I have been debating PF for the last three years and am currently a captain.

I am a flow judge. Any argument you are making/attacking that you believe needs to be flowed through until the end should be continually brought up throughout the round. If an argument is dropped before/during final focus, I will not flow it through.

I don’t flow cross. That being said, any question asked/answer said that you feel I need to flow should be readdressed during your rebuttal/summary/final. If I hear a team being rude or snappy, however, I will deduct speaks.

My decision is always based heavily on weighing. Clear voters’ issues and weighing mechanisms really tell me WHY your argument outweighs your opponents and WHY it matters that I vote for your side.

As much as you can, try to project and stand confident/passionate on what you are arguing. Points made may not be flowed through if I cannot hear them.

I do like to see unique/slightly out there arguments, AS LONG AS they are backed by solid and reliable evidence. If not, it will be easier for your opponents’ attacks to be flowed through.

Above all else, have fun! Enjoy your time competing :)

About me:

I am a relatively new parent judge with limited understanding of debate jargon. My day job is developing software for a financial services company.

My approach:

I think I would be best described as a flow judge. I don't flow cross fire (so don't use it to introduce arguments or evidence), but I listen to it to correct statements I may have misheard. That said, if you bring up a point in cross fire that is a new point, I expect that to be brought up in a subsequent speech in order for it to impact my decision.

I don't flow speed really well, so spread at your own risk.

I think I am tech > truth. If you do not address your opponents arguments, I will accept them as true.

As the round progresses I am looking for your team to:

1. Clearly state your contentions.
2. Support your contentions with at least 1 piece of evidence.
3. Tell me the impacts, their weight, and their probability.
4. Tell me why the collective weight and probability of your impacts out weigh your opponents'.
5. Respectfully refute your opponents' claims, evidence, weighing or probability as appropriate, preferably with counter evidence of your own.

I will drop your speaker points for rudeness. You can passionately debate the topic and still be respectful.

I don't understand theory and Kritiks so probably best not to use them with me.

Hello, I am a parent/lay judge. Speak as fast as you are comfortable with but please stay to the point and deliver your message clearly. I prefer if you collapse on one argument by the summary speech, I prefer quality arguments over quantity. I take notes during the round but I don't "flow", so please make sure your arguments are well-organized and clear.

I am looking forward to respectful discussion and to learning something new!

Good luck, everyone!

I will give one extra half speaker point if you can somehow work the phrase "riddle me this" into the debate.

Also I love to see weighing in debates :)

Really looking forward to today’s debate! Please speak slowly and clearly. Always be respectful.

Good luck!

I look for a debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Framework and voting issues are also appreciated as well. Be respectful to each other and mindful that a healthy clash of ideas often brings forth a refinement of your side. I appreciate the side that weighs their impact.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact withtout warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I really don't have preferences for progressive arguments, except that you do them correctly, and are not using them as a gimmick to win a round. I will evaluate Ks and theory, but they are not a huge part of debate in my state in PF, run at your own risk.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Explicit signposting and road mapping is always appreciated. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

hi im andrew :)) i debated pf at stevenson for three years.

pronouns: he/him

add me to the email chain: ali23@students.d125.org

tl;dr: i think im a typical flow judge. ~250 wpm, send case docs, concise roadmaps, evidence ethics, sticky defense, collapse/dont go for everything (no voters pls). be chill, ask me about my paradigm :)

ms/novice/jv:

dont spread, substance only, frontline, collapse (PLEASE), weigh, be kind (very low threshold for rudeness). feel free to read and adhere to the rest of my paradigm but do whatevers best for u :))

general stuff:

-- expressiveness and banter to piss off ur opponents is funny, being actively douchey is weird (higher threshold for rudeness in varsity). act exclusionary and the round ends + L20/lowest speaks.

