March 2023 Potomac Intramural
2023 — Online, MD/US
Public Forum Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
No "spreading" please, speak slowly (especially on zoom debate). I won't call for evidence unless in question, be respectful and weigh impacts!
I will judge you on the strength of your arguments, delivery style & quality of your evidences. Be clear, concise and fact based. Debate aesthetics is important, respect for opponents is paramount. Be fair and expect fairness.
I am a first time lay judge. I will try to take notes as much as I can, so please don’t speak fast.
Engineering grad and IT practitioner; have been judging debate since 2018. I did PF all through high school in Virginia.
1. I'm fine with speed; just speak clearly.
2a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.
2b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.
3. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whatever works.
I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about.
0. Cut your cards in advance and be on the ball with finding and sharing them. If you can't find your card promptly we'll assume it doesn't exist and move on.
1. Please indict bad cards. Misleading claims, baseless speculation, "studies" that don't exist, that sort of junk: if you convince me it's bad, I'll strike it gleefully from my flow.
2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.
3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.
Traditionally, I will vote for you if you convince me that your side has the most positive impact on the value-criterion for the value that I buy into in-round.
I am open to the possibility that you can run a K or (much less likely) T and I will like it and vote for it. Both my exposure and my receptiveness to them have been limited in practice. Generally, if you are accusing your opponent of abuse and asking me to sign my ballot on it, the abuse needs to be egregious, not just irritating.
My name is Venkat. I would love arguments based on facts and statistics.
I am a parent judge and new to this tournament. I am a college professor and I primarily teach Business courses at my college. I think as a successful debater, I value your arguments more if they can offer stronger evidence and potentially larger impacts on the community. Please speak clearly and don’t rush to speak and talk too quickly. I also emphasize professional manners and being respectful to everyone when competing.
I am a parent judge with no debate experience. A few rules/guidelines you should pay attention to:
1: Don't dominate during CX. If one team is completely preventing the other side from talking, their speaker points will be reduced. CX will not be flowed and will only be considered in the ballot if the argument is brought up by a speaker in a speech.
2: Don't use debate jargon. Debate jargon will fly over my head.
3: Don't speak too fast. If you go too fast, I will miss your point and it will not be considered on the ballot.
4: Be kind. Debate is a game. If you are rude, this will negatively impact your speaker points.
5: When a team asks for a card, give the card quickly. If card sharing takes too long, it will be counted as prep time.
6: Logic > Emotion. Probability > Scope.
7: If you have a percentage, give me a hard number. If someone was to argue that an increase in investment in high-speed rail would lead to a 20% increase in jobs, this could mean 5 jobs added or 100,000 jobs added.
8: Signpost. Signposting will allow me to flow the round and your arguments better.
9: No new information/cards/arguments are allowed past the second summary. Any new information will not be counted on the ballot.
10: You should extend your arguments during the summary. Any arguments that aren't extended will be considered dropped.
11: Weighing should be done in summary and final focus. This is the key to winning your debates.
12: I will time you. If you go way past (10-30 seconds) the end of your time, you will be cut off.
Background: Currently, a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for 4 years, NDT and CEDA octofinalist, and 2021 CEDA Top Speaker. Started by doing traditional policy args, moved to Kritical things, and ended as a performance debater with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). started debate in college as a novice and worked my way to Varsity so I do have a pretty good understanding of each division. Also, I'm a black woman if that wasn't obvious or you didn't know lol
I’m here for the petty and I stay for the petty I will vote on the petty but there is a difference between petty and mean I won't vote on mean it makes me very uncomfortable
Judging wise (general things)
How I view debate: Debate is first and foremost a game, but it’s full of real people and real consequences so we should keep that in mind as we play even though it’s a game that definitely has real-life implications for a lot of us.
Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate and yes they are about the debate so I would pay attention to it my face will often let you know when I vibing and when I’m confused
Speaker points: --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate ---- in the debate, it becomes a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.3, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award --- I try to be nice and fair here
Speed: Don’t risk clarity over speed I’m not straining my ear to make sense of mus
Dont go far when the debate is over I tend to know my decision when the debate ends
If you are gonna email questions later pls let me know so I can keep my flows I often throw them away I wanna be to help but its hard for me to answer your questions after the fact if I don't have my flows
Debated a lot of K's, read a lot of K’s as a debater I don’t know every K in existence but with a thorough explanation and well execution, I will probably be fine.
I have a larger threshold for the K because I expect you to explain the linked story and the alternative with warrants so don't assume that just because I know the theory means you don't have to put in the work for the ballot. Links should be contextualized to the aff - please don't restate your tags and author but pull lines from 1ac/2ac. I would also warn against just running a K because you think I'm only a K debater (it’s obvious and annoys me just do what you do best)
I like performative links, not personal attacks. With performative links, just make sure to give a warranted analysis as to why I should vote on it and what the impact is.
Love them is one of my favorite parts of the debate I enjoy the creativity of these!! I do prefer K aff's to be in the direction of the topic or make some attempt to include a discussion of the resolution, but if you are not, then at least give me a warranted explanation as to why you have chosen that route. Those that are on the topic of the resolution, have a clear impact and solvency story. Many times, debaters will get so caught up in the negative arguments that they lose sight of what is important...their aff! So, make sure to keep a storyline going throughout the entirety of the debate.
When you get into FWK/T debates, extend and explain your counter-interpretation. What is your model and why is it good? That plus impact turns = an easy ballot from me.
I think a lot of K teams assume reading your aff is good in debate is gonna do something very big on K aff’s having a reason on why their aff in the debate is good.
