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 am a lay judge (parent), and this is my first time judging.

• Keep your own time
• Tech over truth
• Please do not spread
• Please provide sufficient warranting for all of your claims, and do not simply reference the card name when referring back to the evidence (reiterate the points it makes)
• Weigh; I will not weigh for you
• Signpost!!
• I do not flow crossfire, but don't just ignore it
• If you do not extend an argument in Summary/FF, I will consider it dropped.
• Racist/sexist/otherwise offensive content in your speeches is an automatic 20 speaks and a drop

About me:

Former Mid Nat-Circuit PFer. Charlotte Latin class of 2022

The Basics:

– Tech>Truth. Exceptions made if opponents read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

– Fine with speed but please keep it reasonable, if you're spreading email me the doc at dmcary21@gmail.com

– Any offense you want me to vote on should be in summary AND final focus

– Defense isn't sticky for either team, so make sure you're extending any defense you want on the flow

– Carded warrant > Uncarded warrant > Carded unwarranted empirics. My threshold for accepting extensions also follows this rule. Basically I care less about the stats and more about the reason behind them

– I'll call for evidence either if you tell me to or if i think it's *really* suspect, but please have CUT CARDS ready to share and don't ask opponents to command f something. This is annoying so I'll drop speaks if evidence exchange is taking forever.

– Cross is pretty pointless, so I don't really flow it. Obviously concessions in cross are binding though, just remind me of them in the next speech. Also don't just start reading your case is cross idk why people do that

– If you don't weigh, I'll default to strength of link. If nobody has any offense, I default neg.

– Read K's and theory if you want, just know I won't be the best at evaluating them. Also please read disclosure theory. It will give me so much joy to drop you.

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

I have experience judging since 2022 and have judged about 7+ rounds. Judging is based on looking for following criteria:
Content: organization of speech, evidences, language used

Pace of speech: very important

Projection and Posture during speech

Pronounciation

Eye contact with audience (not glued to the paper)

I am a first time volunteer judge at this tournament. I have completed NFHS certification for Adjudicating Speech and Debate as well as utilized many resources from the National Speech and Debate Association to position myself to adjudicate. For debate topics, my attention will be focused on clear presentations with well organized argumentation of case values.

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!

Add me to any email chain: vijjikomali@gmail.com

My son wrote the rest of this:

I am a lay judge.

I wont be able to understand your points if you speak too fast, cases with 650-700 words are a good pace.

Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about.

Don't use buzzwords, i wont be able to understand debate jargon.

Sign-post well so I am not lost in your speech

Be specific about what you're talking about, don't just say "look at their first response" or "look the the Smith evidence instead".

The easiest way to judge a round accurately is if you have a clear narrative by the end of the round, don't just dump arguments and expect me to understand which one is better than the other, implicate the clash in the round. And quality>quantity, dont go fast in summary/ff to get coverage, just go slow and choose good arguments to extend

Weighing should happen, no matter what kind of judge, weighing should be understandable to anyone, so at least in FF, make sure that I know who to vote for, what they won in the round, why they win.

I am a parent judge with two school years experience as a lay judge.

-Please speak at a conversational pace.

-Speak clearly.

-I will flow all the round except for the cross examinations. So, the better organized your speech, the better I can flow.

-Please obey your time.

-Be respectful and professional at all times.

-I look for clear, organized and logical argumentation and valid, unbiased evidence.

Good luck and have fun.

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 are saying in order to judge it's merits.

I will take a lot of notes and 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 you 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 your last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value outweigh 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!

Public Forum:

I'm a flow judge who has experience in HS debate in the National Circuit--so feel free to signpost using jargon or just refer to cards by name, or use an appropriate amount of speed. I really don't like to or want to intervene on the flow. Please extend your arguments, especially weighing and warranting, so I don't have to. You can send me a dm on discord - muchanem#1975 - if you have any questions.

