PF:

I am a more traditional PF debate judge that focuses majorly on clash, substantial weighing, and topical arguments. I am not a fan of Kritiks and other more non-traditional strategies and tactics however as a former debater and active judge and coach I am open to these ideas if done extremely well and within the parameters that PF debate allows. I believe strongly in setting up good frameworks from the start of the debate. I care very heavily about impact-driven debatesand having strong world views. I do not like spreading, when it comes to speed I can handle a little bit of it but I prefer slower cases so I can more thoroughly flow and pay attention better.

LD:

I would also identify as a traditional LD judge who is very open to well-thought-out and engaging arguments. I will evaluate the round in the best way you present to me and I really appreciate strong values, VC, and FRs in the round. When it comes to things like disads and kritiks I think that if they are well done and add to the debate in a substantive way that is fine. I tend to not love theory debates because I often view them as a timesuck and see that they take away from the debate a lot. One other thing is that I do look toward more realistic impacts. Impact calc is very important but if there are massive unrealistic logical jumps I am not going to buy it i.e. impacting on nuclear war/extinction in a round concerning animal rights. Lastly, when it comes to speed I can handle a little bit of it but I prefer slower cases so I can more thoroughly flow and pay attention better.

First time judging! Please do not speak too fast. Make sure your arguments are clear and quantified.

Do not spread or try to confuse me because if I am confused and lose track, it will be hurting your side.

Good luck!

I like to flow every debate I watch to make sure the burden of rejoinder is clearly identifiable, but I will not flow a dropped argument without being told. You should be flowing as well. If it is not CX, then I don't want you to spread. I don't mind speaking fast but I want to really hear your arguments and have time for you to persuade me.

Kindness and tone go a long way. If you are belittling someone else it does not help to prove your point. There is a difference between being assertive and flat-out demeaning.

In Congress, I am not a fan of rehash - I want to hear rebuttals and debate, not a new speech that doesn't address what the aff and neg speakers have brought to the chamber. I think it is completely appropriate to respond in your speeches to arguments by referencing the name of the representative/senator as long as you are tasteful. It helps me keep up with the round.

How you treat your PO and your attitude towards them also go into judging you as a competitor. If you have problems, you have every right to call a point of order, but being snide and hostile makes you look weak.

In IPDA, the resolution is paramount. You must show, using the weighing mechanism, how your case and arguments outweigh your opponents. In questioning, please refrain from dismissing each other or being overtly aggressive. Remember I am flowing but you have to direct my attention and give me a road map.

I have not judged CX in ages. But many moons ago, I was a CXer and I can flow. I don't perceive that I will be judging CX at any point.

I am a lay judge but keep doing what you have been doing all year. Make sure we converse respectfully and professionally throughout and make sure we rebuff the other team's arguments while providing further and relevant support of our own. Good luck!

- Be confident in round

- Be respectful of your opponents

- Please speak slow and clear

beginner parent judge

I am a parent judge and truth > tech.

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

I'm a typical "some random guy's parent", that already tells a lot. So please address your argument clearly and speak slowly. Also I will weigh style and arguments equally, and weigh analytics over evidence. Good luck guys!

I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.

I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.

I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.

I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.

My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 8 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).

Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.

Add me to the chain danielcandia0427@gmail.com

General

Speech times are set

Signpost or I will not flow

Overviews are appreciated

IMPACT CALC PLEASE or you will not like the consequences

Policy/LD:

tech>truth

Generally Tabula Rasa

Run your thing but you better explain and justify why collective post-modernist Foucutism is good idea.

However I do have mild reservation if that thing is:

Broadly seen as problematic or offensive, you have a HIGH bar to clear and your opponents could take it out in 30 seconds.

Speed is fine but Slow Down on voters and analytics

I have decent topic familiarity

Don't love tag teaming, do it at the risk of your speaks

POFO:

truth>tech

I can handle speed, but chances are you are better off speaking slow

Make the debate accessible, that's the point of the event. If you want to run wacky stuff go to policy

Speaks:

30: No

29: Top speaker of the day

28: I got you

27: I didn't get you

26: Words were spoken?

