My favorite event is Extemp, so I treat all debaters like I would a national finalist in Extemp. Talk at a human pace so that the audience can understand the debate, but feel free to extend your impacts as far as possible pending you keep up the warrants for each claim. Impact turns make debate more fun, try to turn them. Work to cross apply your contentions to your opponents impacts. Making voting claims that I missed during the round won't be used to judge the round. The speakers have a duty to communicate what they want the audience to hear, the judge has a duty to listen to the best of their ability and shouldn't feel burdened by advanced debaters who go beyond the judge's means. I've got a PhD in Communication Studies and embrace a qualitative perspective, values matter. Be smart, be concise, and be respectful. If you can deliver the argument well, feel free to also be creative. For what it's worth, demanding language is a peeve, as opposed to suggestive; in voters, please tell me what I should(n't) do rather than what I can't do.

I'm a parent judge with little experience judging in public forum. I will follow NSDA rules and evaluate you on both your arguments individually, clash between teams, and the overall impact of your case. Please make sure to explain why I should vote for you...no new arguments once it's time to summarize or give a final focus. Speed should be normal, so I can keep up with points being made. Please keep decorum and be respectful of each other. Speak clearly and confidently and show that you care about what you are talking about. Please provide an offtime roadmap before each of your speeches so it is more organized and easier to follow along.

Same thing applies with lincoln douglas. Do not spread as it will be difficult for me to keep up with the points being made during the round. Please speak at a normal pace and speak clearly. I prefer confident speakers that care about what they are talking about.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

I would prefer if competitors did not spread and instead spoke at a conversational rate. I am not a National Circuit judge, I am a lay judge.

Background

• 3-ish years of PF debate in high school

• History and Econ major

• Policy wonk

Paradigm/Personal Requests

• Please, do not "spread" if you are doing PF.

• Do not be rude to your opponent or me.

• Tell me why I should care and how much I should care. If you don't, I'll have to decide for myself how to weigh your points.

• Be reasonable. If your argument is silly or outlandish (ex: nuclear war is good), I'm going to disregard it.

• Try to connect all your points/contentions to each other.

• No racist, sexist, or any other kind of bigoted arguments.

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

University of Central Florida Alumnus

Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
Pronouns: he/him/his

Email: delondoespolicy@gmail.com

***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***

If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:

1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates

I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.

Hello! I am a lawyer but am pretty new to debate. My daughter does PF at NSU. I have been trained, will take notes during the debate and have judged at several tournaments to date. It is a joy and privilege! I appreciate roadmaps and like when presenters compare impacts. Please feel free to ask questions prior to the debate beginning. Good luck!

Don't spread. 10 second grace period for going over time otherwise I stop listening/writing. Cross should be used to ask questions that you then reference in speech not further argumentation.

In general, I take a stock issues approach to judging rounds. As to style, I strongly disfavor speed reading, rapid presentation and spreading, in favor of normal speech. The most effective presentation is one that could be understood by a lay person.

Hello,

I am a third-year speech and debate coach. My pronouns are he/him.

I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013.

I prefer a conversational speaking speed. Clarity is more important than speed. I’m OK with speaking fast, but if you’re spreading too fast for me to understand, then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. At your request, I can tap on the desk or otherwise signal you if you're speaking too fast for me to understand.

Don't run tricks. Don't run frivolous arguments full of arcane academic jargon meant to sound intelligent without any context or substance. You are not a sorcerer reading a spellbook.

Generally not a fan of theory shells unless there is a very real apparent violation/abuse in round.

LD - I prefer traditional debate in LD but I have been persuaded to vote for Ks, plans, counterplans etc in the past.

PF - I don't like progressive cases in PF. I believe a key part that distinguishes Public Forum as a debate event is it is meant the be interpreted by the "public", meaning the average person off the street could observe the round and understand what is going on.

General notes:

-extend your frameworks

-quality>quantity. Fewer better quality arguments with better weighing/analysis is better than winning lots of weak arguments

-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you

-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning

-Disclosure – include me in the email chain/speechdrop for your case/evidence. ESPECIALLY if you spread/read fast. I find that I can judge much more effectively and accurately when I can follow along with your arguments on my computer while I flow.