It's a strategy that is read against K aff's, it's a strategy tbh I enjoy and am more sympathetic to than most would think. My personal outlook - debate is a game but it has real impacts that can help or harm certain individuals. While it is a competitive strategy, I do not think it is an excuse to not engage the affirmative because most of the time, your lack of engagement is what the aff will use to link turn the performance of reading fwk.
PSA - fairness is not an impact... at best, it’s an internal link. Unless the aff has no justification for their aff, then you got a good chance of getting my ballot by reading fairness. I find it most compelling when you prove in round abuse.
I think a TVA is a must. No, it does not need to solve the entirety of the aff because that is neg ground, but it should be able to solve the main impacts they go for. Lastly, defend your model of debate and explain why it would be better for the debate community writ large. If you are only focusing on one round, then explain why that is better.
Lmao these are things that exist in debate too…
Das I would say make sure you have a clear and warranted link story and awesome impact calc.
And CP’s I’m open to all CPs kinda think of CPs in the context of having a net benefit and how does the CP solve the aff? It's also nice if your CP is competitive...
I think theory is procedural make sure you explain very clearly and slowly what the violation is and why that matters...if you are going to go for theory, I expect the 2n or 2a to spend a good amount of time on it which means not just 30 sec or 1 min.
Policy Affs v K:
Engage the K!Too many times policy teams just write over the K with their fwk thinking that is the only work they have to do but it's just like debating a DA or CP. Do the link work and the more specific answers you have to the alt, the better position you are in. Don't just say Perm DB or Perm aff then alt, but really explain what that means and looks like in the world of the aff. I think you do need fwk to get to weigh your aff but that is all the fwk will get you which means don't forget to extend your aff and the impact story. A really good way to engage the K is to prove how the plan not only outweighs but resolves the specific impacts.
How to get better speaker points with me
Be nice, be funny, be personable
Organized docs and speeches
Mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4
Ohhh and for the black folks ask for speaker points and ye shall receive lol I might not be able to always give you the ballot, but I can give you a 30
A 2NR/2AR with judge instruction is literally the freakin best thing ever
You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.
I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years.
My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a high-level phil round).
Debate however you want, I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention.
If you make the round easy for me to judge, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.
Critical literature I read in debate:
- Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
But I'm down with anything, even if it isn't listed above.
Email me if you have any questions!
I am keen on listening to what you have to say and will be judging you primarily, on the following parameters.
1) Structure- clear, concise, well researched presentation of key points that relate to the topic.
2) Eloquence - respectful, assertive, and argumentative in style.
3) Content - claim, reason, support and warrant
I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).
Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!
send the email chain to email@example.com
Hi, I'm Jonah (he/him). I regularly competed in both LD and policy at Advanced Technologies Academy and now attend Rutgers University. My guiding philosophy when judging is that I will evaluate any argument, as long as it is properly warranted and does not make the round unsafe for anyone involved.
These are the rounds I am the most comfortable judging. I like 1NCs that spend a good bit of time on case and really engage with the aff (rehighlightings, smart analytics, things like that). I think impact turns are cool too. I think impact weighing is extremely important, and robust disad turns case explanations make me happy. I enjoy hearing smart advantage CPs. Nebel T is boring but if you read it I think going for limits offense is much smarter than semantics.
I am probably the least comfortable judging these debates. I think policy vs. K debates can be cool, but they often feel overly confusing. I get really annoyed by super long 2NR overviews that don't make things any clearer. If I can understand what the K's thesis is, why the aff links, and why that's bad coming out of the debate - that's perfect. But I find that does not happen often. I have the most experience with cap, security, setcol, and queerpess, but anything beyond that might require more explanation than you're used to. For K affs, if I come out of the 2AR clearly understanding what your model of debate is and why that’s good, I will be very inclined to vote for you. Framework is probably the best strategy to go for in front of me, because K vs. K debates get very confusing quick.
I'm all for it. I only ask for two things: make sure that your arguments are warranted and that you do weighing!! I notice 1AR theory debates become super hard to resolve when standards aren't responded to or weighed. Also it would be great if you go just a bit slower than usual because I am bad at flowing. I recently found out that I think phil debate is pretty cool. Feel free to read any philosopher you are comfortable with as long as you can explain it. I guess I'm fine with whatever tricky arguments you want to read BUT the sillier these args get the lower speaks you will get.
I did a lot of traditional debate in high school am fine with judging it. I think that the value criterion is very important and should be very prevalent in every speech when it comes to weighing. Circuit competitors should be inclusive as possible to traditional debaters.
Adding this here because I occasionally judge this. Hopefully knowing that I have a policy background should be enough for you, but the two most important things to consider is that I evaluate rounds very technically and I won't listen to paraphrased evidence. Disclosure is also not really a norm yet in this event so I'm not very persuaded by related arguments.
Update for TOC Digital (12/2-12/4): I don't believe in sticky defense. Extend your arguments in every speech.
I used to have a somewhat in-depth system here but I realize I really don't follow it. I think most rounds I judge I give speaks from 28.5 to 29. If I think you collapsed well and liked your strategy you'll get 29-29.5. If you are a super duper awesome debater you'll get above that, but it's somewhat rare for me.
- Prep time ends when the doc is sent.
- I'll disclose speaks if you ask.
- I really really really don't like evaluating death good arguments.
- Misgendering is obviously very bad and if you do it repeatedly your speaks (and potentially my decision) will reflect that.
- It would be very cool if you slowed down on analytics, because I can't vote on something I didn't hear. This is compounded by my slightly below average flowing skills.
- If you couldn’t already tell, I lean tech over truth.
- If you are annoying in CX I will get annoyed.
- Accessibility is really important to me. Don’t bully novices and don’t be elitist toward traditional debaters.