25: No, but different

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm an English teacher in Philadelphia, and this is my sixth year as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in New Jersey where I coach the Congress program. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + the tiniest bit of speech at Lafayette College for a while before I switched to coaching.
M.S.Ed - UPenn '21
B.A. English & Government - Lafayette '18

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied and I judge all the time so I'm good with most arguments in round. I'm pretty tab- it's my job as a judge to evaluate everything you put in front of me, and above all I want you to run what you think is your best strategy! A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything. If you're spreading just put me on the email chain. I appreciate it when you pause for a second on the evidence tag so I can more easily catch the author.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. It definitely won't factor into my decision and I'm otherwise pretty tech > truth but I just think it's inherently more educational when we stay in the realm of what is likely to actually occur and I'll probably bump your speaks a little for it.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and always enjoy this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting someone less experienced, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I don't coach PF so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coach now. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging PF and LD for a year.

For PF, I appreciate evidence based arguments, with details when needed. PF is time sensitive, and so manage your time carefully when you get into detailed explanations.

Speed is fine as a long as its clear and understandable.

Please add me to the email chain at abhijeetc23@gmail.com

Good luck !

Hi there! Good morning.

Welcome to the PF Debate! Relax, and make yourselves comfortable.

This is a communications activity. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

I do like to take a lot of notes on my laptop through the entire debate. I’d want to be keeping up with hearing every argument with all of you take, as well as do good on my notes, to be able to arrive at a fair judgement.

Attitude / Aggression
This is a PF debate. We are human beings and citizens of the world. Aggression is okay, but a rude/offensive behavior is a no-no.

What will you get points for?
* Use your Summary and Final Focus rounds to make good bullet-points to make your points crystal-clear.
* Use cross-fires wisely. I do pay attention to how strongly are you able to respond to the opponents’ questions with data points. You also get judge on how effectively are you able to break the opponents arguments with your well crafted questions.

All the best!

Hello,

My name is Praise Chidi-Umeh. I am a student at the University of Texas at Dallas and I'm excited to hear whatever you have prepared for me!

I like to perceive myself as a "chill" judge. I specialized in PF and mostly LD when I was in high school, so you might have an idea as to why I don't consider myself strict. I do not have complicated rules per se because I believe debate is fun, and we should have the freedom to argue what we want. When it comes down to judging, I tend to favor the competitor with a better argument, better strategy, and better delivery.

Paradigm:-

1. If anything problematic or controversial is addressed disrespectfully, I will auto-drop and walk out.
2. Please use your time wisely!! I do time every round with my phone on silent, and deduct speaker points for competitors who go overboard. I do not feel obligated to tell you when you're overtime because everybody should know how much time they have (if you don't, check with me before we start), and I expect you to time yourself as well. ( I don't mind if you use your watch, phone, or a digital timer.)
3. Tech>Truth.
4. Be Polite at all times, and No interruptions. I know sometimes arguments can get heated (trust me I've been there) but try to minimize speaking over each other all the time.
5. I do not enjoy spreading At All, so please DON'T do it. Speak at a medium pace, and enunciate so I as your judge can better understand you. If you start spreading, I will stop judging.
6. Avoid Source Wars!!!!

One more thing I should mention again is that I judge by the flow. I love to think that I am an avid listener, so if I stop listening and writing, you might want to check what you are doing incorrectly. (In most cases... the problem is speaking way too fast.)

I am always open to constructive criticism as a debater and a local judge, so please free to email me at chidiumehpraisegod@gmail.com

If you have any further questions, you can always ask me after a round or email me at the same address linked above.

Best of Luck,

Praise C. :)

I am a parent judge.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2022-23 rounds (as of 4/23): 169

Aff winning percentage: .527

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind.I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, in favor of increased international cooperation in "topically designated areas" at a time when a novel pandemic has made us dependent for the past two and a half years of "two weeks to flatten the curve" on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity in the virtual "debate space" and of which biotechnology offers promising ways out.

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts:Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21."

NB: The regrettable PF habit of not using explicit taglines for your evidence severely impedes the travel of your speeches. I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Harvard," as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Harvard matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about biometric recognition technology to "Harvard." "According to Professor Crawford of Harvard" (yes, she's a professor at Harvard Law School who's recognized as an expert on this particular issue) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Harvard," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

TBD

Looking For:

-Consistent arguments/logic (do the arguments you use have consistent logic with others you use? Are you arguments cohesive?)