-Extend all arguments, don’t bring in new arguments in final focus, and weigh your arguments. What are the real world impacts? Why does this matter? I need to know the answers to these questions.

-Cross – It’s always tragic to me when competitors make great points in cross and then don’t bring up those points at all in any of their speeches. If it’s not in a speech I can’t flow it.

-Falsifying evidence/lying in round will lead to an automatic loss. On a related note – I don’t like paraphrasing. if you do so you better have that card in hand ready to show me. I have dropped competitors more than once for “stretching” / “creatively interpreting” evidence.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Email - arthur.kulawik@browardschools.com (but I prefer speechdrop)

I have been coaching and judging in Broward County for over 11 years. Speed is not a factor but if you have more than 5 contentions, than you are speaking too fast.

Please:

• speak clearly, please do not spread
• I need to hear evidence, if I hear numbers and data, then sources should follow.
• I value argument over style. I need to be persuaded.
• I like when you logically explain your argument and your process.
• Decorum is a must with me. I have no problem with clashing with your opponents but there is a way to do it. Please do not be rude and try to talk over your opponents. In PF, please do not talk with your partner while your opponent is talking.
• I do flow; I am looking for a clear and direct argument.

Oh, I see you've found my paradigm. Congratulations on being part of the lucky few who get to have me as a judge!

I'm Zahir, but you can call me "judge." I did Public Forum Debate in middle and high school, (roughly about 5 years in total) so I do know how this works. Here are a few tips and preferences I have in regard to your performance today:

1. I'd prefer it if you don't spread. If I can easily understand you, that's fine with me. However, if you've received negative feedback about your spreading in the past, take that into account. There's no one running behind you trying to catch you, don't worry. No need to be in a rush - speak clearly!

2. For the debate content, I would like to hear the impacts of your arguments. To win the round, you need to prove (with evidence) the everlasting effect of your argument. When arguing impact, focus on the magnitude, timeframe, and/or probability of your points (when will this happen, for how long, how many people are affected, what are the chances of it happening, etc.) With this tactic, you should weigh your arguments against your opponent's arguments and prove to me that the impact of your overall case is greater.

I'm happy to provide feedback at the end of the round as long as it is okay with all debaters. Just ask :)

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. janettmartinez83@gmail.com

DO NOT Be: rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I've found I'm a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or can't understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

I consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical).

Frameworks should always be extended.If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(...card) means we outweigh on...,” then move on to the next point. I love details and context, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and impact that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

I am a first time parent judge, please do not use any jargon and go slow so i can understand you. And do not read any progressive arguments or very technical ones because i will not understand them. Thank You and Have Fun!

Getting Higher Speaker Points with Me

1. Go as fast as you want, but I do try to listen to the evidence, so please speak clearly. Make sure your tags and cites are flowable; slower/louder/shorter helps.

2. Assertive is great. Aggressive, not so much. The line tends to be attacking the argument rather than the person.

3. Make the round easy for me. Write my ballot for me through a comparative analysis of competing positions. That means, among other things, not forgetting about impact calculus, and showing me the easy way to vote for you. Assume I'm lazy, and do the work for me. I typically won't read cards after the round unless there is a debate specifically about what a card said.

4. I welcome post-round questions about ways you can improve, whether when debating in front of me or generally. Don't bother trying to persuade me that I got things wrong. I might have, but it won't affect my decision, and you are missing an opportunity to have a more productive conversation and make a positive impression.

Personal Biases

1. There's a periodic change of topics for a reason, so absent amazing arguments to the contrary, I think affs need to be topical. I enjoy debates about the topic, and hate debates about "gotchas". For example, I prefer not to spend an hour or so of my life thinking about and resolving disclosure theory issues.

2. Similarly, I will vote on kritiks, but the neg needs to have a clear link and alt. I am sympathetic to permutations, particularly for Ks in which the alt is to think about things in a different way, unless someone does a great job at explaining how the other side's mindset is truly incompatible with the alt.

