I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I take a lot of notes and will try to judge on the flow. Please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!

I do not have debate experience from HS or College, having judged just a few tournaments. I prefer a medium rate of delivery, (not too fast) preference of fewer well developed arguments than many partially developed. It is equally important to have good communication skills as it is to resolving substantitive issues and one can make-up for (overcome) a shortfall in the other.

I am a logical thinker and feel a good debate/argument can definitely sway my judging decisions, regardless of my personal opinion on the topic. Compelling arguments also need some emotion, a good balance to both (emotion and logic) is key.

Treating others with respect and professionalism is important, it's a baseline expectation. Disrespect, will carry a significant impact on my evaluations.

Hello everyone! I am a parent judge with minimal experience in judging public forum debate.

When speaking, make sure to speak slowly and clearly. I would appreciate eye contact during speeches.

Please be respectful during the round.

I will evaluate the round to the best of my abilities.

I wish you the best of luck!

Parent judge with 5 years of experience judging PF and some LD, both in-person and online. I'm not quite a tech judge, but am getting closer. For PF debates:

• Clearly lay out your contentions and subpoints upfront, and refer back to them during the round when you're providing additional evidence or warrants. Extend in your final speeches.
• I don't need an off-time roadmap, but feel free to provide one if you think it's helpful. Your speech should be organized well enough that I can tell when you're talking about your case or your opponent's, without an upfront roadmap to guide me there.
• I don't flow crossfire unless something new jumps out that I'm looking for later. In the next speeches, be sure to extend anything from crossfire that you want me to consider. Otherwise, you've made the decision that it's not important for me to hear or consider.
• Weigh, or at least tell me what the impacts are of your argument. Without that, I'm left without much of a "why" upon which to judge the round.
• That said, impacts should be reasonable and realistic. If nuclear war and 7 billion deaths really are a likely impact of your argument, that's fine. But I might give equal weight to an argument that would lead to 100K deaths from a conventional war that is more likely to happen in your future-state or the status quo. Or one that would increase the deficit by 5%, if that's more likely to be the outcome. And I definitely won't give much weight to a nuclear war impact from something like organic farming, or Medicare for All -- again, be realistic.
• If you want to run theory, go for it, but remember you're trying to convince me (not a professor or college debater) that your argument is better than your opponent's. Most theory cases don't do a lot for me, so you have a higher bar to clear if you're going to go that route.
• This goes without saying, but be polite and respectful to each other, and have fun. Even if it gets testy during the round, please congratulate each other at the end and shake hands (or fist-bump). I know the competitive aspect of this is real and can get intense, but remember why you're here.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

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

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

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

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Hello,

I am a first time parent judge for debate.

Please do not talk fast as I am unable to understand anything you are saying.

I am a lay judge so please tell me exactly why you have won the round.

Thank you and have a good tournament.

I'm a flay judge with experience in PF and LD.

I don't fully flow cross; if you want something to be flowed, extend in the next speech.

Make sure to extend in summary/final focus/final speech.

Please SIGNPOST any speech later than 1st rebuttal so I know where to flow.

Always weigh so I have a clear reason to vote for something. I'm not very experienced with metaweighing. I know some judges don't evaluate probability, but I will as long as you implicate your reasoning.

If you're going to use ACRONYMS, please establish them with me before the round.

I don't like spreading; I need to be able to understand what you're saying to put it on my flow.

I don't evaluate theory or K’s.

Hi! I'm a former high school debater from the late '80s and early '90s -- yeah, I'm old. So while I know what flow is and will flow your rounds, please note I am a newbie judge.

It would be helpful if you would:

1. Ask, "Ready, judge?" before you launch into each speech. (I will be keeping time, too.) What would be even better would be, "Ready, judge, for my four-minute speech (three-minute crossfire)?..."

2. Sign post your arguments. "Moving onto my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

3. Speak a little slower. Don't spread.

Be good sports and have fun!

Greetings, debaters. I'm a parent in my second year of judging debate. It would be helpful if you would:

1. Please ask, "Ready, judge?" before you launch into each speech. (I will be keeping time, too.) Even better would be something like, "Ready, judge, for my four-minute speech (three-minute crossfire)?"

