Though I am not a lay judge, I believe Public Forum debate should be accessible to lay judges. So don't go too fast. And make sure impacts are realistic; it doesn't take much for me to buy an argument that breaks a multi-step link chain. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters. So make sure you represent your evidence accurately; I will drop teams that misrepresent evidence, and I'm willing to ask that they be disqualified too.

Not new to PF debate but appreciate debaters who are deliberate in telling me what contention is being addressed throughout the round. I believe PF should be accessible for anyone to judge, so don't go too fast. Make sure impacts are realistic, and weighed. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters and evidence should be used to support your cases and statements. More the better.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Speed: I don't like speed. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused. Either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

You should stand when speaking. It is not something that will impact your perception or speaker points, but research shows that you speak better when you stand up. Since this is a speaking activity, you should want to maximize your ability to speak well.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach and study poli sci and IR. I'm a very average flow judge.

read a content warning if you are graphically depicting something intense

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. :/

add me to the email chain morgandylan183@gmail.com

I look to framework, then weighing to see where to start. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do that though! . If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact wins. I default to probability, then scope. Strong defense is important to me.

Flip and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to the room

Don't shake my hand, plz pre flow before the round, -.5 speaks if you don't do either of these :)

Speed: I can keep up but I don't really want to. Spreading/reading 4 contentions is a straight-up annoying strategy, don't rely on lame stuff to get a leg up on your opponents. Make accommodations if your opponents ask you to, this includes not going fast.

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no. (note: cards can be abused, if your opponents string together words and phrases to make a new argument, that is a legitimate reason for me to strike it from the flow)

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards butproperly explain each argument, I will not get blippy responses on my flow, and I shouldn't have to. Explain your arguments.

I'll dock speaks if you prep steal

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides weighing (that's not new in 2nd ff)

I don't like disads, read turns.

I love logical warranting and smart analytics. I love good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff and making up good arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

I love when you make things on the flow interact with each other, so comparative weighing, conceding a delink to get out of turns, their nonunique on our case takes out a different argument they make, etc.

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Progressive Args

I'll listen to and vote off anything but ngl I prefer substance debates. Slow down, I have a hard time properly flowing and evaluating these less familiar args. I require sending speech docs for these.I actively discourage running these args just to win, I’m not a hack. :,(

If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory, but prob not the way you'd like me to.. I'm kind of familiar with K's but tbh I’m biased towards substance. Those are the rounds I want to judge, unless one teams being horrible.

Pronouns: she / her

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, and grandstanding (my def = talking just to talk / pontificate).

Background: I have been teaching for 24 years in Iowa and Texas, and I am a debate coach. I also have legal assistant training; this, too, informs my perspective as a judge.

While I am relatively new to NSDA, don’t underestimate me; I teach speech, argumentation, and persuasion daily – same concepts, different venue.

I’m here because I prize lifelong learning, and I find these experiences are fun, rewarding, and add insight into my classroom teaching. I hope you, too, find these experiences fun and rewarding and that you learn and improve from each interaction… even if you don't win your round. :)

What I look for in a round:

I view my role in the round mainly as a trained observer and judge as teams do their work; I prefer teams to time themselves (and report the time) and I will rarely interrupt, direct, or ask for a card. However, I will note called cards and how they are subsequently used. If cards aren’t called or if points are left unchallenged, my assumption is your team agrees to their use – barring fundamentally untrue things ("racism good"). Note also that teams should extend the card’s argument and not just shorthand the author’s name.

Teams should independently, explicitly, at the beginning, address and agree upon how the round should be weighed; if not, my assumption is cost-benefit analysis.

I like roadmaps and prefer clear signposting throughout the round as these features allow all parties to be on the same page.

I can follow moderate speed – especially if it’s because you truly have a lot of strong links and evidence to present -- but if you go so fast that I miss your point, that’s on you. Same if you’re spreading or spending a lot of time talking but not actually saying anything, such as entire rounds spent on agreeing on definitions or other minutia.

Additionally, jargon doesn’t impress me; I spend my days breaking down jargon and complex topics for students, so I expect you to practice this real-world skill as well. Seeing your ability to adapt, contextualize, and show mastery without needing to resort to jargon is key for me.

During cross, ask questions to which you legitimately want answers and don't steamroll your opponents by interjecting so they can’t respond.

In your final focus, I prefer the focus to be on your case -- what are the main voters in the round and why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, why you should win, etc. – instead of your opponent’s case.

PF - I have been judging PF for around 7 years now. I am a judge that listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution.

Congress - I am looking for you to know the Robert's Rules of Order as well as seeing you participating in the debate by asking questions. In terms of your speech, I would like to hear a clear structure for your speeches. I want to hear the impacts of your points and I want you to be very familiar with your speeches as well. Make sure to bring up new arguments when a bill has been debated for awhile.

LD - I do not have much experience judging LD currently. Please focus on argumentation and impacts rather than the jargon that goes along with LD. Tricks, theory, etc. will not work with me. Also, speed is discouraged during your speeches. Please make sure I can follow your supporting evidence and arguments. I am familiar with PF and judging PF.