- Accusations of clipping/violating ev ethics will stop the round. I think evidence is miscut if it is plagiarized, incorrectly cited (author/date), skips paragraphs, or starts or ends in the middle of a paragraph (where the skipped part of the text changes the meaning). I require a recording to verify clipping. If the accuser is correct, the other team loses with minimum speaks. If the accuser is wrong, they lose with minimum speaks.
I need content warnings for SA or self harm. Don't read arguments about these in front of me (I'd prefer not hearing wipeout or death good either).
Scroll to the bottom for LD/pref sheet stuff.
Hi! I'm Neel or NK (they/them). I debated circuit LD for a season and circuit PF for a little more. I read a bit of everything. I attend the University of Michigan (go blue) but don't debate for the school.
I'd like to be on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm of the belief that tech > truth, but making objectively untrue arguments is generally not strategic. I also disregard tech during instances of disrespect or hateful behavior. I don't tolerate bad behavior.
I'm admittedly not the best judge for tricks or dense phil debates - my lack of experience with the literature and my flowing skill tends to make me bad for these debates. Still happy to evaluate these arguments if you believe they might be strategic.
I read a bit of everything - I'm probably best for policy debates, but I almost exclusively read the kritik towards the end of my career and I started out as a bit of a theory bot. I generally like seeing debaters take risks and execute fringe strategies well.
Policy - 1
Better for CP theory than most other policy judges, but I think it makes for stale debates.
Better for low off debates with strong case pushes.
Evidence quality is very important and can decide debates (both through spin and ethics challenges).
Impact turns are cool but I don't evaluate wipeout or death good.
K - 1/2
I have a soft spot for unique K affs but I'm 50/50 on framework. Not picky on what route you decide to take (hard right fairness is just as viable as any other strategy)
I dislike overviews that "implicitly" answer everything - I strongly prefer hearing the LBL work after a short and sweet overview
Best for identity kritiks, good for the stock stuff, and bad for pomo.
I like unique presumption and tailored case arguments against K affs.
T/Theory - 2/3
I don't enjoy hearing Nebel debates but I'll still flow and evaluate arguments made on the T page.
Competing interps, no RVIS, drop the arg for theory. Drop the debater for T.
Great for cp theory, meh for frivolous shells. Big fan of disclosure. Not a big fan of other violations sourced out of round.
Not going to evaluate arguments that police appearance.
Tricks - 4/Strike
These confuse me - they're often read blippily and quickly, making me a very meh judge for these.
I evaluate debates after the 2AR and will not allow an evil demon to make me vote aff or neg.
Phil - 4/Strike
I think I haven't read enough or fostered a strong enough interest to want to listen to these debates.
I can understand Kant, and that's about it. Do with this what you will.
Relying on sticky defense is lazy debating. You need to extend arguments if you want me to evaluate them.
I have a preference for faster and more technical rounds, but I'm down to listen to anything.
I have a strong preference for reading cut cards and disclosing open-source. These can be reasons to reject the team.
New disads in the 2nd rebuttal are fine and can be strategic. Just make sure to do weighing on them.
I boost speaks for disclosure, reading cut cards, and sending speech docs.
Good for underutilized strategies (impact turns, circumvention, presumption, etc.)
Hi there! I'm Preeth!
TLDR - I'm a fairly "flay" judge. I enjoy more realistic arguments especially when presented at a manageable and easily flowable speed, though I obviously will do my best to follow you the faster you go.
I'm not super duper familiar with the topic, so I would suggest explaining acronyms and all that good stuff!
Tech > truth - but this does NOT mean make blatantly false arguments. You should always debate well and technically WHILE making arguments that could be true.
Keep in mind that I am not involved in debate professionally - this means you should go in between "parent" speed and "best coach ever" speed.
I'll do my best to average at around a 28.5 as far as speaker points go.
I appreciate when evidence exchanges are fast - I've found that speechdrop.net works best for me (shout out to my little brother for showing me that site).
I'll do my best to disclose and give some critiques for speaking and argumentation at the end of the debate - whether this is verbally or on the ballot depends on if I'm time-crunched or not.
Good luck to both teams, and thanks for letting me judge!
Good morning students,
Congratulations on taking the step of being here. Showing up and giving your best already makes you a winner. I will be judging using the following criteria:
MAGNITUDE – How does your argument impact society
CONDUCT – Politeness and kindness always.
CLARITY – I am looking for more quality than quantity. Pace your speech, be eloquent and persuasive.
SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE – Information must be properly backed up and you have to be ready to provide sources.
I wish you all the best today!
Name: Lalit Kumar
I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the public forum and how it works. As a parent of a public forum participant, I have seen many debates online. I have also researched the current topic in detail online.
I usually join a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.
Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.
Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.
Squirrelly contentions - If someone uses a squirrelly contention I would encourage them to have good defense/substance around it otherwise it will lead to deductions.
Strong/Stock contentions - I would give credit for a good stock contention even if your defense is found a bit lacking.
Theories and Ks - I am okay with these, but there needs to be details and substance around it, and you need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic. Otherwise, it will lead to deductions.
Speech Speed - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed; a clear enunciation is important to ensure the judge comprehends your contentions and rebuttals.
Time - Going overtime will lead to deductions. I would recommend timing yourself and your opponents. In case you notice your opponent is overtime, feel free to raise your zoom hand to highlight this.
Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations.
Weighing - I am a fan of weighing, but I would encourage effectively providing terms like magnitude, scope, impact analysis, etc.
Evidence - Also, I am a fan of evidence-based arguments. Logical arguments lacking evidence can lead to deductions.
Extending - Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the case to the rebuttal, rebuttal to the summary, and the summary to the final focus.
Collapsing - As part of the summary, I would encourage collapsing, but if you prefer defending each contention, then you should be careful that you do not dilute your speech.
