Paradigm update for TOC 2024:

Very short version: Traditional-leaning debate coach

Short version: I am a debate coach, with 10+ years experience judging PF – mostly in my local area (DC), less on the national circuit. I try to keep a good flow, though some of the speed on the national circuit gets excessive. My background is in economics. Not a fan of K’s.

Doing prefs? I would be a bad person to pref if you are running K’s, know yourself to be faster than average NatCirc speed, or generally tend to the more “progressive” debate end of the spectrum. I am a good person to pref if you have a more “traditional” style, stick to resolution, and have clear impacts.

Speed: I’ll be honest, I don’t like speed. PF was designed to be accessible to a lay audience. While I am fine with debate occurring at a faster than conversational pace, and can handle a moderate amount of speed, debaters on the National Circuit often far exceed this. Keep in mind that the fastest speed at which you can talk and I can reliably understand you is still probably higher than the optimal speed for me to get everything onto to the flow - if you want judges to vote off the flow, you need to speak at a speed optimized for someone writing, not just listening.

Email chain, Speech docs, and Evidence: I believe that PF Debate is a spoken activity, and that debaters should not rely on speech docs to compensate for speed or lack of clarity in their presentation. So don’t add me to the email chain or send me your speech doc. If you want me to flow something, make sure it comes across clearly in your verbal presentation. If a piece of evidence is in dispute, I will ask for it after the round – you can also tell me to call for a card.

K’s/Theory: I am not a good judge to run k’s in front of. I will do my best to follow along and keep an open mind, but I fundamentally expect to see a debate about the resolution, and am very sympathetic to topicality and preparedness arguments against straying too far from that.

Other matters: I really, really appreciate clear signposting, especially with numbers and letters, not just tags. This applies not only to the constructive, but (especially) in your rebuttals as well - make it as clear as possible where to flow your arguments, so I can spend less time searching for where something fits in, and more time writing/listening. I am, in many ways, a utilitarian at heart, and appreciate clearly quantified impacts, though I’m happy to vote on whatever framework was carried through the round. I’m not a fan of all the extremely-implausible link-chains that makes every debate end in human extinction, but I recognize the incentive gradients that get us there, and acknowledge structural aspects of PF (especially time) can make it difficult to fight. Crossfire is important, and I listen to cross (and I can't believe I have to say that), but don't flow it - so get key concessions from cross into a subsequent speech if you need it on the flow. I love off-time road maps. I am happy to provide feedback and disclose as long as the tournament permits it.

Background: I am a debate coach at BASIS Independent McLean with a background in PF, LD, and Extemp. I competed in LD and Extemp in high school (Downers Grove South, IL), a tiny bit of Parliamentary (APDA) in college (Georgetown University, DC), and have coached middle and high school PF, speech, and parli at BASIS DC (Washington, DC, 2012-2016) and BASIS Independent McLean (McLean, VA, 2016-present). I have a degree in economics and am an economics teacher by day. For the past several years, I have spent most tournaments in the tabroom rather than judging per se, but as a PF coach, you can usually expect that I will have a reasonable degree of background knowledge on the topic.

Experienced coach and judge for 24 years in PF, LD, Congress, and PD. Traditional approach - I flow and can keep track as long as speed is clear. Weighing at the end of the round is important - especially in close rounds. Open to unique arguments as long as they are clearly developed and supported with evidence/analysis.

I am a Colonel in the US Army with a deep knowledge on the subject of warfare as I also teach military strategy at Georgetown. I work in cybersecurity and know a substantive amount about AI. Please, do not spread and speak clearly. Off-time roadmaps are unnecessary. I am a parent judge who truly enjoys a respectful Grand Cross EX.

I have been judging debate tournaments for five years now, mostly Parliamentary or Public Forum. I have never judged Lincoln-Douglas before, so while I am experienced in following and flowing the different arguments in a debate, I will probably not recognize LD-specific terminology.

As I develop more experience with high school debating, I will add content here as appropriate.