2. Sign post your arguments. "Moving to my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

3. Speak a little slower. Don't spread.

4. Avoid running theory during your arguments.

FInally, please be a good sport and have fun.

I am a parent judge. I appreciate very structured debate. Please clearly lay out your framework, speak clearly. I will vote for the team who present strong logic link in their arguments.

Organization and signposting will be essential. Simply presenting evidence won’t win the round for you, your analysis and how the evidence is organized to support your contentions weighs a lot. Do not just pile up numbers, but tell me how these numbers help your case.

To me, the content of the message is important, but the way how the message is conveyed is equally important. Speaking eloquently will for sure help.

I value concise and to the point rebuttal. A quick identification of logic flaws in your opponent argument or quick and convincing response to your opponent’s rebuttal will win points for you.

I like well organized summary and final focus. Strong ending is important for my decision.

I like well explained and clear warrants

I equally weigh warrants over evidence. However, do provide and counter the evidence to support the warrants.

Please do not use complicated debate jargon (ex. we outweigh on pre-req, magnitude, and scope)

I generally think that public speaking is a huge part of the debate

I believe delivery with a clear and persuasive articulation is equally important. Do not speak too fast to add unnecessary words.

I am a parent judge. Please go slow and clear so I can understand what you're saying. Please don't use any discriminatory language.

It'll be nice to meet you, but it'll be even better to meet me.

There is a legend of a man who was destined for debate by ancient prophecies written as far back as the 7th century. A man who slaughtered opponents (with words) and never lost a single round during his entire debate career. Many people even at big tournaments simply stopped showing up to rounds when placed against him, knowing better than to waste their time. After winning his final tournament, which he amazingly did by just staring at his opponents for his entire Constructive until they forfeited out of fear, he then retired to being a debate judge so he could live the rest of his days in peace. That man is not me, and in fact does not exist since I made him up five minutes ago.

That said, I did place first at NSDAs, CFLs, and

TOCs for all four years of my debate career. So I

guess I did alright.*

My name is listed as Edwin, but nobody calls me that. People call me a lot of things and Edwin is not one of them. Usually, people call me Cutler, though a lot of people call me Driving, and people I do "business" with call me Joe. You can use whatever you want. That being said, I think debate would be funnier if debaters had to call the judge "Your Honor", so while I won't take off speaker points if you don't, I will add on speaker points if you do.

Among other things, I am known as the writer of the Cool Ultra Tournaments Lacking Extraneous Rules (CUTLER™) Debate Handbook, which can be found here. Sadly, the NSDA is afraid of change and refuses to implement my rules, possibly because I constantly state that it actually would not be an update but rather completely replacing the NSDA. That being said, if both teams come to a mutual agreement, you can debate under the rules outlined in my handbook, minus the topic selection because that would be really difficult to set up on a short notice (unless, of course, both teams would rather debate a different topic).

I'm Tech>Truth, and not in a "as long as the argument makes SOME sense" way like most people are. If your opponents say the sky is green, I want to hear a convincing argument otherwise, or you will lose the round. Arguments based on "but that's ridiculous" are not going to work. The only condition is that whatever argument you make has to tie in to the topic in some way.

I don't prioritize any one way of winning a debate so long as it's effective. If you want to win on weighing, explain why your weighing is the most important. If you want to win by completely knee-capping your opponent's case, explain why their case is flawed (consider an opener such as "Your Honor, the opponent's case is like a donut; it goes around in circles but it has a huge hole in the middle"). If you want to win on theory, please do not do that.

While some judges do not flow crossfire, I do and it heavily factors into my decision. I think crossfire is the best part of the round because that's where the funniest things usually happen. Sadly, the NSDA has constantly rejected my pleas to add "Grander Cross" (see CUTLER™ Public Forum), but this has not extinguished my love for crossfire. Some have complained about this (and you know exactly who you are), but if they didn't want to lose the round on cross, they should have been better. Bring your A-game.

