and common courtesy throughout. But when it comes to the round, I'm good with a strong aggressive posture.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. If you are speaking fast and your thoughts are a bit muddled or unorganized, you will be doing yourself a disservice as I won't be able to follow you adequately on the flow. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I appreciate it when team members are also keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Cards: If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration.

I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the two teams. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during questioning or grand crossfire. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the two teams made during rebuttal or summary & final focus and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tournament officials immediately.

Disclosing: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: It should go without saying that in PF rounds I will NOT vote on formalized, comprehensive proposals for implementation (aka plans or counterplans).

It's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik. I will judge a round on theory/kritik, as I believe it is a practice that can establish equity and allows debaters to advocate for themselves for fairness in PF. That being said, I don't like frivolous theory, so please try to be very clear on why the theory/kritik is important in your particular round. In addition, I need to see that you completely understand your argument, it needs to be clearly presented in an accessible way. I do need well explained, warranted voters if you are planning on running theory in a round I'm judging. I have found some educational voters around PF to not be well warranted, so please be especially careful if that's your voter. Be specific about what the educational value of PF is and clearly define impact. Also, please warrant your implication, I need to know why said action is warranted.

FOR LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

I'm new to LD beginning 2021.Treat me like a lay judge. Thanks for your patience.

FOR PARLI:

General:

My judging experience is mostly in the NYC-metro/Northeast USA area. I will entertain most any well-reasoned argument. I prefer very clear warrants and impacts. Telling me how impacts connect with a framework is also a huge preference. Signposting is very important to me as I flow and I don't like to get lost.

Speeches:

I will not consider new arguments presented in the final two speeches. Still, please call out any argument you believe is new.

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace. I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

Who is the House?

I want to know who is this house and what are their preferences? Doesn't have to be fancy.

Speaking style:

Talk quick, talk slow, I don't care. Just speak well and signpost. Also, it's nice if you introduce yourself at the beginning of the round without me asking.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown (unless one is supplied by the tournament. NOTE: Parli is weighted about two points under this scale.):
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round.

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

28: Above average. Very strong analysis but with some errors.

27: Average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. May have made a drop or flaw in argumentation.

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

25: Having difficulties functioning in the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Very large error(s). Or an incident of offensive or rude behavior.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning in or completing the round. Or a speaker displaying consistent offensive or rude behavior.

I have experience in PF debate of all levels (as a debater myself) so feel free to speak at a speed that is faster than what you would normally do for parent judges. Slight caveat, while I do flow this isn’t an excuse to speak so fast you need to take 5 quick breaths in 25 seconds nor is it an excuse to believe that I will flow your arguments for you. I understand the need to collapse arguments and evidence but if you do, at least make reference to that the fact you stated that evidence (either in Summary or Final Focus). Overall, I value strong Rebuttals and 2nd Cross Fires more than anything else. Usually I weigh on clashing impacts that still remain at the end of the debate.

NSU '22

UPenn '26

During my career, I won NSDA Nationals and got to quarterfinals of the TOC.

Add me to the email chain afrankk@sas.upenn.edu

Tech>truth - I will vote off the flow and on any argument that's well warranted, extended, and weighed.

I ran a lot of structural violence arguments during my career. When done well, I am very inclined to vote on these types of arguments. However, if you tell me why extinction/util matters more than I am also more than willing to vote on that.

Defense is not sticky - this is especially true with 3 minute summaries.

Frontline everything (offense and defense) in second rebuttal on the argument(s) you're going for; you should also probably already be collapsing in second rebuttal. There are very few teams who can pull off front-lining every contention well and still get to the other team's case with enough time.

I am extremely unlikely to default. I will try to find any piece of offense in the round I can vote on. If I can't, I'll probably just vote for the team that debated better.

I can usually flow most speeds, but if I think you're going too fast, I will ask for a case doc after.

Do:

- Roadmaps (you rlly only need to tell me where you're starting if you signpost well)

- Comparative Weighing

- Make me laugh in cross and/or speeches

- Pre-flow before the round

Do Not:

- Take a while to get a piece of evidence; more than 2 minutes and i'll probably get annoyed

- Call me "judge" - this feels too official

- Be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

- Read that 900 million ppl go into poverty during recessions without some sort of warrant

Theory:

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I won't drop you on face for paraphrasing or not disclosing, but I would be very likely to vote on disclosure and/or paraphrasing theory.

The purpose of theory is made to make the debate space more equitable and improve norms. Do not just read theory with the sole purpose of winning the debate.

Kritiks:

Probably not the best judge to read a K in front of. I have minimal experience with them, but if you want to run one I will try my best to evaluate it.

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. PLEASE. It doesn't matter if you're winning an argument if you don't tell me why that argument matters more than the other team's.

If two teams have competing weighing mechanisms, tell me which one is more important and why.