• Don't spread! This is PF, not policy or LD, and therefore designed to be comprehensible to the lay judge. In other words, there is no room here for incomprehensibly spitting out words.
• I expect debaters to provide clear warrants and rebuttals. Complete the thought, finish your own arguments, and don't assume that I'll fill in the blanks for you. I also expect debaters to live in the world of reality re impacts - if you are claiming impacts in the billions, you should think carefully about that.
• All reasoning and no evidence is not a winning approach.
• I don't think you should bother with framework unless it is actually woven into your argument in a meaningful way.
• I expect you to use the crossfires to provide clash, not gather merely information. You are not obligated to trade questions back and forth nor should you necessarily accept an opponent's answer without follow-up.
• I'm looking for structure and strongly encourage sign posting.
• I've been coaching and judging for nearly a decade; don't worry - I know the rules.

• Parent Judge, your job is to convince ME why you have won, think as if you're presenting to a person who has no idea about the topic
• Don't speak too fast. Spreading or reading too fast will cost you, might not catch arguments on the flow
• Eye contacts and body languages are also important

Voting Issues

• Direct clashes between arguments
• Weighing the two arguments

I cannot stress this enough, but please speak slowly and make sure to reiterate your points.

Most of all, respect your opponents and have fun!

As a judge, I evaluate debaters based on the following qualities:

1. Present well organized speeches so that audience can follow the arguments;
2. Respond to opponents’ questions or attacks and have strategies to effectively defense his/her own arguments;
3. Utilize evidence effectively;
4. Respect your opponent.

My name is Kalyani Maguluri and I am a debate mom with a few tournaments experience. Please speak slowly and concisely and I would prefer you off-time road map to give me a better picture of your case. I will take notes on your case and judge you based on speaking and how you get your points across. I will keep time as well so make sure not to go over time, as this will lose you speaker points. In addition, crossfires should only be used for questions and answers not an addition to your case. Lastly, your summary and final focus is your last chance to convince me of your case so please give importance to these as well. Thank you for participating!

I go with few simple rules:

1. Respect your opponent
2. Don't speed up too much, that makes it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to convey
3. I give more importance to rebuttal than the prepared speech, primarily because that brings out your true understanding of the topic
4. Clear framework is very important, it makes it easy for me and I think for the opportunity as well

Introduction:
I have two years of judging experience. My background lies in engineering and information technology, specifically focusing on data and analytics. I am committed to fostering a constructive and educational debate environment.

Philosophy:
I value clear communication, effective argumentation, and strategic thinking. While competition is inherent in debate, I encourage respectful discourse and aim to contribute to the educational experience for all participants.

Given my background, I appreciate applications of logical reasoning, data-driven arguments, and analytical thinking. Consider incorporating these elements into your case to strengthen your position.

Flowing:
I will be actively flowing the debate, taking detailed notes on well-organized and signposted speeches. Please ensure you extend and weigh arguments throughout the round.

Clash:
Effective clash is crucial. Engage with your opponent's arguments, refute and build a narrative that supports your side. Skillful crossfire is key in demonstrating understanding of your opponent's case.

Speaker Points:
I will consider clarity, argumentation, crossfire performance, and overall presentation in assigning speaker points. Professionalism and respectful communication are valued.

Conclusion:
The primary goal is to engage in a thoughtful exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams, and I look forward to an insightful and challenging debate.

Hello! My name is Jalyn. I was a PF debater for most of my high school years, and became a judge for PF once I graduated. This is my second year judging. I'm still familiar with the structure and expectations for debate as a judge and as a previous competitor. In terms of speaking style, I prefer for you to not speak too fast to the point it's incomprehensible for me or your opponents. Speak clearly and always be respectful. I judge based on a wide variety of things within your arguments. I do evaluate crossfire alongside all areas of the round when judging.Establishing your framework is not necessary. Again I'm evaluating your arguments, analytical skills, evidence, structure, logic, and rhetoric. Finally, be kind, and follow the rules. Best of luck!

Make sure your audio setting are properly setup. I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate and that a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand arguments in the past. Speak clearly taking into account that we are all remote.

This is my second year. Last year I did in person for two public forum debate tournaments. I prefer to take notes so I might take few minutes after a debater speaks so that I can prepare my notes. I don't like debater talking over each other at the same time I don't like if a debater don't give chance for the opponent to talk during the crossfire rounds. My previous debate rounds: when you allow others to finish their thoughts. Don't like it to be screaming contest. I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.