Evidence is a finicky subject. On the one hand, some may argue that evidence is a way to make a round fair. On the other hand, 98% of articles cited are actually made up, according to Sharla Washington of the New York Times. Except, I actually made that up too; see how easy it is? It's very easy to make up evidence, and because only three minutes of prep time is allowed per team, there's often not enough time to sift through all the "evidence". Because of this, I only accept evidence that is physical; in other words, you have to print the articles you're citing. If you haven't done this, don't call for cards. (NOTE: This doesn't apply to online tournaments.)

Lastly, the first team to say the word "like" may or may not instantly lose the round. In addition, because it is beginning to annoy me, saying the word "concede" has the same effect. My reasoning for this is that it would be funny and nothing else. You also won't know if this is a joke until after the round, and even then I may not say if that's why you lost. In addition, I will be generating a list of five random words before each round, and the first person to say one might lose a speaker point. The fun part; I'm not telling you what these words are. But you'll know when you say one, because I'll have a really loud buzzer with me.

Good luck and have fun (or don't, see if I care).

*Note: That's a complete lie too.

Greetings, debaters.

I'm a parent who is new to judging debate. It would be helpful if you would:

1. Please ask, "Ready, judge?" before you start your speech into each speech.

2. Please watch your time.

3. Sign post your arguments. "Moving to my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

4. Speak a little slower. Don't spread.

5. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence.

Good luck and most importantly, have fun!

I am a parent lay judge; I have judged both local and nat circ tournaments over the last 3 years.

I prefer signposting and clear discussion of what contentions you are addressing/rebutting. I appreciate when you point out such things as, "Aff never addressed our contention that..." or "Our impact of ___ outweighs their impact of ___."

Do not speak too quickly (ie, I will deduct speaks for spreading).

Please keep track of your time (but I will also be keeping track, because I do not enjoy watching a team cheat the other team out of prep time- yes, I have witnessed rounds like that).

I understand when some judges say "tech > truth," but that is not applicable to the rest of life. If your contention is outlandish and defies logic, then it should not win.

I value respectful communication: NO STEAMROLLING. This is one of the last places where civil discourse is encouraged. Therefore, rude behavior will cost you speaker points, if not the match (yes, I have witnessed rounds like that).

Lastly, I believe that some of the brightest minds are competing at these tournaments, and that we are all works in progress (judges included).

I am primarily a speech coach, so effective public speaking and rhetoric skills appeal to me. I prefer debates that stay centered on the topic to kritiks. Please no spreading. I don't mind fast-paced arguments, but I'd like to be able to flow what is happening effectively, and for that to happen, I don't want to be missing huge chunks of your argument because of speed. Thanks!

My name is Alexis Johnson and I am a science teacher at South Mecklenburg High School. I am an experienced judge and will be looking for the debater to anticipate questions from his/her opponent(s) and have his/her cross questions and answers ready. Be sure to thoroughly understand your topic, and please make sure that all of your arguments, especially those containing definitions and statistics, come from a reliable source. I will be looking for you to not only poke holes in your opponent's argument, but provide ample support for your own!

Hello my name is Cory Johnson. I am a History teacher and a debate coach.

When I am judging there are a few things I look for:

1. It is extremely important that you have a clear link chain. As I am flowing, I want to be told how each point leads into the next. It is not my job to infer what you are trying to argue. You need to explicitly tell me each part of the argument, and how that creates your impact. If the impact is not made clear, I have nothing to weigh on and therefore voting for you becomes a challenge dependent on your persuasion skills alone. Please extend your cards, and your links, or I will consider them dropped. My final decision will be based on the flow, and how you interact with your opponent during the round.

1. Cross is not binding. In fact I will not even flow it. Cross ex is a time to gather information to then be used in rebuttal. It is also an opportunity for clarification and filling in your flow.

1. In an LD debate, the value is terminal. It is the primary voter issue, and as such must be woven into your contentions, and be present throughout the round, including your rebuttals. LD is a value debate and therefore it is not something to be mentioned briefly in your constructive and then forgotten. I am open to theory and K’s but understand if you take this route, you better be committed to it. Risking a theory to throw it away or using K’s arbitrarily does not sit well with me. It is important to weigh your argument against your opponent, while your value is the terminal issue, weighing gives me as a judge the ability to make an informed decision.

