My debate experience includes policy and PFD about 8-10 years ago. I like a very structured debate to allow for easy analysis at the end. Below are my recommendations:

1. Have a framework and continue to extend your framework when the other team presents a counter-framework. I will be judging the debate based on the framework provided in the round.
2. Along the same lines, present definitions and counter-definitions for any contentious language. If two definitions are presented I will most likely side with the broader definition given that it is not abusive. These are short speeches so limit the arguments in this regard.
3. This is more of a preference, but I would like roadmaps to be presented in a contention order rather than "our case their case" especially if there is some overlap in the cases. Either way is fine though if you are used to doing it a certain way.
4. Do an impact calculus (or give me some other reason to vote for you) if that is why you think you deserve to win the round. i.e "Our framework states that number of lives saved is the most important factor in this debate. Our two contentions save up to 10,000 lives and their contentions save none". This makes judging very easy.
5. Lastly, debate is largely about analytical thinking in addition to preparation. Put something on the flow for framework and each contention even if it is purely analytical. Some arguments are just bad, so point that out.

Good luck to everyone competing

Hello debaters. My name is Liam Carnahan. I debated for Central Catholic High School all 4 years and am the 2021 and 2022 extemp debate champ. My preferences for debate:

1. Please give me off time road maps before your speech
2. please sign post as you go in your speech
3. if you want an argument flowed through the whole round to be evaluated, make sure it is extended in every speech
4. Im fine with speed relative to PF, but please no crazy spreading and make sure your opponent is comfortable with it if you go a little faster
5. treat your opponent with respect, we’ve all dealt with obnoxious opponents and it’s sucks

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Public Forum:

I am a parent judge; keep that in mind while debating. Here are some things to keep in mind about my judging:

-I take notes/Flow but I am not going to get every single thing down so make sure you restate the important things in other speeches if it is important.

-I will not take notes or count anything that I cannot understand so do not speak too fast.

-To do well when I judge, emphasize the points that matter most.

-Although I am a parent I judge, I know the rules so do not try to make a new point in FF.

-Don't be too aggressive in cross, I like a spirited debate but there's a fine line between being rude and a good debate.

-I do not judge thinking the topic is black and white, meaning that trying to prove to me that your side is the only way to win will not work. You must be able to show me how your side is better than their side while still recognizing that your side is not perfect.

-LAST AND MOST IMPORTANT: I AM A TRADITIONAL JUDGE.

Email chain, please! jkk34@pitt.edu

he/him

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '21 (currently coaching)

If I am judging you in debate, please keep in mind that I am not trained in any style of debate. Please go slow, please warrant your arguments, and please refrain from using jargon.

I am a traditional judge. Make sure to explain everything very clearly, and I will have a hard time voting if all I get is just evidence and 0 warranting (logical explanation of the evidence).

Email for chain: benjaminlannis@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him/his

I'm a past LD/policy debater who hasn't debated in a few years. I remember the basics and generally like spreading but I can't handle too much speed. Please don't expect me to remember what presumption is.

The first priority is making debate a fun, inclusive, educational space. I have no tolerance for debaters being disrespectful to their opponent or aggressive questions after the round (from debaters or coaches).

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

I did PF for three years for Central Catholic.

I flow and should be able to follow everything. In round I won't vote off of cross ex, though if you do well in cross do include it in your speeches. Essentially if you mention something only in cross-ex I'm not going to flow it through unless you extend on it.

Also on impact weighing on numbers like X lives saved if you vote isn't a way to win. You don't need an exact number to prove your impact has magnitude, and a number alone does not do that. If you're using numbers, explain them don't just say them.

Lastly don't make new arguments in Final Focus for PF. I will not consider them as it's the last speech and is unfair to both sides as they can't respond. Additionally it's really hard to flush out an argument well enough to vote off of in just Final Focus.

Other than that just be respectful. Let each other talk in cross, it's not fun for anyone in the debate when everyone is yelling over each other.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Background: I'm a senior in college and I attended McDowell in Erie, PA. I did a lot of events but some of them were extemp, info, DI, OO, and BQ.

Pf:

What I want to see: I am a math & cs major. I like quantitative arguments that can have impacts. I have been out of the speech and debate world for a little bit so please give some background to the topic but you can mainly go right into the args. Weigh impacts + tell me how i should judge the round. I am also good at understanding speed but don't spread cause it's pf. Also if you think it's a good theory argument then i guess use it but its also pf. I will flow the round and probably judge based on that.

Please be nice :)I will not tolerate hate or intolerance of any type. I will tank speaks if you are mean.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before or after the round, but if you try to argue with me after round I won't like that and probably give you poor speaks :)

Here's my email for the doc chain evelyn.moore2002@gmail.com

My name is Sini Parayil. I have completed my Bachelors in Computer Engineering and Masters in Business Management. I am a traditional judge. I started judging from last year for debate and extempore speeches. I try to research on the topics before I start the judging and do take notes during the event. So, I expect a speech to be in moderte speed. I award points based on the content of your speech.

