I’m a current senior in high school and have been debating PF all four years.

I prefer voters as it helps me establish the biggest points of clash, but at the end of the day do what’s most comfortable for you.

Weighing is so important when I’m making my decision as it gives me the cleanest place to vote. The more you tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponents’, the less thinking I have to put into my decision (write my ballot for me).

I don’t flow cross but I will listen in at times. If there are any important points made within that time, clarify them during the next speech so I can flow them through.

Keep things interesting ! I enjoy banter (respectfully)/interesting taglines. It helps energize the round and keeps things entertaining.

Speed’s not an issue unless it’s 1.) resulting in you stumbling often or 2.) obvious you’re speaking with intent to confuse your opponents. I’ll usually just stop flowing if I feel I can’t understand you.

I’ll always keep track of time for you, but make sure you are keeping count as well in case I screw up or for some reason forget to start my clock.

+.5 speakers if you can guess my favorite band

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

Special Note For January Topic - Repeal Section 230:

In my opinion, this debate has two parts to it:

1. What is the proper interpretation of Section 230.
2. Given the above interpretation, what is the best course of action to take regarding its future and why.

Successful arguments will address both parts.

Good luck!

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 have worked with debate teams for sixteen years and enjoy a healthy argument. 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 and belviderenorthpf@gmail.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 without 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'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

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.

I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years. typical flow judge, assume im lay on the topic.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- do email chain or speechdrop. send cases and docs

-- ~250 wpm max (w docs!!) but pls slow down in back half or i will 100% miss smth. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

-- metaweighing is kind of a cheat code ngl (do it)

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run prog at ur own risk. i havent judged prog much and what i have judged has (generally) been very mid. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like 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.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

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 really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

My paradigms are mostly respect, impact and weighing. I'm big on values and value criterion, explain to me how they connect to your case and how they outweigh the opponents. Please speak clearly about your case and tell me why you should win the debate overall. But overall just be passionate and have fun.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- 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
- 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. pen time on overviews 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
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. 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.

**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.

**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. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. 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 ingenuity.

**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.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. 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. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. 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
- udl
- 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. Comparative weighing should be both on the link Ievel and on the impact level.

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.

My overall philosophy is to be kind, have fun, and avoid rude commentary (Especially during crossfire) I know that's corny, but if we're spending our Saturdays here together, we should be making friends and enjoying ourselves. Below are some other features that I tend to value in a round because I heard y'all wanted a bigger paradigm. Here we go $$$

Fairness, Clarity, and Case Development: All arguments must be structured logically from A-->B. Every argument should be weighed on its merits and building strawman arguments is mad annoying and will not be considered. High value is placed on the use of credible evidence and sound reasoning. Arguments should primarily be supported by facts and studies that have been developed within the realm of relevance. Unless used as a historical example, a card should be published no later than seven years ago (2017)

More on Cases: Arguments should have direct links. Overextending an idea to meet the needs of your case will damage your argument and your ballot overall. This creates a slippery slope and will most likely not flow through. This feels similar to what I said above, but I'm going to keep it there anyway.

Impact Analysis: Try to place an emphasis on the significance and implications of arguments. Scope is most important to me as a judge.

I don’t need solvency, I just need you to show me how your argument does LESS harm.

Preciate it, GOATS!

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. 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. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. 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. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! 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 I believe the freedom in how you do that is helping you think more critically. This is supposed to be fun, 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 - (including at state and national tournament levels). I also competed in speech events including extemp, original oratory & storytelling.

I have been judging Public Forum for the past three 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 analysis, strong speaking skills, and development of clash in the debate.

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, 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".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

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.

Director @ NDC

Director @ debate.land

did circuit debate a little while back

theory, T, and framing are fine (boring tbh) but I'm quite unfamiliar with k lit, run at your own risk

normal PF nat circuit speed, and I start at a 28 and move from there

default prob>mag, weigh to win

I won't vote on IVIs and default no RVIs

Also, talking to your partner during their speech or cross is an auto 25.

For TOC: add adithya679@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org to the chain, please!

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