1. In a PF debate, your impact is the primary voter issue. As stated above, this must be made clear. An ambiguous impact leaves very little room for me as a judge to make an informed decision. I want to be told what the result of my vote is. I want to be told how my vote affects the topic at hand. This is where weighing becomes terminal. If you do not weigh your impact against your opponents, I see little to no reason to vote for you, as a lack of weighing leads me to believe your impact is not very important to the round. Within that weighing I want to see a clear comparison between you and your opponent.

1. When speaking, please be clear, and concise. I want to be impressed with your speaking ability, and this is how I decide your speaker points. DO NOT SPREAD! I prefer slower, more evocative speech, with impactful points of emphasis. I do not appreciate redundancy, especially in rebuttal. If you have to repeat yourself outside of the purpose of emphasis, it tells me you do not know what you are talking about.

2. A few extra miscellaneous points to keep in mind: I am a stickler about time. I will not flow anything said after time is up. It will not be considered when voting. It is also very important that you use off-time roadmaps, so I can follow your thought process. Finally keep the card calling to a minimum. Doing this excessively wastes too much time, and becomes annoying and frustrating. If you cannot rebuttal without seeing every card your opponent uses, that most likely means you need to do more research.

I look forward to judging you. Good Luck!

I am a new parent judge. Please speak clearly. I will not vote for what I don't understand. Be organized, logical, and concise.

Please ask me for my email before the round and add me to the email chain, and send your constructives. No Theory, Kritiks, etc.

Briefly tell me your agenda before your speeches and signpost during. Time your own prep and tell me when you are starting and stopping.

It is important to me that you are respectful to your opponents. I will vote against you if you are blatantly racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. and your speaks will be very low. I value evidence ethics a lot so speaks will also be low if you purposely miscut evidence.

I will do my best to evaluate the round fairly and not intervene with my own opinions and background. Good luck! :)

As a former high school debater, teacher and judge from European System, you can expect from my side attentive listening, respect, impartiality, conciliation, truth and fairness. During the flow, I take note of any outstanding sayings. On your side, you are expected to go by the National Speech and Debate Standards. * On delivery, talk with a moderate speed; let it be clear, precise and concise, no spread. * Every major contention requires evidence, know what you are saying. * Listen with respect, no sarcasm, be professional. Like a game, let’s have fun! But remember: You have to persuade, to convince your audience.

email: arvindh.manian@gmail.com

update for durham ld rr:

I'm new to LD. I also have 0 experience with progressive argumentation. Ofc, feel free to read whatever you want (and I def won't hack for/against anything), but if you read something besides simple LARP stuff it's lowkey gg for my ability to eval.

pls go slow bc im not going to backflow off a doc and im not that good w speed (i did trad pf) or drop me and go for the other judge ig

general:

I competed in PF for two years @ Providence High School. I was pretty flay when I debated, and it's been two years since then. I'd recommend you debate somewhat slowly and intentionally make an effort to signpost.

I think of debate as an educational activity where students learn to compete, communicate, research, think quickly, and be good people. I try to judge accordingly.

Definitely feel free to post-round.

Also feel free to talk to me after the round if you have questions/need advice on your case/whatever!!

This is my fourth year as a parent judge. I value clear and convincing arguments, both in the context of debate and my day job as a professor. I want debaters to interact respectfully, and I appreciate it when you don't talk too fast.

Welcome PF Debaters.

I am a parent judge and sharing few suggestions how you and your team can be successful.

1. Please stay focused with your contentions all the time and time yourself for every speech
2. Please highlight the supporting data points/sources during your discussion and request/challenge similar information
3. Please maximize your prep. time and the cross-fire to support your debate, kindly consider sharing equal time with other debaters
4. If you speak too fast, I won’t understand anything you say and you’ll likely lose the round. It will also affect your speaker points
5. Please follow the PF rules, be respectful in rounds to both your partner and your opponents.