My name is Ella and I am a high school varsity debater! My email is email@example.com (for email chains or if you have questions after the round)
- I am good with speed as long as you are clear.
- I will always prefer quality over quantity- so preferably have a few quality arguments (especially in rebuttal), over a lot of poor quality ones.
- Sign posting is always appreciated.
- Be respectful, especially cross. Interrupting should be in moderation and only should be used if one person is dominating cross.
- Time- overtime by a couple seconds is okay if you are just finishing asking a question, answering a question, or finishing a sentence. - However, any new information, arguments, or questions after time is up will not be flowed.
- I will disclose after the round and give feedback. Feel free to ask me questions both before and after the round!
- I am comfortable with most arguments, but if you run K's or theory make sure to explain it well and why I should vote for it.
- I don't flow CX, but I do listen to it, so if you want something from CX on the flow, mention it in the following speech.
- Please don't bring up new responses in second summary, unless you are addressing something said in cross.
- Evidence based arguments are always preferred and will be evaluated over logic ones, however make sure your evidence is warranted, otherwise it won't be evaluated. A stat is not an argument, tell me why that stat matters.
- Please please please- if it comes down to 2 contradicting points with evidence, I will evaluate based on who explains to me why I should vote for their evidence.
- Weighing!! Weighing must be in summary to be considered and I believe this is the most important part of the debate.
- Collapse in summary, please don't extend 3 arguments. Addressing certain turns or points is okay, but please don't extend the whole contention.
- I want to think as little as possible as a judge so just make sure you explain everything well!
I am a Statistician. I'll be looking for evidence-based and well-organized arguments that demonstrate the impact and likelihood of your points. I'll also be looking for direct responses to your opposing team's points.
My judging criteria is as follows:
1. Truth of claim :
The claim must be proven with strong reasons and evidence in constructive and in response to request for evidence from the opponents.
2. Impacting :
The claim once proven should be impacted. The importance of the argument is strongly reliant on your impacts. The greater the impact proven the more likely the importance of the argument increases.
3. Responses :
It is important to provide direct response to your opposing team’s points and attack your opposing team’s arguments. Prioritize the strongest arguments because time limitations do not allow you to fully address every single argument.
4. Weighing :
Most responses within debate rounds usually only mitigate the other teams arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of this is to understand the importance of weighing after giving your responses, it is because although mitigated some strong arguments are still left within the round that required to be weighed up. You can use different metrics to weigh your arguments such as which one affects more people, more urgent or occurs more often and many others to prove your arguments are more important.
5. Structure :
It is important to have an argument that flows from the beginning to the end of the argument. This is because it makes it easier to track the argument and reduces the likelihood that there is internal inconsistency within the arguments.
Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best!
- do whatever you want in the round
- i'll do my best to not intervene (i know how annoying it can be)
- i'll buy any argument as long as it's warranted
- be clear and fluent if you want high speaks (that being said, you can still be fast)
- please give me an off-time roadmap
- i'll give an rfd at the end of the round - feel free to disagree or ask questions
When judging a debate tournament, here are the thing I would like to see from the debaters...
- show good attitude
- show respect to others
- be able to deliver the case clearly
- be able to provide strong evidence to support the argument
- be able to show understanding of resolution, evidence, and impact.
Please speak convincingly, and weigh your arguments. I'm tech over truth.
Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.
My email: firstname.lastname@example.org
For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.
Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC
My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.
I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.
To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.
I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.
So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.
Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:
Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.
I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.
Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.
I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.
Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.
Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.
College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.
lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.
So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.
Worlds @ Coppell:
I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.
To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.
Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:
I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.
Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.
Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.
PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:
A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);
B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES
C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.
D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.
Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.
POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.
If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!
Flow Judge - Current PF debater, please collapse in back half and signpost.
My judging criteria is as follows:
1. Truth of claim :
The claim must be proven with strong reasons and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is in responding to responses of your proof of the claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team could attack a link in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response then the likelihood of truth of your argument becomes diminished. The result of this is that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which greatly reduces your chance to win the debate.
2. Impacting :
The claim once proven should be impacted. The importance of the argument is strongly reliant on your impacts. The greater the impact proven the more likely the importance of the argument increases. Ensure your impacts are reasonable within the debate and can be proven rather than looking for a huge impact that is unlikely to be proven within the debate.
3. Responses :
There are two level of responses I think are important within the debate. Responses that are constructive in nature which means you are responding to a rebuttal that was attacking your argument and rebuilding your argument. The second are deconstructive arguments attacking the opposing teams arguments. It is important to have different responses to the most strongest arguments in the round. Firstly because it allows you to mitigate the other teams arguments much more and reduces the likelihood the response is answered by an easy response from the other team. Lastly because you need to prioritize the strongest arguments and respond to those particular arguments within the round because they are the most likely to win the round and time limitations do not allow you to respond to every single argument.
4. Weighing :
Most responses within debate rounds usually only mitigate the other teams arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of this is to understand the importance of weighing after giving your responses, it is because although mitigated some strong arguments are still left within the round that required to be weighed up. You can use different metrics to weigh your arguments such as which one affects more people, more urgent or occurs more often and many others to prove your arguments are more important.
5. Structure :
It is important to have an argument that flows from the beginning to the end of the argument. This is because it makes it easier to track the argument and reduces the likelihood that there is internal inconsistency within the arguments.
Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best !
Less is more! I will judge by quality of evidence not quantity. Your speech should be loud and clear.
I'm a lay judge, and have some experience in the topics reviewed.
I prefer debate with clear logical reasoning without jumping to conclusions.
Please share speech docs to email@example.com possible :)
My name is Anne Mihai! I have done PF Debate for a few years and will continue to do so in upcoming years. I am a new judge, so consider me lay.