-Thoughtful research/well-chosen examples (not as many examples as one can think of, just your best/strongest)

-Civil tone/respect between debaters/good sportsmanship

-Limited amount of logical fallacies (goes back to first point, but figured I'd include it; if you can avoid them altogether this is preferable)

-Good/relevant crossfire questions and responses (also keeping consistent with your team's overall logic/argument)

-Weigh your arguments/impacts in the second round! (This helps me frame how I'm meant to think about your evidence and strengthens your view)

Not Looking For:

-"Spreading" or any "speed" debating (I am not specifically trained in this style of debate, nor do I find it beneficial in the long-run; watch your speed––it's just as important that your judge/audience can fully parse/absorb your arguments/info as it is to fit every piece of information in)

-Redundant/repetitive arguments or contradictions in your own information/logic (ties into the above points on having consistency and well-thought-out examples)

-"Dancing around" the question (particularly noticeable in crossfire exchanges; there is no shame in admitting to not knowing something/needing more research to be done on a given question; you're not running for high office so no need to circumvent direct/clear answers to things)

Mariel Cruz - Updated 9/20/2022

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed. 

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument. 

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Hey cool cats!

If you use any type of theory, I will drop you, even if the other side may not win as many points. Theory is inequitable and isn't real debate.

If you are condescending or bigoted, I will eviscerate you.

Please speak at a human pace. You may be a robot, but I am not... yet.

Use real sources and cite your evidence. I do not endorse plagiarism... even if that's what you rely on to pass AP English.

Fabricating evidence is dumb, don't do it... even if the mainstream media does.

Weighing is important. Don't make it my job to weigh you... I'm not your doctor.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use a balance of logic and evidence, 

Cross is not the time to give another speech. Let's keep this train movin'...

And finally, for the love that is all good and holy, just have some fun. You are in high school this one round will not matter two weeks from now! Seriously, if you can't have fun, then maybe it's time to reevaluate your life.

I have some prior judging experience but I am still relatively new to it.

I prefer evidence based argumentation but I will vote on "reason" based arguments if they are done well.

Please keep theory and K's to a minimum especially in PF.

If paraphrasing is nessesary please ensure it Is ethical.

All arguments should be supported by evidence, I will prefer evidence over "logic"

I can understand faster speaking, but I do prefer slower more concise speaking

If you run terminal impacts, the links must be strong and direct

I dislike off timer road maps, please do not use them when I am judging your round

(don't even try to run theory this guy will not understand it) - his son

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, and now am a freshman in college and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever (as of 2022 pf lol).

**if you are going to read theory in front of me, please read the bottom of this paradigm very carefully!**

my goal is to make rounds safe and inclusive, so if you're not sure what any of this stuff means, please ask me before the round! for email chains my email is k.rose.dwyer@gmail.com.

preferences:

- i will always look to weighing first. if there's no weighing or the weighing debate is not resolved, then i have to intervene and that's sad.

- i would like to say my preferences are adaptable to the way you debate, but it would be a lie to say i'm likely to vote on an unwarranted arg, not implicated turn, new weighing, etc.

- i do think evidence is important but i need warrants with claims. in the complete absence of warrants in evi, good analytical warrants > unwarranted cards. pls extend nicely, warrant, implicate, and weigh <3 evidence misconstruction is bad and if you do it you may have to lose :(

- args that are conceded in the speech after presented (except 2nd constructive responding to 1st constructive) don't get new responses, including weighing.

- you need link extensions and i will drop you if you don't in summ or ff. if no one does i'll presume neg. no sticky defense. extend everything!

- i think the best debaters are ones that build a narrative and still engage well on the tech (which is my way of saying poor spreading, short extensions, and a bunch of underwarranted blippy frontlines are not the way to my heart nor my ballot). my favorite debates are pretty quick techy substance rounds that still have lots of warranting and very clear ballot directive language in the backhalf.

- speed is fine but send a speech doc and make any accommodations your opponents ask for (including not going fast). if your spreading is bad i'll be sad and so will your speaks. formatting accommodations like rehighlighting cards, bolding, or making text bigger should also be met.

- i like engagement and clash, which means i don't like disads. i prefer you read turns that actually engage with their link. i also think that defense (terminal and mitigatory) both get a bad rap. i love defense! read it! use it as weighing! if they have a bigger impact that you're mitigating by 90% apply that to the weighing debate and win it.

can i read xyz in front of you?

- experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, non-t ks, and performances. i consider myself decently comfortable evaluating all of them. clarity and good explanations are king. be clear about my role as a judge.

important stuff:

** if you are reading any theoretical or otherwise unconventional argument on a novice/local circuit team that clearly does not know what is going on, i may pick you up if you win the round, but i will give you the lowest speaks i can. reading structural violence arguments while reproducing structural inequality in round is not hot!! **

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. My Facebook is my name (Katheryne Dwyer) and my email is k.rose.dwyer@gmail.com.

theory section sigh:

non negotiables:

• i honestly hate most theory debates and DO NOT TRUST MYSELF TO BE A GOOD ENOUGH THEORY JUDGE TO EVALUATE COMPLEX ONES IN ANY CAPACITY.
• I've never judged a theory round I could not describe as frivolous. Consequently, I've never judged a theory round I liked. If your round seems like it's threatening to evolve into a tornado of crap I am extremely open to evaluating under reasonability.
• theory must come in speech after abuse!
• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.
• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!
• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.
• i will not vote on an out of round abuse UNLESS it happened between last round and this round (ie they're not disclosed from last round and not breaking new). if you ask me in r7 to correct an abuse that happened in r1, that means they could be dropped for it forever and i'm unwilling to set that precedent.

specific arguments

• Will not vote on needing to content warn a structure!!!! They don't need a content warning to say "misogyny" or "racism" --> but totally will vote on needing to content warn depictions of violence to varyingly graphic degrees.
• I WILL NOT VOTE ON ROUND REPORTS OR OPEN SOURCE VS FULL TEXT. IF A TEAM READS THESE ON YOU IN FRONT OF ME, SIMPLY SAY "AS PER YOUR PARADIGM DROP THEM" (i probably won't do it unless you call it out though)

k debate :0:0:0

i think my experience reading ks has encouraged people to think that i really love k debate and am happy to vote for it. this is not the case! i actually think most k debate happening in pf right now is disappointingly bad. in some ways i think i am probably the worst judge for a k because i am both not as competent as someone who has spent years reading/teaching them, and not as excited/willing to vote them up as someone who never read them at all. this is all to say please do not assume i am excited to see a k debate.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links infinitely more than non-t ks. straight up i am just not a good judge for anything non-t. your link should be specific, that's cool! how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing! the same beg for specificity also goes for the impact debate.way too often in PF k debates, you hear something like "their link is the X evidence which assumes the US government having power is good. the impact is imperialism which means extinction!!!!" to avoid this trap, explain precisely how your link gets to your impact, and prove that the causality is not in the other direction! also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess but i prefer alternatives that make a tangible change to the mindset of the round. i am open to different ways to see my ballot - to align myself or not with a protest, to decide which conception of reality i see as more correct, or really anything! but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example.

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, i am iffy on how good the following things are: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts. i love perms! what we call IVIs are mostly underdeveloped and silly. the lack of structure seems to equal a lack of warrants. only time i'm open to this is calling out specific instances of harmful language.

Parent judge. I take notes during round - the most logical and most clearly explained arguments win. The accuracy of your arguments is highly important. Do not speak fast or yell: your speaking style will affect my decision. Quality of arguments/responses is more important than quantity. Truth>Tech.

- Written by my son

I debated for 4 years (PF and LD) in Alabama. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's not unethical, but here are a few specific things I like:

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to appear in the summary and the Final Focus (PF)

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.

• Make sure to bring up concessions made during cross in speeches
• Theory is a tool used to ensure fairness in debate so please don't try to use it in the forms of abusive argumentation to win debates.

I am a parent-judge. I'm excited to hear you debate, but please do not spread. It's more important that I can follow you. I'm looking for the team with the best argument, logical flow, and good sportsmanship. I will be taking notes during the debate, so you may see me looking down. Don't worry. I'm listening. I would appreciate it if you would keep time yourselves. In final focus, make it clear why you've won. I have great respect for you already. I know you have worked hard and prepared for this day. I'm pulling for each and every one of you.

Hey, I'm Joey, and I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2021. I TOC qualled twice and got 13 career bids.