Flowing/ Speed:

I have experience in HS PF debate. I will be flowing on Flexcel and can flow almost anything except for the very fastest of spreading, around 900 word cases is where I will need a speechdoc. That said, I do prefer that you not spread a lot - and if you will be spreading that you provide a speechdoc. I understand the need for efficiency during/after 2nd rebuttal in the round, so as long as you're clear with your words, I can follow what you're saying.

Extensions:

Please extend cards with their tags - it helps me flow. When you extend arguments, extend warrants and impacts as well or it might as well not be flowed - unless your argument uses your opponent's impact which does occasionally happen.

Responses:

Please contextualize your responses in rebuttal. A turn isn't a turn unless you contextualize it.

Tech vs Truth:

I weigh tech over truth. However, I will drop a super techy argument that is near impossible to buy in the real world with even just a blippy response. I.e. I do flow everything, but don't expect me to not consider warranting.

Speaker Points:

Here's the hierarchy:

1. How easy your speeches are to follow/rhetorical skill.

2. How good you are in cross (but I will not weigh a round off of cross)

3. Being generally polite (no need to be over the top, just no bad behavior in round please)

Evidence:

I won't call for evidence unless there is an active dispute about what a piece of evidence actually says. Instead, I want you to call for evidence (if you need to) and tell me why I should buy your evidence, and recency is not a reason without a warrant.

Weighing:

Please actually comparatively weigh. A lot of weighing in PF is just scope and magnitude hidden as something else, I need you to properly weigh. For instance, if you have a short term econ argument, and they have a long term lives argument I need you to tell me why your short term econ argument effectively makes it impossible to solve their argument, why the short term is more important (urgency), or some other unique mechanism. Or, why should consider the long-term mechanics because of their larger scope or more central threat.

Crossfire:

If something important happens in crossfire, put it in a speech or it won't be on my flow. I only use cross to help me as a judge better understand arguments, and occasionally help decide speaks.

Extemp:

I'm a debater who also did extemp - so I do have experience in judging and competing.

Here are the things I like to see in extemp (in order of importance):

1. Content - extemp, at least in my mind is an event all about content and explaining a complex issue, thus you must have solid content - this means you have to be able to really have an information packed speech.

2. Painting a narrative - extemp still has to be accessible, it's not a presentation of the latest world event, this means you must be able to explain complex issues while still creating a narrative (I especially like extended metaphors)

3. Speaking ability - the most important thing is your fluidity, you must be able to present yourself as a knowledgeable speaker.

4. An eye-catching AGD - your AGD doesn't have to be funny, it just has to pique my interest (though I do usually prefer funny AGDs)

Here are the things I don't care about as much (not in any particular order):

* The amount of evidence you have - as long as you're not using 2 pieces of evidence for your whole speech you'll be fine.

* Perfect walking

* Gestures (as long as they're not overused)

Hello, my name is Erik Oldre, and I am a former Public Forum debater and current student at UNC Chapel Hill. It's been a while since I've competed, but I am a flow judge. I will give the win to whichever team has the cleanest extended offense, link chains, and weighing. Use final focus to crystallize

Be respectful. Speaker points will be deducted and/or the round will be be lost for any form of harassment or bigotry. Conversely, I will award bonus points for any Marxist/materialist analysis.

Also for this particular topic, please do not weigh benefits of the US military, it is a net negative for the rest of the world. Also, I will be hesitant to believe any "China bad" arguments made from US State Department funded sources (Radio Free Asia, National Endowment for Democracy, etc.)

Email speaker docs and/or cards to eriknoldre@gmail.com

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!

I am in my first year of judging speech and debate.

I appreciate when speakers talk at a normal rate and tone and are easy to hear and understand. I appreciate fewer points that are thoughtful and well articulated, rather than a wide variety of comments that are difficult to follow and track. I appreciate when speakers stay within the chosen framework and topic, and treat other debaters with respect and kindness. I hope each speaker is enjoying themselves and this opportunity. Good luck!

Sincerely, Liz Schall