Respectful behavior towards opponents (Racism, sexism, stereotypes, rude language, etc. is not tolerable and will guarantee a loss of points)
Speed (Fast is fine with me but it is more likely I will catch your arguments if you go slower)
Debate Jargon: I understand extending, cross-application, front lining, etc.
Keep things factual- Making things up or using "basic knowledge" arguments will not gain many points.
Weigh- Keep in mind, this means doing a comparative analysis
-Constructive- Loud and clear (speed isn't as crucial as articulation)
- Any Cross- Attack opponents- look for loopholes in your competitor's argument and question them on it. Staying quiet without asking questions shows me you aren't focused on the debate. (MUST BE RESPECTFUL)
-Rebuttal- Lays the groundwork- Reb 1 should not weigh and no reb speaker should talk or restate their case unless constructive wasn't finished. I will stop flowing the moment a debater begins restating their arguments.
-Summary- EXTEND and frontline
-FF- Clearly tell me what I should look at on my ballot (ex. You vote on this arg). Comparative weighing will win you the round if everything else went smoothly. Extend your arguments.
Good luck! (Jokes and good behavior earn good speaks)
I am a parent judge with my two girls enrolled in debates.
- No spreading, speak loud and clear at a reasonable pace. If you speak too quickly, I may not get all of your arguments down and understand what you are saying. Quality of arguments/evidence over quantity.
- Respectful to each other and present yourself well. Do not talk over your opponent. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.
- Always have a framework or prove that your case supports the opponent's framework better.
- Use credible evidence and logic to back up your claims and attack an opponent's case. Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's. Your rationale should be clear so that your opponent can adequately address your points. Don't just attack, you need to defend.
- Signpost your arguments/rebuttals
- Your summaries should be to clean up anything vague or muddled, and final focus to make me vote for you. Everything in the final focus must also be in the summary speech. If something isn't in summary, don't bring it up in the final focus.
- Please track your time. You may finish a thought after time ends, but do not abuse this by adding multiple sentences or thoughts when I call for time should end.
- I value the time and energy you have invested in debate and will make sure to be a thoughtful, attentive judge. Just debate and have fun.
- For the virtual tournaments, my decision is not influenced with the issue of technical difficulties debaters might have during the round. However, please try to resolve technical issues during the tech check before the round. My decision-making and comments are related only to the content and quality of the presentation or speech itself.
NSDA’s Online Tournament Guide
There are six things I feel strongly about.
1. Evidence matters.
2. The aff should be topical.
3. Conditionality works.
4. Clarity is key.
5. CX is important.
6. Stock issues.
I read a lot of evidence and it is a main factor into my decisions in rounds. If you do not have quality evidence and you do not unpack and link it well that will not serve you well in my rounds.
Truth = evidence quality + technical proficiency. This means you need to not only ensure that your evidence is of high quality but the manner in which you present your evidence in the technical ways in which you go about conducting yourself in the round are both key to ensuring your success debating.
I seem to care more about the link than just about any other part of an argument and more than many other judges. I am a stickler for details. I need to see you clearly unpack the information you're using and showing me that you have a clear train of thought, a clear argument chain, and you actually understand what you are talking about and not just reading a card.
Stock issues matter. I should not have to explain this further for folks. People talk all the time about the role of the ballot. That role for me starts with stock issues.
Debaters who get high points from me are clear, concise, deeply knowledgeable about the topic, able to anticipate their opponent's arguments, good in CX, and clearly demonstrate meaningful preparation by developing new arguments or thoughtfully applying old ones to opposing strategies.
It should be noted for all who get me as a judge, explicit statements that are sexist, racist, etc. arguments will NEVER win my ballot. Also, students who are openly rude or exclude individuals in the round will NEVER win my ballot.
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
Hi- I'm Shaurya (She/Her), and I am a Freshman in HS- I've debated PF on the national circuit for around 2-3 years now. FYI- I have not debated on this topic since it is specific to ES, but I have a fairly good understanding of it.
Looking for clean flowing debate rounds with proper evidence ethics and well-developed arguments. Make sure to explain your path to the ballot in your final focus (why I should vote for you/why you win the round), and don't forget to explain why your arguments are the most impactful.
I have no problem with fast speakers, but make sure you are clear and easy to understand. I'll give high speaks to anyone who is clear, consistent, and mostly knows their content (without reading off their speech doc/flow).
Please remember to be respectful to your opponents- keep in mind that debate is a game: have fun and learn a lot from it!
Looking forward to hearing some wonderful rounds :)
Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.
She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.
TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3
K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.
FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.
Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.
DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.
Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.
CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.
General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.
I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.
I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.
If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.
Hi! I'm Ishan and I'll probably be your judge. I don't have a lot of preferences about style, so this paradigm will be short (if you still have any questions, feel free to ask before round!).
First off, it's going to be helpful if you signpost. Make sure to label your contentions and announce verbally if you are moving onto another contention. If you don't do this, I'll probably catch what you're talking about, but I'll be jumping around the flow when making a decision (something which probably won't help you).
I can handle speed but make sure not to spread. Somewhere between 750-900 words is good.
I don't have many stylistic preferences on rebuttal but again,make sure to signpost. If you cite evidence, give me an author and a year so I know where it's from. On second rebuttal, make sure to frontline.
Make sure to extend a contention and start comparative weighing. Weighing makes my job much easier, and it allows me to understand why I prioritize your argument over the opponents.
make sure to weigh. when making a decision good weighing is going to win you the round most of the time, so dedicate a good chunk of time focusing on weighing. again, comparative weighing is probably the most beneficial since it tells me why I should prioritize your case over theirs. don't just throw around magnitude, probability, scope, etc. like buzzwords. Tell me why you outweigh on a certain factor and explain the reasoning behind it.