-- dont read trigger warnings, use anonymous opt out forms instead

-- i evaluate: prefiat > framework > link level > link weighing > impact weighing

-- i will force u to email chain --- evidence sharing like this makes me cringe so hard

-- send me ur cases, ~250 wpm is what im comfy with, be coherent. i stop flowing 5 seconds overtime

-- just tell me where youre starting or be concise with roadmaps and BALLOT DIRECTIVE LANGUAGE!!! (i am too stupid and lazy to figure out where to vote on my own and will be sad if you do not do BDL)

-- blippy responses and independent DAs/ADVs

-- weird strats like delinking ur case to kick turns are ok, but thresholds for extensions etc. are higher

-- unanswered defense is sticky, new weighing ok in 1st final, dont have to extend uncontested internal links

-- not flowing cross but i am dropping ur speaks if u filibuster

-- unwarranted evidence indicts... that said, power tagging etc. = L20. make it an IVI/postround me/i might intervene

-- i think probability weighing is fake and abusive by inviting judge intervention.

speaks: i despise how incredibly racist/sexist/ableist/classist speaks can be (and often are). speaks will be determined entirely by your strategy + signposting. average = 28

illinois prefs:

-- i will probably be more techy than you think or are used to

-- +.5 speaks if u disclose case/all highlighted evidence on the wiki before round, +.5 if impacts are actually terminalized

-- if i hear the words "voters issues," "weigh on probability," or "quality of life" i will start frothing at the mouth and ur speaks will start at 25

-- pls COLLAPSE omg DONT go for everything. also DONT extend defense on dropped offense (be strategic!!!1111!!1)

-- please please ANSWER WEIGHING

-- if i am judging here let it be known that i am on a mission to change the illinois circuit from the inside back to flow debate

everything else:

-- no experience judging any progressive debate, but open to everything non-exclusionary except friv/tricks/CPs (unless ur memeing with ur opponents). i might screw u --- treat me like flay at best

-- see this doc for free speaks!!!

-- +1 speaks if u bring me or, +.5 if u make someone laugh (not ur partner), 30s if u hold hands w/ ur opponent during cross.

-- sorry im kinda slow so u might have to wait a bit for my decision :(

-- if i will flip a coin

-- any postrounding will be automatically considered an invitation to duel and will be treated as such (jk --- postrounding is educational, L30s if you convince me. it makes me a better judge :)) debate is not a place for random weird uptight adults to flex the power they have over u)

glhf !!! :D

aditya stole my (old) paradigm + bless hebron daniel + renee li + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this + i agree with this guy and this guy

I'm glad you're doing Debate, I look forward to watching your round, and I wish you the very best of luck!

Before all else, I am a FLOW JUDGE. Here's more specifics on what I want to see in a round:

• All arguments need clearly explained logical warrants, as it's not my job to make logical leaps for you
• Claims must be grounded in evidence, and when there's contradictory evidence on both sides, I'd like an explanation of why to prefer your evidence/warrant, because otherwise I'm left guessing
• Structure your speeches how you feel is best, but signpost so that I know where you're at on the flow
• In a good round, both sides will have valid arguments left, so please WEIGH IMPACTS in later speeches
• I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens there, make sure it's in your next speech
• I expect you to stand your ground (this is debate after all), but maintain a baseline of respect/decorum
• I would much rather you ask a clarifying question than attack an argument that wasn't made (don't strawman your opponents, ever)
• I'm cool with a little speed, you have a lot to cover, but please don't spread, because that defeats the point of this activity (I also don't like K's/theory/progressive debate)

I'm always happy to answer any questions before or after the round, since this is an educational tool before all else, and you're here to learn (don't lose sight of that).

Have a great day, make a friend, learn something new, and enjoy it.

I have over 15 years of experience with debate. I work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg. I am strict about timing in the round.

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I don’t care why you think the other side lost but rather the strengths of your own side.

My paradigms are mostly respect, impact and weighing. Please make sure to ask if I am ready and to ask if your opponents are ready as well. Make sure to time your prep time and just please remain respectful at all times. For weighing please let me know why you outweigh your opponent or why your argument should carry more weight. Lastly for impact, I want everyone to show me how important their impacts are and why they matter. Please always speak with a clear loud voice. But overall have fun:)

UPDATED FOR THE GLENBROOKS

***brief***
uclabdb8@gmail.com
- head coach at the university of chicago laboratory schools
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record - on the NATO topic I have judged 4 K aff vs FW rounds, voting for the K aff 1/4 times.
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**experience**
coaching at uclab for several years. i will probably have >50 rounds by the end of the season. i occasionally coach and judge local PF and camp (harvard). i am a former policy debater from maine east, (north shore, wayne tang gharana) with some college debating at iowa and i translated debates to med school. i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. this means i haven't spent my summers deeply reading into the topic aside camp files. it also means you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack. nowadays, the these debates tend to get messy. so flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and/or(?) creativity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

on traditional theory args, whatever happened to presumption debates? i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

I am a tech-over-truth judge.