Debate should be a fun activity and debaters should enjoy it. All the very best.

PF Judge - Karthikk

Good luck with your rounds. I look forward to a fair and friendly debate. Keep the following in mind:

-Avoid technical terms -provide guidance through your points and explain your case clearly.

-Please expand acronyms at least once

-No spreading and make sure to sign post

-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain

-I will vote for the side that provides the best logical arguments with warrants to back it up!

Please be polite during the rounds. Any inappropriate arguments (racist, sexist) will get you dropped.’

Email is den.85085@gmail.com

Add me on the email chain: wp1149@princeton.edu

If you have any questions about any part of my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round!

I debated four years of PF at Providence on both the local and national circuit, qualifying to the TOC, NCFLs, NSDAs, etc.

tldr;

Consider me a typical flow judge, make sure to signpost, don't extend through ink. Good warranting, weighing, and metaweighing will win you close rounds.

Truth ---------------X-----Tech

General

• Weighing is absolutely crucial -- oftentimes I will have two conflicting pieces of offense for both teams. If both teams at the end of round have standing offense, I will make my decision on whoever weighs their impact better with warranting. Just saying like "finally we outweigh on scope timeframe and magnitude" at the end of 2FF is not enough. Explain why your impacts outweigh, and why it matters. Metaweighing is also important -- why should I evaluate probability before magnitude (or vice versa)?
• I enjoy evaluating unique arguments, but the more "squirrely" it is, the better the level of warrantation I need to evaluate it; if you say something like "X causes extinction" it will be hard for me to vote on it if you don't have a well-defined link chain.
• I really like hearing good clash: it's really hard to evaluate rounds when both teams sort of ignore each other's links and keep on projecting their own arguments 999 times. That being said, I think warranting is the most important part of this -- if you can't clearly explain why your impact outweighs or why affirming leads to X impact, it will be hard for me to grant you offense
• Quality of evidence: I will only call for cards that you ask me to call. I think there is a big problem in debate with teams misrepresenting evidence, and I want to try to make my decision as equitable as possible.
• Please be respectful -- being rude in cross, passive aggressive, etc. is generally unpleasant for everyone.
• Obviously, do not be racist/homophobic/transphobic etc.
• Signpost well, it helps with clarity tremendously
• Don't extend through ink, it will seriously annoy me
• I dont really have a formula for giving speaks, I usually will err on the generous side. However, signposting and warrantation are the two things that I care most about (alongside not being insufferable). Good weighing will also be a boost
• I can handle most PF speeds decently but if you anticipate going unusually fast I recommend sending a speech doc

PF specific:

• First summary is the last speech where I'll evaluate new evidence
• I think well-argued offensive overviews in first rebuttal are super strategic at times, but I dislike when teams straight up read a new contention in rebuttal disguising it as an overview. My threshold for evaluating these is still pretty low, though
• I don't flow cross
• Second rebuttal:Any defense not frontlined is conceded. I think collapsing in second rebuttal is smart, but you must at least frontline the defense on links/impacts you might plan to go for in the back half of the round
• Consistency between Summary and FF is important. I likely won't grant offense to arguments in final focus but not summary.

LD specific:

• You should treat me as a flay judge or smart parent judge for LD. I have a general understanding of the event but never competed in it
• Run progressive args at your own risk. If you can warrant it well, I will do my best to evaluate theory, Ks etc. but I cannot promise I will handle them how you want me to.

I am a lay judge. I've completed online training and watched several demo videos.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, but I really like an articulate, eloquent speaker. Prioritize clarity, be sure to signpost, don't spread, and you'll be fine.

Framework: Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your input is better than your opponent's.

I prefer some scholarly philosophies in there with supportive arguments.

Finish strong and on time. Be specific.

My email is annapinkerton3141@gmail.com, add me to the email chain.

Debated for 4 years for Ardrey Kell High School. Did PF and World Schools, now doing APDA in college.

I'm now coaching at Walt Whitman in the PF program!