Pretty standard, make sure to be respectful and don't shout. Make sure that grand cross doesn't turn into a shouting match.
if you call for cards make an email chain and include me in it.
make sure to time yourself when giving speeches + prep. It's ok if you go up to 10 seconds over time, but when it's more than that I'll have to intervene.
don't introduce new contentions + responses in final focus and summary. if you do, I won't vote on it.
I am currently a sophomore in high school. I am new to judging, but I do public forum debate myself.
I believe evidence is important, but so is analysis. I don't want to see cards just listed without having their significance explained relative to the resolution. I also emphasize weighing impacts, it plays a large factor in my decision. When weighing, don't simply say "I win on magnitude"/"I win on topicality."Explain your weighing mechanisms. Why are your impacts more important?
I certainly prefer is you signpost/give an off-time roadmap before your speeches.
I think it's best to collapse on the most important contentions, so then a fleshed-out narrative can be formed by the end of the found.
As obvious, this is a formal debate. Don't be rude to your opponents.
And remember, have fun!
Walter Sha he/him
You will get good speaks as long as you don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
Be respectful to your opponents
Frontline (respond to arguments made to rebut you) in second rebuttal and second summary otherwise I will say the offense goes conceded
Don't make new arguments past rebuttal speeches; I won't add them onto my flow if you do
And most importantly, have fun
Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG
Debated at Maine East HS (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and at the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)
If you bring me food u get +0.2 speaks,If you sign up for my newsletter you get +0.3 speaks
9 times out of 10, I was reading non-traditional affs and going for the K, and I liked to read Racial Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Afropessimism, Baudrillard, Framework, among others. My experience as a debater and coach is 99% in the critical format.
I enjoy judging clash of civilization and critical v critical debates, traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me significantly low on their judging preferences.
The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.
When in doubt, referring the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Daryl Burch, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik
Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:
I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts. This includes procedural fairness - even though I personally do not consider fairness to be essential to the function of the game. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day I will adapt to your argument style. I was never a fan of judges who excluded certain debaters because of what they decided to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.
Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals.
Public Forum Debate
The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.
I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.
I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.
I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.
Give an order before your speech
If you have any questions about my paradigm, my experience, how I judge the round, or anything at all, feel free to ask me before the round starts.
Hi, i'm Swati Singh, a freshman at Dougherty Valley High school! I've done public forum debate for 3 years now, and LD a year prior to joining Public Forum. I am a flow/tech judge. I am definitely a tech>truth.
EVIDENCE EXCHANGE: If you are sharing any evidence I would like you to add me to your email chain. I will not read any evidence sent to me in the chat, so create a chain and send the cards there. Furthermore, if I find any evidence sketchy I will call for it so be prepared to send it to me.
-Be nice; Debate is all about respectfully rebutting your opponents and trying to persuade your point, it is not about demeaning other people or being disrespectful to them in any way. If you are disrespectfully, I will drop your speaks down to 25.
- It doesn't matter to me if you speak standing up or sitting down, as long as you project your voice loudly.
- I am fine with spreading as long as you aren't completely mumbling. If I can't understand you I will ask you to send me the case and I will also call you out for it. (In most cases I wouldn't recommend you spread, as there isn't a need to do it during PF debate.)
- I will be timing you, but I expect you to be timing yourself and your opponents. If you go overtime, I will stop flowing what you say, but I will allow the 10 seconds after the timer rings.
- DO NOT MISCONSTRUE CARDS/EVIDENCE!! I have debate experience and I do look at the evidence cards that you send, so do not misconstrue the cards. DON'T PARAPHRASE YOUR CARDS. Maintain evidence ethics and I do expect you to not paraphrase or miscut your cards.
BALLOT/RFD: I shouldn't have to do any work for deciding who I should vote on. You should be telling me what I should write for my RFD during your final focus. I love disclosing and telling people what they could improve on, I will give oral RFD's as I prefer that and I can talk to everyone at once. If you do have any questions on any of my comments please feel free to email me and I will gladly explain it to you.
- bringing up new things in 2nd ff and abusing your power as the 2nd speaker team with the last word
- being extremely aggressive, rude, or using derogatory language to the opponents (especially during cross)
- constantly going over time, abusing the grace period after the time, and not doing anything about it
- running (and spreading!) theory or a kritik against novices as an easy Win (i will give you a big fat L if you do that)
Constructives: Squirrely arguments should be smart and logical, not just uncommon. and the link evidence better be strong.
1st Rebuttal: SIGNPOST!! Signposting is very important and if you don't, this makes the debate messier. Don't just dump responses in first rebuttal, make sure turns are weighed and defense is explained.
2nd rebuttal: SIGNPOST!! Just like I said for the 1st rebuttal, it is very important for you to signpost and it makes it easier for the debate to go more smoothly. Frontline, no excuses. Even if its collapsing and only responding to turns, but tell me your conceding the defense.
1st summary: Collapse. you do not have enough time in pf to extend everything. MAKE SURE YOU WEIGH!! IF YOU DON'T WEIGH LIFE IS GONNA BE A LOT TOUGHER FOR YOU AND ME.
2nd summary: You must collapse and extend what your partner said in rebuttal. no changing round strategy at this point. you can elaborate and weigh frontlines from 2nd rebuttal. Don't bring up new frontlines to defense dropped in 2nd rebuttal. MAKE SURE YOU WEIGH!! IF YOU DON'T WEIGH, LIFE IS GONNA BE A LOT TOUGHER FOR YOU AND ME.