Trigger Warnings:

Trigger warnings are only needed when describing graphic/explicit content. There have only been 2-3 times in my debate career in which I've encountered arguments that truly needed a TW. I don't think trigger warnings are necessary for arguments that say common phrases such as "domestic violence." These types of arguments are important and should be read in the debate space.

I will always disclose my decision and please feel free to postround me :)

Hi! I’m Sophie, I’m a student at Penn, and this is my second time judging a high school tournament. I’m from Philly and have experience in the local after school league, plus some experience in the national circuit (the most relevant of which is making it to octos (bid) at Villiger three years ago).

sophiegala32@gmail.com

A few things to note about my debate background/practices

• Standard tech > truth pf judging outlook- what matters is the evidence and reasoning presented in round, not what is more broadly considered reasonable or what I think

• I flow, but I'll prioritize what you say in round in terms of which arguments interact with each other + which are the most important

• I’m familiar with common debate terms and concepts: frontlining, warranting, links, uniqueness, etc. I’m all good if you use those terms in-round, but please don’t overuse them, as they represent concepts that it could sometimes strengthen your speech to just explain

• I don’t know much about more niche/advanced jargon or about the norms and procedures for using theory in-round. I see the theoretical value of critically evaluating + shaping the debate setting, but I can’t really make judgements on how well a given team is doing that because of my limited background in that area. Similarly, I’m not sure of the practices for anything too far outside of the norm, like joke cases, performance debate, etc.

Some other general comments:

• Please be mindful of interrupting each other and respectful when questioning interpretations of evidence + understandings of opposing arguments

• I'm a fan of roadmaps, signposting, and weighing (all pretty common I guess)

• Please don’t purposely misread your evidence :( I may call for cards if they're important for the round or if a given interpretation is challenged in-round

• I know debate speech is generally pretty fast and I can keep up with it, just please don’t spread

Certified PA Social Studies teacher for 6 years now. 4 of which I have taught Government and Economics. 2020 is my first year participating in Speech and Debate and I'm eager to continue to learn more. I do prefer a moderate pace when speaker rather than a speedy rate since I would rather hear your argument than judge based on how many words you can get in within the timeframe. Follow the three guides below for a sense of what I look for!

1. Engage arguments with discernment. Disagreement is always welcome, however, engage with the specific argument and not your prewritten counters.

2. Be consistent in your debate. Beginning, End, and throughout your counters/rebuttals. Build your story/argument and do not deviate, Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through extending both warrants and impacts.

3. Be respectful: I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in the second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgment. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unkind, offensive or rude I will stop to give a violation.

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2022 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

I like a quick, technical debate (due to my Policy background) - if I was starting debate today, I would be a PFer. Major difference from what I used to do is that in PF drops are not death because of the weird way speeches match up. But you should warrant and impact your claims throughout the debate so I don't have to! Speed is good when it gets us depth, not as much if it gets us breadth.

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF. 

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. There should be a real clear topical connection that you can explain to me, not because LD is to train future lawyers talking to regular people, but because I can't digest your entire philosopher in the tiny pieces you are feeding me.

If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. For all of the flaws in the structure of debate and the debate community, this is the only way to have a productive debate. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I can shift to other paradigms, however, I have never been able to get into abstract philosophy, especially at the speed of a policy round. I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt - otherwise you've got a non-unique philosophical disad.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. Clash is important. Don't structurally avoid clash. But you also have to resolve the issues of clash. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not, for example, get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Warrantless arguments aren't worth a whole lot. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus. I don't reject shaky evidence out of hand - but defense can win rounds.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. I hate voting on the dropped #14 or watching the 1AR get outspread with 8 blippy disads. Clarity is important. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not anti-speed, but I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing and listening.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge. Don't take yourselves too seriously, but don't waste my time.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

I am a parent/lay judge who is learning "flow" for public forum debate. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

Don’t run a Theory argument - I’m not interested.

I am a flow parent/lay judge who prefers clarity over speed.

Please avoid spreading so that I do not miss an argument or response.

I appreciate respectful disagreement and appreciate when you are being directly comparative with your opponent's arguments to demonstrate how you are winning the round.

Keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible.

I expect the debaters to present evidence in their arguments and will only look at it if there is a conflict.

I am not particularly supportive of theory arguments and would prefer you stick to the topic at hand.

Although an experienced PF judge, I am also an LD judge.

My name is Chandu and I'm a freshman in college. I don't have much background in Speech and Debate so please speak slowly. Besides that, I'll try my best, but this is my first year doing this so please bear with me. Thank you. 

I’m a parent volunteer judge in the second year. I had a great first yearand was very impressed how talented and knowledgeble the students were. I am looking forward another fruitful year.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. Please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

Hey! I've competed in Public Forum and LD in high school.