Ask me about my paradigm before round if you have any questions

General:

• Round narratives are important. Tell me who you impact, why they need help, how you help them and why that matters. Convince me to care about the issues you care about.
• I default util, but util is boring so please give me something else (can happen in case with framing or later with weighing)
• I don't need hard quantification. If you tell me you decrease bigotry or gentrification, I don't need a number for that, but I do need a general idea of how much you impact it.
• I like args focused on social issues more than I like war/extinction args but I also understand that this is PF and PFers love nuke war.
• Communication matters, if I don't understand your arg, I can't vote for it. This means two things, that speaking style matters and that you need to explain your link chain well.
• Well warranted analyticals are better than a card with no warranting
• I like banter in rounds, have fun make me laugh

Tech>Truth but at a certain point, the more outlandish the arg, the lower my threshold for responses (AKA don't tell me discrepancies in arrests for BIPOC are just a coincidence). I like impacts that are more interesting/nuanced or more realistic much more than the constant nuke war/extinction arguments.

Prog- I debated substance all of my debate career but I dipped into structural violence impacts/weighing in my last year. I now run theory shells to check abuse on my college league. I like prefiat weighing for substance args (AKA because I brought up impacts to a marginalized group you should vote me up to increase education in the debate space). I care a lot about accessibility/education, if you're going to run prog, have one of those as your prefiat impact. Don't run prog on novices or the local circuit, it's bad form. The exception to this is trigger warning theory.

LARP: I don't like trix. DAs and plans/CPs are completely fine, go for it.

Theory: Fine as long as there's an actual abuse (AKA trigger warning theory is great). My threshold for responses for frivolous theory is pretty low, but I will evaluate it. Theory doesn't have to be responded to in 2nd case if you're trying to keep the round substance.

Kritiks: Go for it, just explain everything clearly to me as I don't have much experience evaluating Ks

Speaks:I default to whatever the tournament tells me for speaker points. These will likely be decided based on a mixture of how well you speak, strategy and content. I love love love a good speaking style, but I can handle speed. If you're funny, I'll like you more and will probably boost your speaks. Don't spread and send a speech doc if I or anyone else in the round asks (this is an accessibility thing).

Cards:NSDA rules say that you must give author last name and last two digits of the year with every card, please do this (AKA Smith '22). I shouldn't need to say this, but cut your cards and have them readily accessible to be called. Paraphrasing is fine as long as the card is cut when called for. I will only call for cards if they are essential to my decision or you tell me to call for them during a speech.

Framing/Weighing:I default util but I think util is boring so please give me something else (well run intervening actors/structural violence weighing is my favourite). Weighing must be comparative, so metaweigh. If your opponent runs a framework, you don't need to respond in 2nd case, responding in rebuttal is fine unless they give me a reason that waiting to respond isn't okay. I don't care about money or economic impacts in a vacuum, give me a terminalized impact.

Cross:I won't flow cross, but being able to handle yourself well in cross impacts my perception of you and probably your speaks. Cross is binding, but you have to bring anything you want on the flow into a speech.

Summary/FF:The obvious stuff like no new responses past 2nd summary, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final applies. Defense is sticky. Don't give me blippy extensions, actually walk me through your link chain (I should be able to just watch summary/FF and write a ballot off of that) Please please please collapse, it makes everyone's lives easier.

About me: I did PF in high school so I have some exposure to the event. I've been judging for the past couple years, so I'll probably be able to make a good decision if you read this and follow along.

Publlic Forum

1. Tech > Truth but if you're rude you're probably getting low speaks
2. Respect is important
3. The team that wins the more impactful argument gets the win
4. Final focus should be voting issues and weighing
5. In terms of speed, 200 wpm is probably my max but I'll flow off a doc if provided
6. I won't evaluate theory or Ks

Debate the way you think will win, and I'll follow along.

TLDR: lay judge: go at a moderate speed, signpost, extend, weigh, and be respectful

Hey, I’m a PF debater, and I'm writing my dad's paradigm for him.

My dad is a lay judge, will take notes but I wouldn’t call it a flow. He will vote off what's extended (and weighed) in final focus. He appreciates a strong crossfire round but will not tolerate any rudeness. Will give 28 speaker points on average and will be higher if you deserve it.