My name is Joe Rogers and was an Extemporaneous speaker at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I have judged PF and LD for 10 years. As a judge, I am looking for consistent arguments that carry throughout the debate, a central theme, appropriate clash, and civil discourse.

Your arguments should be clear and concise, and you should address your opponent's points as well.

I am a parent judge; keep that in mind while debating. Here are some things to keep in mind about my judging:

-I take notes (flow), but I am not going to get every single thing down so make sure you restate the important things in other speeches if it is important.

-I will not take notes or count anything that I cannot understand so do not speak too fast.

-To do well when I judge, emphasize the points that matter most.

-Although I am a parent I judge, I know the rules so do not try to make a new point in FF.

-I do not judge thinking the topic is black and white, meaning that trying to prove to me that your side is the only way to win will not work. You must be able to show me how your side is better than their side while still recognizing that your side is not perfect.

-LAST AND MOST IMPORTANT: I AM A TRADITIONAL JUDGE.

I participated in PF, Policy, and Extemp throughout high school and also did a couple tournaments in parli, congress, and impromptu. I've also judged LD, PF, and policy events, so I could be described as either a journeyman or well-rounded, whatever you prefer. As of now (1/2025), I rarely judge, but I can certainly follow arguments and a flow sheet is my best friend.

My main thing with debate arguments, as you'll see below, is that I will listen to almost anything, but you need to do the work on it for me - show the links, the impacts, the solvency (if applicable), and most importantly, why I should vote on it. The last thing I want at the end of the round is to have to decide a round based on incomplete arguments that create a wash on the flow. Don't make me decide what is most important on the flow for you.

More specifics for debate events (will update as I'm asked to judge different events):

Policy Debate

While I competed in policy several years ago, I have not judged in policy recently nor have I kept up with the latest arguments and trends in policy.

That being said, feel free to run anything - I won't hold any of my preferences or experiences with certain arguments against you. As stated above, whatever you run, run it well and frame it for me. What makes it a voting issue and why should I vote on it?

Ks / Critical affs: I don't have a lot of experience with critical stuff but can get behind a good K. In this case you should both clearly explain the arguments AND link it to the resolution or case debate - I'm more likely to buy it when you do the work on these flows. If I don't understand it, then I won't be voting on it.

Stock issues and case debate: I love myself a good case debate and think that a solvency debate is very important for accessing impacts at the end of the round, but this comes with limits. For example, I really don't want to have to vote on T or inherency arguments so neg, please try to complement those flows with some offense flows.

DAs/off-case: Again, given that I haven't been judging this topic this year, do the work on specific DAs and clearly link these issues to the case debate.

Speed: Haven't judged fast rounds much, so if anything, be clear and especially keep your tags clear. I would rather you be clear and have quality over quantity, especially in the rebuttals.

CX: Probably won't flow this, but anything in CX is liable to be put in future speeches that I will indeed flow. Corollary to that is that the teams should reference anything in CX they want to be remembered in the round.

Miscellaneous: If opponents drop an argument, I WILL NOT automatically extend it - the teams must tell me to extend it and why it matters. I don't want to have to do the work at the end of the round. You are also responsible for telling me when to start and stop prep time.

Public Forum

I know that speed is more prevalent now than it was when I debated, so make sure you're speaking clearly. If anything, emphasize your evidence tags so I get them on my flow. I'll listen to almost any argument, as long as you do the work for me to see why it's a voter at the end of the round.

Crossfire: I won't flow it, but I may write down notable exchanges. That being said, whatever is in the crossfires doesn't stand alone, so if there's something important in there you NEED to mention that in the next speech. Two big things:

- Do not interrupt your partner or your opponents.

- You MUST be asking questions. Do NOT use this as an opportunity to extend your own arguments. I won't drop you for it, but I will be annoyed, and your speaks may reflect that.

Final Focus: No new arguments in the Final Focus speeches - I won't flow them. If it's something egregious in the Grand Crossfire then sure, bring it up, but this should be rare. If you're not doing the work for me in the FF and stating voting issues, impacts, and why you're winning them, then you likely won't get my vote. The last thing you want is for me to disregard an issue that you find important, or vice versa.

Miscellaneous: Don't abuse prep time, and you are responsible for telling me when to start and stop prep. Also, you must actively point out and extend a dropped argument - I won't do anything with that argument unless you tell me to extend it across the flow.

If you have any other questions, just let me know and I'll try to answer them as best I can. After the round, feel free to email me at wizworld97@gmail.com and I'll try to give you some helpful answers or feedback! Overall, this is meant to be fun and educational so bring that spirit into the round. Good luck!

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

I am a sixth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater.

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed.

For LD circuit debate - We don’t see progressive LD debate in Pittsburgh, so it’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. ABOVE ALL BE NICE! Good luck and have fun!