1st final focus: If you bring up new responses, i won't vote off of it. if you don't extend something through summary that was brought up in rebuttal, i won't take it either. Also won't take new weighing that wasn't in 1st summary.
2nd final focus: I won't take new responses or weighing. and as a flow judge, i can tell if you're bringing up a bunch of new responses and abusing the power of being the 2nd speaking team whom has the last word. if you do that, expect low speaks.
Weighing: Don't just weigh out your own impacts, make sure you weigh using your opponents impacts. Please use the different kinds of weighing (magnitude, timeframe, probability, etc.), this makes the speech and my ballot so much easier for me to vote for your team.
Off Time Roadmaps: YESS!! Please give me an off time roadmap, they are really helpful for flowing and just knowing what you are talking about.
Cross: I don't flow cross, though if there is something you want me to write down on my flow, please say it in the next speech. Again do not be aggressive during cross to your opponents as that will affect your speaker points.
- Have Fun!! Debate is all about the experience and learning, please remember to have fun and enjoy the competition.
- If you can make me laugh or make me nod my head with some spicy/juicy rhetoric, I will give you +0.5 speaks, and it could be +1 if you give me a really really spicy/juicy rhetoric! ( I will have my camera on, so you can tell if you gave a good rhetoric or not)
Thank you for reading this whole paradigm, I hope you did because knowing your judges style of debate and preferences are great to develop as a debater during rounds as well as judge-appealing for the future!
Hope to have a good round!!
MSTOC: Thank you so much to everyone who has pointed out this paradigm does not reflect judging PF very well. If you are at MSTOC, this is really the only thing you need to know
1. I coach/teach classes in ES and MS PF - even though I judge policy more often, I'm very familiar with PF as an event and don't expect you to act like high schoolers or policy debaters. Don't get overwhelmed by my paradigm! I can judge you.
2. Weighing arguments in summary/final focus is essential for me, more than any other thing. Weighing just means comparing your case to theirs and specifically telling me why I vote for you and not them. Just because your arguments are good isn't enough; I need to know why they're better.
3. Crossfire is not a speech, so if you make a good attack on their argument in cross that you want me to evaluate on the flow, bring it up in your next speech.
4. Extensions can be simple, I just need to know you haven't forgotten your case - like, you don't have to rexplain your whole case in every speech, but it also doesn't look good if you spend so much time responding to what they ay that you don't talk about your case after constructive.
Things that I give high speaks for:
Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness- in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole.
Also, I am always impressed by good topic knowledge. I don't expect this, since topics are broad and you're not required to be an expert, but for me I will definitely bump of speaks if you clearly know a lot about this topic from your research.
Finally, I don't really care about how you speak/where you speak in the room. I don't care about eye contact. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do kind of dislike when people "end prep" and then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.
Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky.
Paradigm last updated: 12/24 (significant overhauls of paradigm content based on recent judging decisions.)
TLDR: I'll find the cleanest path to the ballot on the flow. Tech >>> Truth. Don't be violent, make debate an educational activity and I'll probably be a good judge for you.
There are five things in this paradigm: (1) an "about me" section, (2) a section about keeping debates safe, (3) a disclaimer about my thoughts on this year's topic, (4) my thoughts on K's, and (5) general thoughts on evidence/weighing. If you don't care about these things specifically, there is no reason to read the rest of my paradigm. Unless maybe you're bored, but I'd say a game of chess would be a better way to alleviate that. lichess.org is a good place for that.
(1) About Me
Community coach for McDade Classical School and Lindblom Academy. Assistant coach at Potomac Debate Institute. Graduate student at University of Chicago. Former competitor in NDT/CEDA policy debate and AFA-NIET speech. Semi-experienced judge (not reflected in my Tab history - I also judge collegiate parli and speech). I've done most events. I can flow. I did a lot of hybrid partnerships, so I've run arguments across the spectrum. Performance, trad, it's all cool.
I am always flowing. I have carpal tunnel syndrome (ouch) so sometimes I need to take breaks and sometimes I use keyboard shortcuts or other tools I've created for myself. If I'm not actively typing, that's because I've got it on the flow through other means.
(2) PLEASE BE A GOOD HUMAN
Disclaimer: I do not give you a W or higher speaker points for respecting pronouns. I think that respecting pronouns is a good way to make debate a safe and welcoming space. If you want to know my values, read my debate background. I am tired of being treated like a judge who will vote for you just because you asked for your opp's pronouns.
that being said, you should use they/them pronouns for anyone who has not disclosed otherwise in your round. I'm seeing an influx of trans debaters cling to this activity as a safe space - don't be what shatters that.
there's also an unspoken imbalance in the accessibility of pronoun disclosure. it takes 10 seconds to update your bio to tell the homies you're cis. for trans debaters this decision carries all the weight in the world and isn't always instantaneous. not disclosing pronouns does not mean you do not care. it is often because it is not safe to do so.
make debates safe before you make them winnable. your words may just change someone's life.
(3) A note on the 2023 NSDA Policy topic
I've been voting neg a lot this year. I'm not a neg hack, but I think a lot of affs forget how easy it is to vote neg and not intervene when the aff isn't weighed against the status quo. Please extend your impacts! An overview that's even 30 seconds in the 2AR is critical to explaining why the aff is a good idea if you want me to vote for it.
I am finding more and more debates decided during the last speech on each side. I think debates can totally be won or lost earlier, but I'm just not seeing that at the hs level. This is all to say - frame, frame, frame. Cool debaters have cool voters. I vote on the flow and I don't necessarily care that a card or two were dropped, unless you want to explain why it loses the debate. Spend less time extending cards and more time telling me why you win and they lose - I crave judge intervention less than you do, trust me.
(4) Your name makes you sound like a neolib, but you have college policy experience...can I read my K?