I'll flow your round, and I'm fine if you speak fairly quickly, but please don't sacrifice clarity for speed and be mindful that if an argument doesn't end up on my flow, I won't consider it.

Overall, I prefer traditional debate, with no spreading, no kritiks, etc. I'll weigh the importance of the arguments based on whether they're supported by evidence and I expect impacts to be clearly linked with evidence. Evidence comparison (and impact comparison) is good! If you have conflicting evidence or if your opponents don’t have evidence, point it out and explain to me why your evidence is better. Use framework, tell me how to evaluate the round, and remember to extend your impacts and evidence in the last few speeches.

If you're running something unconventional, make sure to explain why it matters in the context of the debate.

Let me know if you have questions!

I am a new judge to this LD debate format.

I prefer debater not to use acronym that a typical person on the street does not know.

I prefer you speak at normal speed. Speaking too fast is useless because you goal is to pass your idea if you speak too fast, I will have trouble to understand you.

You want stress your key argument or resolution. This helps you to convince your listener. Do not speak like a computer with monotone.

Key Points (it's honestly nothing):

- Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])

- Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!

- Repetitive contentions are allowed any time/any day!

- Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!

- Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed and will be used AGAINST you during your rounds. (Keep in mind, this may be an automatic WIN for the opponent).

- I will use arguments, preparation, and speaking skills made to make my decision. Please make sure to participate at your best effort.

ALWAYS REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN!

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.

Parent Judge who has been judging public forum debates. I am an engineer and have been working in this capacity for over 25 years. Participants should produce evidence and data to backup arguments.

It would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to listen to each other and respond to the arguments you are hearing. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful while still showing their arguments to be superior. It is important to me that you explain logically why your impact will happen. It is important to me that you understand the topic and that you try to persuade me that you believe in your argument.

You are in a public forum debate and as a parent and a working professional, I am your public. Even if you have the best collection of data, how you connect with public is vital. Body language, eye contact or connecting with real life examples can sometimes tip the vote in your favor

If both teams are great and as a judge I have a tough decision, one of the deciding factors has been the quality of rebuttal questions. Some of these questions can put the other team on the edge which can work to your advantage. So take good notes, look for those pointers from your opponent and strive for winning that round.

Thank you and good luck!

Hi I’m Shaaz-- I debated in both PF and LD on the circuit (shaazn03@gmail.com). Have fun and don't take it too seriously.

LD

If you're cramming prefs:

1- Trad, advantages, disadvantages, plans, counterplans

2- LARP

3- Theory

4- Popular K's (biopower, fem, cap, afropess, etc.)

5- Phil, Less intuitive K's (I don't keep up with K lit at all)

Strike- Tricks, blippy arguments, etc.

1. Tech over truth (to a degree): If your opponent doesn't contest it, it flows through as though it's true, but I'm a LOT less likely to vote on an argument that is blatantly false.
2. Speed is fine, but if you're spreading I need the speech doc.
3. I think disclosure is more up in the air than a lot of judges seem to. I don't care whether or not you do it, but if you do, do it fairly. Open to theory on it.
4. Help me do as little work as possible. Tell me why you won the round. Voting issues are key for my ballot.

PF

1. Crystallize. Tell me what you won, your weighing mechanisms, and why I should vote for them. You could be dominating the entire round but it'll almost always boil down to weighing.
2. I'm looking way more at the flow than the flowery stuff but obviously better speaking will boost your speaker points. I think I'm pretty generous with speaks in general.
3. I probably won't be paying attention in cross. Also won't be keeping track of time--trusting you for speech time and prep.

I've been judging for a year 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 and follow the connections made. I flow on the entire debate including cross.

I have been a litigator for twenty years. I expect debaters to treat one another with respect. I flow while judging. I like to hear clear enunciation and prefer that debaters not spread. All theories/ks should be well-outlined. I give little leeway on time, but will allow the debater to finish their sentence. I prefer front lining. Weighing is important - feel free to start weighing in the rebuttal. Good luck to everyone!

Style: Focus strictly on debate logic and which points were addressed

Preferences: Prefer debaters do not speak extremely fast, I want to be able to understand everything being said (and I want your opponents to understand you as well).

This is my first year judging.  Please be clear, concise, and organized when presenting. Please speak loudly and clear so that I can understand you. Since I am new, I prefer that you do not speed read (spreading) as I do not want to miss any key points or arguments that you are trying to make. I prefer that you speak at a moderate pace and be respectful and considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. 

I will do the best I can to evaluate your arguments fairly. When presenting during a debate, remember that your arguments must be persuasive whether you are affirmative or negative. If I am not persuaded by the argument you are presenting, I have no reason to vote for it. In your closing rebuttal, make sure you provide a concise, detailed, and clear explanation of why your argument should win. 

It is important to show respect to your competitor and approach every speech as an opportunity to learn from each other and grow as a debater.