General tips:

• Ask if everyone is ready before you start

• Read your contentions clearly, "Contention One is ____"

• Make your impacts really obvious, "The impact is __(lives, money, etc.)___" and be sure to quantify.

• PLEASE WEIGH! Tell him what you want him to weigh off of. The earlier weighing is introduced, the better! (For example, if your opponents dropped an argument, say so. This will make the decision much easier)

• Collapse in later speeches, giving you more time to better warrant your arguments (quality > quantity)

• Give a TW with an anonymous opt-out if ur gonna read stuff that needs one

• Give a strong rebuttal making sure to signpost the contentions you are responding to but make it more clear than "our case, their case"

• Second speaking team should ALWAYS frontline

• Do not use jargon (no "fiat", "delink", "non-unique", "offense/defense", etc.)

• Extend warranting on case and responses

Do NOT:

• NO SPREADING!

• Read framework, theory, and anything more than just pure substance

• Read a tech arg/impact

• Number/statistic dump

• Read offense if you finish early

• Do not abuse prep time!

Hello everyone!

My name is Michele Reich and my son is in public forum. Please speak conversationally and use a normal rate of speech. I really don’t like when debaters speak super fast to cram in a bunch of info. I will automatically vote against you if you run theory- please be respect of each other!

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

Hey everyone!

I'm a parent ("lay") judge based in Tennessee.

I would prefer if all competitors within the round kept their own time both in speeches and prep time.

Good luck to all!

Good diction and, not talking too fast, are important. When sending evidence ensure you send it on the chat or if emailing the evidence, cc me on the email chain.

Hello, I'm a new judge for the the Laird Lewis competition. I'm looking forward to the event. I hope to see candidates that exhibit good sportsmanship, provide strong reasoning to support their arguments and deliver their positions with clarity & conviction. I appreciate those that speak at a measured pace in order to follow the logic of the discussions. I don't know this the event's topic very well so please try to display the topic in a way that reflects my limited knowledge.

I am a patent judge with several rounds of experience judging debate events. I am the typical “lay judge”. However, I am more than capable of evaluating strength of argumentation and evidence when deciding who has won the round. Please make sure your arguments and evidence are clear.

I am a veteran secondary science teacher with a passion for seeing students grow by taking academic and personal risks to expand their skills and experience. 

With my science background, I focus on content and validity of information. Make sure your references are timely and relevant. 

Be respectful to me and your fellow competitors. It is very important to me that everyone is treated with dignity and equality. 

Do not speak so quickly that you lose me, or your competing colleague, in your flow or take the focus away from your argument. I will be looking for a clear framework with strong supporting evidence. Using your argument with creativity is more important than how strong it may be. 

I will do my best to provide specific feedback on ways to improve your speech and debate skills; we are all lifelong learners.

Good Luck!

I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF, LD or Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying to judge its merits.

I take a lot of notes and will try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!

I competed at the national level in PF for 4 years. The most important thing I need to see in a round is continuity -- I would rather hear one/two strong argument evolve and develop throughout the round than hear four/five arguments get spottily extended across the flow. Don't make me do more work than I need to when making my decision, so pick a narrative, stick with it, and clearly give me a comparative weighing mechanism against your opponents. Beyond that, some specifics:

I am fine with speed, but, seeing as this activity is meant to be inclusive of the average person, please try and avoid spreading at all cost;

I am okay with the first speaking team extending defense from rebuttal to final focus, as long as they do not make it a reason to vote for them (i.e. only terminal defense). Any reason to vote for you (i.e. offense) must be in summary in order for it to be in final focus;

Big fan of jokes/humor in round, but stay civil and respectful of the event and one another;

Tell me why I am voting for your side in the latter half of the round. Explaining why you're winning an argument is helpful, but not nearly as imperative as explaining why that argument translates into signing my ballot for your side.

Things to do for boosted speaker points:

• Funny analogies/metaphors
• 1-off Case
• Varied use of hand gestures
• Inclusion of pop culture references
• Impressive vocabulary

As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.