I fall into the category of K debater that appreciates a good K but has a visceral reaction to a bad one. I don't see the same novelty most judges do in your performance, I'm sorry. I hit a sex worker/call girl rage performance in college and since then I've realized that anything can happen in these rounds. Please don't assume that me having K experience means reading a K is the best strategy. I will totally vote for your K, but I will hold you to defending it properly and explaining how you solve your impacts - especially if you want me to accept a non-traditional ROB, like "always vote for this K, no matter what."
Essentially, debate the way you want to and I'll evaluate accordingly.
THE DEFAULT IS debate is a game, you win on the flow. You can read another interp though, I'll evaluate whatever you tell me debate is.
(5) The other, less interesting debate stuff you should know.
I will warn that coming from Policy I'm a bit sussed out by why the one card they dropped is more important than all the other work they did on your flow. Do not expect me to do the work for you. I'm looking for the cleanest path to the ballot, but please explain why I should vote on something. Conceded offense probably isn't great for you, but if you just extend a dropped turn that wasn't ever fleshed out and they're winning case, it comes down to who does the better comparative. Framework debates are cool.
You make my job so much easier when you define an aff world against a neg world. What actually happens when the resolution is "passed"? I don't want to re-read your link story after the round, and I'm more likely to believe it hearing it in summary and final focus than I am when critically evaluating my flow. Extend impacts, they won't do it by themselves (trust me).
Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.
Don't use unnecessary jargon. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.
Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.
(6) I know I didn't put this in my roadmap, so this is a top secret section...Middle School Debate!
Who am I kidding...middle schoolers don't read paradigms. But then again, does anyone anymore?
As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.
I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, some K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me.
I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.
My scale is usually:
30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round.
29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.
28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.
I will permit spreading evidence ONLY IF all debaters in the round consent to a request – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please clearly ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to before the round.
If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments.
When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.
I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your offense through the winning framework - you can win the value criterion debate, but if your opponent has stronger offense, and they link it to your framework, they will win. In LD, if you're reading a complicated framework, be sure to clearly explain it.
Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge.
Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate.
IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.
IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates.
My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you HAVE to slow down if you want it on my flow/ ballot. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!
Everything above applies! Some additional notes:
- If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
- PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
- Open cross is fine.
- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.
- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.
- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.
- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.
- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming environment.
COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:
- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.
- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain.
If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!
hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. email chain! firstname.lastname@example.org
tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below!
most important thing:
so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.
other less important stuff:
online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)
also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room
speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".
whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.
defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.
new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.
i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.
weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.
i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.
i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).
no friv theory, no tricks
i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus
i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).
if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!
hi! i'm Sena - I've been doing pf since 8th grade, currently doing varsity at potomac :)
~ speak as though i know nothing about the topic & be clear about your arguments
~ WEIGHING!! weighing is super super important (weighing is when you directly tell me why your arguments are more important than your opponent's)
~ pls be polite to your opponents during cross and during your speaches
~ feel free to ask me questions before/after the round!
I am currently a high schooler debater and have debated Public Forum for 5 years.
Here are some basic things that I expect throughout the round.
-Some very important things in the round are your ability to remain organized and coherent, to be able to leverage the internal warrants of your evidence and to clash with your opponent's arguments.
-Don't misconstrue evidence, it makes it unnecessarily complicated for all involved. Please share evidence in a timely manner (preferably prepare an email chain before the round).
-I will only listen and not flow during the crossfire. Everything you wish for me to consider must be included in the speeches.
-Make sure to fully extend. If something is not extended in the latter half of the round it won't be evaluated.
-Definitely make sure to weigh! It's incredibly important that you give some sort of weighing mechanism so that I have valid probabilities for your impacts. Don't just tell me what you are weighing without explaining the warranting.
-Respect each other and remember to remain civil.
-Remember to have fun!
I will evaluate your round how impactful your arguments are. I need you to be straightforward and direct on your points. Organizing your flowing is more helpful for my evaluation than speaking fast. Good luck to you.
In debate, I will vote by how well you articulate your reasonings and rebut your opponents’ arguments—show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponents. I do not like super-fast speaking—please slow down and speak clearly. Please be respectful of your opponent.
Please keep track of your own time. I will also keep an eye on timing.
Most importantly, make sure to have fun!
I consider myself a lay judge. Here are a few of my preferences to keep in mind:
Please be clear and concise. You should be explaining your arguments (and context) in-depth. Give me a clear link that I can follow. As always, good warranting > bad evidence.
DON’T SPREAD. Clarity matters much more than speed!
Organization matters. Please signpost.
Do comparative weighing. Give me something tangible to vote for. Tell me what is most important, and why I should be valuing this over everything else.
Finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful. Be a good, kind person. You can be skilled and assertive without being rude.
Add me to the email chain, email@example.com
Best of luck everyone!
My main focus is on evaluating the quality of arguments presented by both teams. I prioritize logical reasoning, evidence, and clear communication. I believe that a good debate should be engaging, educational, and respectful. Clarity and organization are essential. Please speak at a reasonable pace, and make sure to signpost your arguments throughout the round. I appreciate well-structured speeches that make it easy for me to follow the flow of the debate. I expect debaters to present well-reasoned, well-supported arguments backed by credible evidence. I value quality over quantity when it comes to arguments. I appreciate in-depth analysis and thoughtful engagement with your opponent's arguments. Please avoid superficially extending arguments; instead, provide a detailed explanation of why your argument stands and your opponent's argument falls.
My child has been in public forum for a couple years. I have some experience in judging public forum. I make my decision based on the contentions, evidences and logic. I don't put much weight on the delivery.
I would appreciate it if the students can speak clearly and not too fast.