I competed in PF for three years in high school, worked at two debate camps the summer before college, and worked as a judge/assistant coach for a nationally competitive program for about a year and a half. I also competed in Extemp and Congress in high school and have some limited experience coaching both.

I'm likely very similar to national circuit judges you've encountered before (though I understand PF has changed a bit since I was last a judge in 2017). I have specifics below, but you should definitely ask if you have any other questions. Unless the tournament tells me not to, I'll always disclose and give feedback after round.

• I'll listen to anything including arguments not typically seen in PF (e.g. theory though I know it's becoming much more common).
• I like it when the second speaking team's rebuttal returns to cover their case but will not consider the case dropped in the absence of going back.
• Especially in the scenario that a second speaking team did not go back during rebuttal, I don't think the first speaking team has the burden to extend defensive arguments during their summary. This is a bit murkier if the second speaking team did go back (because really, if they sufficiently addressed the rebuttal, your partner has nothing to go off of since they can't bring up new arguments in final focus) so use your discretion and try not to avoid clash.
• With that said, I'm very conscious to ignore new arguments in the final focus.
• I can handle speed - probably up to novice/intermediate policy debater level but I'll let you know if you're going too fast.
• Paraphrasing is fine with me and was standard practice when I was debating but I understand other judges have qualms about it. Similarly, pre-round disclosure was not the norm and now I see there is significant advocacy to push for it in PF. I don't care to get into why one side is right or wrong on these issues since I no longer really have a preference. If you really feel like the norms make a difference for the activity, by all means, run theory and I'll listen to it. That said, it would be prudent to adapt to other judges on these issues if I'm sitting on a panel.
• Being polite goes a long way with me for speaker points in prelims. Though I try not to be biased, a cordial team will also have a slight advantage in nabbing my ballot.

Lastly, I'm not affiliated with any school or program that will likely attend a tournament I'm judging at (WI and MN schools only). Feel free to ask for detailed feedback, suggestions, etc. after round. I'm happy to share my thoughts on how you can improve or arguments I think are persuasive on the topic.

Public Forum coach for Horace Mann, competed for Miami Beach, senior in college.

I am writing this paradigm against my will because I don't think there should be paradigms in public forum debate! If you follow the rules and convince me, you will win the round. That said:

- Speed is fine, but if I look like I'm struggling to keep up or understand, slow down.

- I'm bad at getting down author names. Extend the institution name if possible (e.g. NY Times, not Smith).

- If you want me to vote on something, it should be in summary. That said, you don't need too much terminal defense in summary (but I would like to see some acknowledgment of your opponent's case).

- I prefer line by line, but obviously connect ideas, generate clash, address framework, etc.

- Second speaking team doesn't have to cover front lines in rebuttal, but it's nice if you do.

- Repeat crossfire points in speeches if you want them to be considered.

- WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS! Absolutely the most important thing. A good life skill too. Why does what you're saying make sense?

- Flesh things out for me! I don't want to intervene with my own thoughts/ideas, so if there's anything you want in my brain (even if its obvious, or even if you just want to express some healthy skepticism on a claim) say it out loud!

- Be funny but not mean :)

About Me:

I was a Kritik + Philosophy debater who rarely defended the topic. I never TOC'd (didn't try that hard beyond sophomore year) but I did learn a lot and had a ton of fun!

I attended VBI/NSD in 2020 and the UMich K Lab in 2021.

benjaminpatrickpersonal@gmail.com

NatCir LD/CX:

1 - k/k aff/performance and philosophy/framework

2 - tricky stuff (paradoxes, floating piks, what have you)

4 - policy/larp

5 - theory/t (but see below)

Traditional LD:

Overuse of rhetoric does not compensate for losing the actual arguments in the debate. That's not to say 'tech over truth' but it is to say that you should engage, not grandstand! There are definitely judges where that works (most judges) but I certainly prefer the line-by-line.

PF:

1 - normal, traditional public forum arguments

5/strike - anything else.

three more details:

1.] On theory/topicality and disclosure: There are three scenarios: A.) If you are the clearly more resourced/skilled debater in the round, you should not read these things and should opensource 30 minutes pre-round + seek your opponent's contact information and send them your case, including when it is brand new. B.) If you are equally resourced/skilled just avoid these arguments. C.) If you are clearly under-resourced/skilled, I will not penalize nondisclosure to or misdisclosure against an over-resourced/skilled debater and feel free to read theory/topicality/disclosure.

2.] If you're a circuit debater somehow paired against a traditional debater, you will employ !!!only traditional tactics!!! with traditional speed or you will lose.

3.] Debate is not a game -- I get what you mean when you say it, but it reeks of privilege and for some people it is far more than that, meaning it can be how they get into/afford college, can make extra cash judging and coaching after, etc.

My background in competition is primarily Lincoln Douglas debate, but I have experience in Public Form and (PA) parliamentary debate. I prefer traditional-style LD/PF and value argumentation over evidence. I want to see two sides engage with the topic and the other side's arguments. Tell me what the argument is and why it matters.

For LD, I evaluate rounds first off the Framework debate. Winning the Framework debate does not alone mean you won the round. After a debater wins the Framework, they must successfully show how their arguments best supports the Framework. It is entirely possible for an opponent argue their side better upholds a framework throughout the course of a debate. If it is not clear to me that one side better wins under a particular/winning framework debate, I will resort to a holistic approach (i.e. the debate on each framework, contention level arguments on both sides, etc.). For PF/Parli, I use a holistic approach unless the sides establish a framework debate.

I do not tend to flow every card's name and instead write their claim/data; I would appreciate hearing the argument/claim versus "Smith 98".

The fact that an opponent did not address a point does not alone count as a voter for me. Tell me why that point matters.

I do not favor critiques or spreading in the context of LD/PF, but will flow any/all the arguments that come up in the round.