Also, I'll be timing prep, so don't try to argue with me about how much prep you have left unless the other team can agree with you on how much you have left.

If your opponent provides a framework/overview, I expect you to address it or else I consider it dropped and conceded to, just like any other part of the debate; if you drop it, you concede it.

In rebuttal, I want you to respond to everything, and if you're second rebuttal, please frontline everything. Don't give me another constructive speech.

Your summary must crystallize, weigh, and collapse the round to the most important arguments and impacts for me. In many cases, this is where the RFD is sealed for me. NO NEW ARGUMENTS. You also should extend your offense out to summary or final focus or I might flip a coin to decide the winner.

Also, I'll be on my phone during crossfire, so I don't really care about cross unless you're getting violated.

In final focus, tell me why you win my RFD. Show, DON'T tell.

If you are acting bigoted, sexist, or racist in round, I will give you 0 speaks immediately and you will lose the round regardless of how the flow looks. Any mocking gestures, such as snickering during an opponent's speech, talking loud when you're not supposed to be, or acting in a way that disrupts the debate, I will give you an auto 25 in speaks.

Last but definitely not least, please follow evidence ethics, if your cards are badly cut, taken WAYYY out of context or sounds too good to be true, I won't evaluate your arguments.

Be kind, have fun, and avoid rude commentary (Especially during crossfire)

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Happy debating!

My paradigm is not very strict.

This is because this is your event as a student. You are convincing me of your case and freedom with how you do that is helping you think more critically. This is supposed to be fun and competitive so have fun! So don't be afraid of arguments that aren't normal. I am much more likely to vote for someone who thinks outside the box than someone who has the same case as everyone else.

That said if you take too much ground in a debate and the opponent points out an unfair framework that heavily has an impact on my decision.

I am a first year student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign studying Political Science. I participated in PF at Sandburg for 3 years where I was a captain and semifinalist my senior year.

I'm a flow judge. That being said, if you think an argument is important or should be weighed more than your opponents, mention it in every speech. Arguments dropped in summary carry no weight for me even if they're brought up in final focus.

Please give me clear voter issues in summary as well as clash.

I really want to see comparative weighing. Tell me why you outweigh or why your argument should carry more weight than your opponents. Analysis is everything.

If you want to run crazy arguments go for it. But, I'm more likely to buy the defense to the argument if your argument isn't warranted clearly.

In rounds I don't flow cross, but don't be rude or arrogant to each other. It's not cool and I will deduct speaks.

Don't ask for cards before second constructive, I will deduct your speaks by a lot. It isn't fair to your opponents.

Relax and try to have some fun, good luck:)

I have a background in debate, having competed at the high school level in both policy and Lincoln Douglas debate —more Lincoln Douglas (including at state and national tournament levels).  I also competed in speech events including extemp, original oratory & storytelling.

While I am newer to Public Policy, I have been judging the event for the past two years. I would say I am a purist to the idea that the debate should be directed to the well-informed citizen. So, I can follow speed/spread to a point, but I don’t enjoy it and I would strongly prefer the debaters concentrate on clear communication, solid analysis and reasoning - skills that will serve them well beyond debate!  I particularly look for strong speaking skills and clash in the debate. 

I have been a debate judge for approximately 7-8 years, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior is a big no-no for me.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

Adapted from Daniel Oestericher’s Paradigm! Fav paradigm I’ve ever read big ups :)

TLDR: Pretty traditional flow judge. I would say do normal things, and you're good. I don't flow or care about CX at all; I won't listen to it unless I hear something crazy going on. I like structure and chronology. Also, EV ethics are HUGE. Don't be surprised if I call for a lot of cards. Please have them cut and ready. This is the only place I will ever intervene. I believe the judge's responsibility is to proof ev ethics, not just opp.