3. Tech over truth, but only if there is tech. That means there first needs to be an actual argument. I'm not going to vote for you just because the other side drops a blip that isn't explained or impacted.

4. Ethical behavior is important. If there is a significant ethics concern, raise it and impact the argument, but do not do so frivolously. Ethics violations are serious matters, and should be reserved for actual misconduct.

5. Similar to #4, I think everyone should be respectful of each other, but am unlikely to be sympathetic to arguments that a team should lose, for example, because they or their cited authors chose pronouns poorly. If the intent is malicious, however, that's different.

**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: patrick.sammon@aquinas-sta.org

DEBATE:

**Remember that Public Forum Debate is the format of debate that most of the general public can follow and understand.**

I'm a citizen judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I follow the clock and Regs fully.

Avoid running Kritiks and T. The meat and potatoes of this format of debate is to reach the masses.

Decorum and Behavior: Everyone in the round needs to be respectful and act accordingly. Anything out of acceptable and energetic debate (attacks or backhanded comments on gender, race, etc.), I will throw the round to the other team, end the round, tank your speaks and notify your Coaches.

Spreading: I do not like spreading in PF (or LD). Having the ability to speak at 200 (OR MORE...MANY more) words per minute is a fantastic skill to have, but it doesn't belong in this arena. You are not the famous fast talker John Moschitta, Jr.. You have your Constructive speeches and adequate time to lay out your cases. People (opponents and judges, as well as any spectators in the gallery) need to understand everything you say and the evidence that you reference in order to follow.

During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.

Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!

If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit! :)

SPEECH:

Remember to relax, have fun and enjoy the experience!

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones.

I am a parent judge. Some things to note:

1. Speed is bad, be slow. Expect more traditional speaking in LD.

2. No yelling during crossfire

3. I do not disclose

4. Please collapse in Summary

5. No new arguments in final focus

Experience: High school ELA teacher and assistant debate coach (2nd year) - LD/PF/SC

Education: B.A. History, English Minor. Assume that I have prior knowledge on content; I will ask for clarification if I do not. I enjoy connections you make to your learning in history/gov/econ classes.

- If you are reading this, tell me! I appreciate when students take time to read paradigms.

- If I look stoic or disgruntled, it's only my poker face. I am enjoying the round, and I will break character on occasion if something that I find funny/odd is said... : )

Debate (Judge/Coach)

General: I flow on paper and leave detailed comments on the ballot based on my flows. Anything I don't catch on the flow is on you, so slow down and ID anything you want to make sure I get. I also take time to think through decisions, which is why I do not disclose verbally (except on the very rare occasion that I do/must).

• The stronger argument is the one which presents a clear framework, supports it logically through an objective criterion, and adequately addresses the opponent's position. The best arguments may use a combination of philosophy and real-world/evidential application. Contentions should always be numbered, and voters with weighing should be done at the end.
• Some rounds can get very technical. I don't love when rounds devolve into aggressive spreading and theory wars, but I understand that is part of the sport. If it's after breaks, send me your case. The most "spreading" I follow/appreciate should sound like an excited friend telling a story; you don't have to be the fastest reader in the world.

CASES: I will evaluate all cases but do prefer traditional discussion of topic and impacts. However (LD), I am comfortable with phil (if you explain slowly and clearly), "soft-left" Ks and other common Ks (such as: cap, set col, anthropocentrism), CPs, and disads. No issues if you run those. Anything beyond that you want to run that's "progressive" I will struggle to adjudicate effectively. Running theory when merited is legitimate, but do it respectfully and help me significantly on ROB/ROJ to vote in those rounds, as I have a hard time evaluating. I do want to learn, so please adjust or ease me into any heavy progressive stuff pre- or post-round so that I can improve judging it in the future.

Type: Policymaker, but flexible; I judge trad rounds in a techy fashion / I judge tech rounds in a lay fashion (due to my current abilities and experience). "Flay" sounds demeaning to me for some reason, so I wouldn't label myself that, but it is what it is.