Add me to the email chain, and please have it set up before round. I also am fine with fileshare or speechdrop, whatever is fastest.
For online rounds, if we can start the round sooner (if all debaters are there before time), I'll boost speaks, but no pressure I'm fine starting right on time as well

josephgeorgesdebate@gmail.com

PF:

I prefer theory debates; otherwise, I'll adjudicate more similarly to a traditional judge since I'm not as immediately familiar with extension logistics and whatnot.

assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic/topic jargon

LD:

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh: Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction: You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

-Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism(This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something, so the round is educational; even if you're winning definitively on the flow, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks; just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being outwardly mean. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

Hi, I am a parent of an avid debater, and I am a scrupulous note taker. I always read up on the topic prior to judging, but explain things to me as if I am learning about it for the first time. I have an extensive history judging on the national circuit for PF. I like teams which have good evidence to support their claims. Try to tell me a story with your arguments about why your impacts matter in the first place. Links in your logical reasoning should be clearly explained, and I won't consider your impacts unless your links make sense. Also, if it is not in summary, then it shouldn't be in final focus. During Cross-X try be as respectful of your opponents as possible, and being respectful helps your speaker points. If you're going to turn your opponent's argument, make sure there is an impact. Also last but not least, weighing during summary and final focus definitely makes it easier for me to judge your round. Look forward to judging your round!

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

Spencergrosso@gmail.com (Yes, I want to be on the chain)

Debated PF on the national circuit for 4 years

-Tech>Truth, debate is a game

-Speed is fine, I’ll yell clear up to twice in one speech, If you continue to be unintelligible after that, it’s on you. (I’m not yelling clear in online debate. Send me speech docs and be clear)

PF rules:

-Offense is offense and offense must be warranted and weighed. I don't care if it was brought up in case or rebuttal, i dont care if you called it a contention, turn, ad/disad, overview, whatever. If you give me a reason to vote for you, it must be weighed. I won't care about the "turn" you spent 10 seconds on and didn't implicate in any way just because your opponents dropped it.

-Any offense brought up in either 1st constructive or 1st rebuttal not responded to by second rebuttal is considered dropped.

-Defense doesn’t need to be frontlined until 2nd sum but its still smart to do it in 2nd rebuttal.

-Everything that you want me to vote on should be in both the final and the summary except I don’t require defense in first summary.

General preferences/leanings:

-I default to consequentialism/utilitarianism, but I’m open to looking at the round through a different lens if I am given a warrant as to why I should and I'm pretty good about that I've voted based off anti util framework many times.

-I tend to prefer strong, clear link chains over big sounding impacts that may or may not have a risk of solvency to them, but again if you do good meta weighing as to why I should prefer your 0.001% probability solvency for human extinction, I’m open to it.

-I heavily despise exclusion. If I can tell your opponents either have access problems or are like brand new to debate and you’re dumping 300+ WPM speech docs, reading something progressive, or debating in any way that is clearly designed to make your opponents unable to contest you, I'll doc speaks.

Evidence Rules:

-The more evidence you send me, the better. If both teams are comfortable just emailing their full cases ideally with cards at the start, I like that. Same with rebuttal is awesome. I'll never look for holes in your evidence unless they are specifically pointed out to me by your opponents, so you lose nothing by giving me evidence.

-I’m generally lax with paraphrasing as long as I feel the literal words of the card are accurately represented by what you read.

Non Ad/Disad argumentation:

Be explicit on role of the ballot and why I prefer one type of argument versus another, if you don’t, I will default to: Policy/Framework>Kritik>theory>tricks.

Framework:

-Cool stuff.

Kritiks:

-I’m open to them and I’m even kind to them as long as you’re clear with the link and the implication in every extension. I find a lot of debaters assume they’re winning a link on the K if it goes uncontested so they undercover it when extending it into later speeches. Just like any other argument, if you drop warrants, I drop you.

Theory:

-It is my belief that theory needs to exist to prevent real abuse and encourage education, so I tend not to look too kindly on theory that I see as being brought into the round which sacrifices educational value for the sake of getting a win (dates, disclosure, paraphrasing etc.) that being said I’m open to all those shells, if you warrant it, win it, and weigh successfully why I should vote off it, I’ll vote off it.

-In PF, I don’t necessarily require responses to theory in the very next speech(if it’s read in 1st constructive, I don’t require a response until 2nd rebuttal) this is because I think theory should be normalized as typical argumentation so people feel more comfortable when it is run, so I treat it as a normal argument in terms of rules when responding to it.

Tricks:

-To win with tricks, you have to do the following:

1. Warrant why it gives you a path the ballot

2. Opponent must drop it

3. There must literally be no other offense in the round, I will quite literally evaluate any risk of any kind of offense before I evaluate your a priori.