For IDC 2023:

Y’all are novices, and it’s your first time at State! I know y’all are probably a little nervous and that’s A-O-K.

I'll probably call for your cases before the round to check the evidence so as not to waste time and keep the tournament going. Send to adithya679@gmail.com after the flip.

I will give comprehensive verbal feedback at the end of the round. If you don’t want it, please let me know before the round starts. I would encourage you to ask questions at the end of the round. The feedback will hopefully help in future rounds.

IF YOU DON'T EXTEND YOUR RESPONSES AND OFFENSE TO FINAL FOCUS, I WILL DECIDE THE WINNER BASED ON THE "BETTER REBBUTAL."

I'll probably call for your cases before the round to check the evidence. Send to adithya679@gmail.com after the flip.

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

If you want more specifics

I don't think that the first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think the second rebuttal has the burden of frontline your own case. Personally, I probably do think it's strategic to do so, but it is totally up to you.

I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but it also relates to the types of arguments you make. I generally have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments. I would be very receptive to teams that use probability to evaluate the round.

On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the true value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round.

I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision into a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump.

Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but I had very little experience with them, truthfully. While I understand that is what the tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me.

Speaker points: I start at a 28 and adjust from there. It’s super subjective. I love aggressive exciting debates you would need to do something ist/ic to lose speaks.

Other things:

Speed: As fast as you want, I’ll clear you if I get lost.

Weighing: High Prob Low Mag + Warranting>>> Low Prob High Mag. Every day of the week. It’s my default if you don’t give me anything else.

hey guys,

I’m a current junior at Adlai E. Stevenson High School- this is my third year debating public forum.

novices:

• you should all be so proud of yourselves for being here. i know this can be pretty intimidating, but i promise at the end of the year you’ll be so glad you did this. debating public forum has so much to teach you, and if there’s anything i can do to make the learning process easier for you, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

• speeches:

• any arguments you want me to vote on should be extended throughout ff.

• make sure that throughout round, you’re flowing all your opponents speeches, and engaging in the round- in other words, don’t just repeat what your constructive when defending your contentions- we have that info already. instead, tell me why your arguments still hold true against your opponents responses to them.

• your summary and final focus should not just be a second and third rebuttal. here, you should be summarizing the most important parts of round, explaining to me why they’re the most important, and explaining to me why you win (weighing !!)

• on that note, make sure your weighing is comparative. don’t just tell me you won on magnitude because you affect x people- instead, tell me you win on magnitude because you affect x people over your opponents’ y people.

• please give me offtime roadmaps and signpost !! for signposting, say things like, “starting on their x contention,” “moving onto their response to our y contention,” etc. this makes it so much easier for me to flow your speech which only benefits you because i know what arguments you’ve extended, so i know what to vote on.

• i’ll listen to cross, but i don’t flow it. anything you want me to know should be said in your speeches.

  speaking/general guidelines:

  • treating your opponents + partner with respect throughout round is an expectation. any eye rolling, snickering, muttering curse words under your breath, etc, will not be tolerated, and neither will any racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, etc- this results in an automatic 0 speaker points. your opponents do not need to call you out for me to do this. i promise i’ll notice.

  • talking fast is fine as long as it doesn’t impede the clarity of your speeches.

  • i time both your speeches and your prep, so don’t try anything funny

  
  
  

  at the end of the day, public forum debate was created to increase accessibility and understanding of different issues in our world. this may be a competition, but more so, it’s for you all to learn and grow with the different skills that public forum provides, so if a round, or a tournament isn’t going your way, just keep that in mind. you’re all here to learn and have fun, not just win. if there’s anything i can do to help you throughout round, let me know. good luck!

I debated PF in high school, first and second speaker. I have experience with nat circuit and local Illinois debate.

I mostly go off of the flow, so please please please signpost. Don't drop cards and then just say card names when extending. PLEASE weigh in your speeches, it makes all the difference in who I say wins the round. Rebuilding/Frontlining needs to be done. If you are going second, you need to be rebuilding in rebuttal. I will not flow your rebuilding if you do it second summary. Tech over truth. I am not a big fan of spreading. I will (and often do) vote off of a turn. They are offense and should be treated as such.

extending down the flow>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>voter's issues