Likes: Unusual frameworks and contentions ("variety is the spice of life"); clear weighing; analyzing your or the opponent's evidence (i.e., that you actually know the cards beyond the tagline or stats and can explain its relevance in-round); good clash (not talking past or beyond opponent); consistent extensions; clean rounds.

Dislikes: Running cases you are clearly unfamiliar with; saying "turn X" when it is not evidently a turn; relying too much on a single "trump card" without contextualizing it in-round; not using the full allotted time or going over time (I will not count anything you attempt to say after time); "giving up" when you feel outclassed (and its inverse: steamrolling less-prepared opponents).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech (Judge if necessary)

All categories: Presentation is key. Even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. Follow the rhetorical triangle and incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos as necessary for your purpose. At the same time, your speech should be equally developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event.

Experience: 2014-2018 Public Forum

Events I Enjoy Coaching and Judging: Public Forum :)

Major Concerns: If I call for a card and determine it is miscut, I will immediately drop your argument. I will also report the violation to the tournament director and your coach or sponsor. All evidence should have a clearly defined DATE, author, and credentials. Sourcing on your card should be clear and wording of the text should not be altered. I should be quickly able to determine the veracity of the information presented in the round.

How I weigh PF: Standards should be clearly established. I find a framework at the top of the case useful. Please make an effort to argue your framework/standard. I will weigh all arguments based on the winning standard. Clearly compare both sides of the argument and explain why your side outweighs based on clear links to the framework. Deliver clear voters in the Final Focus. Usually, I only consider arguments cleanly extended through summary and final focus.

Kritiks/Counterplans/Theory in PF: Different tournaments have different rules on these matters. I will abide by the rules or philosophy of the tournament. I feel that Public Forum should be accessible to a general audience. Please make certain that your arguments are comprehensible. If you feel like your opponent is running an argument which is unfair or against the rules, be prepared to define the violation and explain why to discount the argument in your rebuttal, summary, and final focus. If you are running these types of arguments, be prepared to establish why you are departing from the norms. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points.

Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

Speaker Points: Your level of courtesy is my primary concern here. BUT ALSO - Dress professionally. Be self-aware of your posture and demeanor. Enunciate. Signpost your arguments/rebuttals. Each speech should have evidence of organization. Use all your time

Partnership Manager, Center for the Collaborative Classroom (2021-Present)
Supervisor, Broward County Debate Initiative (2017-2021)
DOF, Cypress Bay HS (2010-2017)

2022 Update: Excited to be a speech judge at the 2022 TOC. I have over 20 years of competing and coaching experience. As a competitor, I was the 2004 NSDA National Champion in Impromptu Speaking and 2004 Texas State Champion in Extemp. In college, I competed in multiple limited prep, public address, and Interp events. And as a coach, I coached multiple national finalists and champions in all speech events-at TOC, NSDA, and many local and state competitions. I am a big fan of clean performances, relevant topics, and most importantly, competitors who visibly enjoy their performances. Good luck!

While PF was not around when I was a competitor from 2000-2004, I was a competitive LD Debater in high school and then competed for 4 years of Parli in college before I became a coach at Cal State Long Beach in 2008 and then the DOF at Cypress Bay High School in 2010, where I coached multiple PF teams to success at national tournaments across the country including championships at Emory, Blue Key, and Glenbrooks. I now run the largest county-wide implementation of debate (almost 15,000 students) in Broward County, Florida.

it has been awhile since I’ve judged rounds at a national tournament, but judge locally all of the time and was the Co-Director of the Champion Briefs Institute for the past few summers (where I judged and coaches LOTS of PF).

i love PF because of the teamwork, straight-forward argument structure, and real world impacts. The round is yours and I have no specific structural or stylistic preferences. I appreciate clear roadmaps and weighing. And most importantly, to have a very clear picture of what I am voting for at the end of the round! Have fun and enjoy

Novice Judge.

I have a difficult time understanding spreading and prefer concise cogent arguments that make strong points rather then many points. I put strong weight on rebuttal arguments and like to see how debaters have researched and know the material.

Tech arguments will probably be difficult for me to follow.