Presumption:

-I don’t grant presumption on my own, u need to tell me to do it. I’m pretty open to the logic behind presuming 1st so if you argue that, I’ll probably grant it to u.

Speaker Points:

-The speaker point system is complete crap and I refuse to legitimize it. The way I see it, you start with a 30. Speaks are docked only for malpractice(rude, prejudice, debating in a way I deem as harmful) If you don’t commit any sins, you get a 30. If the tournament doesnt let me tie it, ill do 30, 29.9, 29.8, 29.7. (last chance makes me do 0.5 increments so 30, 29.5, 29, 28.5)

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TIME YOURSELVES AND TIME EACH OTHER. If anyone asks me to time them I will quite literally start crying and I'm an ugly crier so we all lose in that scenario.

This is my first time judging public forum. I try to not be biased.

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone off, or are condescending.

I stop listening when you go over time.

Have fun!

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

Logical articulation.

Email: michaelgeorgeharris1@gmail.com

Qualifications/background:

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualled to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently at Lynbrook and Silver Creek High Schools. I judge and coach all forms of speech and debate.

LD PARADIGM

I don't see myself as having too many conscious biases against certain kinds of argument.

I'll listen to all styles -- K, policy, phil, theory, etc. I care more about how you argue your positions than the actual content of the positions.

There was way more phil and theory read when I debated, so feel free to go for that stuff, although on theory I definitely do not default to an offense-defense paradigm (if that's how you want me to evaluate the theory flow, you have to argue explicitly for that).

I also think I may be a good judge for kritiks because I mainly coached k debate this year.

I'm probably the worst at evaluating policy v policy debates. When I did LD, it had not yet mutated into one-person policy. I can still keep up if you line-by-line each others' arguments and do weighing, but if your speeches are just long overviews that list out a bunch of impacts without engaging the other side, I guarantee I will get lost.

Here are the things I like to see:

1. Good, explicit weighing, a clear ballot story, and clearly implicating/explaining the function of your arguments.
2. Original analysis as opposed to merely cards.

That's about it honestly, but you'd be surprised how few rounds nowadays contain those things.

Side note: I won't vote on disclosure theory, because I feel weird about voting someone down for something that happened outside of the debate.

PF PARADIGM

IMPORTANT: Please, please, please be fast with sending evidence. If it's taking too long I'm going to insist on continuing the debate.

Second rebuttal/summary obviously can't frontline everything, so make sure you focus on answering the responses that are most threatening to your side.

The final focus is so short that you really have to focus -- narrow things down -- and explain not only why your side is ahead, but anticipate/answer the strongest reason your opponent could provide for why they're ahead. Don't ONLY weigh, also respond to the other side's weighing -- or else the debate might end up looking an awful lot like a tie.

I do, admittedly, like theory and kritiks in other events. In PF, not so much. Not saying you can't read them -- but you probably shouldn't do so if your strat is just to read them bc you've seen on this paradigm that I mainly judge other events in which those positions are more popular. **Definitely do not run these positions at lay tournaments/against lay debaters. I personally think one of the benefits of PF is that it's a good activity for people who don't like fast/technical debate styles. So I'd prefer you don't use theory/kritiks to ruin their day.

Please speak loudly so that every one in the room can hear clearly.

Please speak with normal conversational speed. If you speak too fast, I won't be able to have good notes for my ballot.

Please try to maintain good eye contact, but not read off from your screens. Debate is a human interaction.

Please be very structured and organized with your contentions.

Enjoy, improve, and have fun!

I'm a parent judge with 1 year of experience

Please be clear and go slow, please explain exactly WHY I should vote for you and clearly explain your impacts.

I will vote for whoever's arguments I can best understand and are clearly explained.

I prefer people with confidence in their answers

Good Luck

Policy Maker w/ Legal Framework

In general, the side with the best case will win the round. Persuade me that you are right.

Claims: I'm looking for quality over quantity. Hit the big nails with big hammers.

Evidence: Have evidence to back every claim you make. Be prepared to back up your claims. Quality of evidence matters.

Logic: I expect your arguments to be rational and reasonable. Irrational and unreasonable arguments will be ignored.

Clash:You will score most of your points on the clash. Tell me why your case is different and why it's better. Highlight the strengths of your case and the weaknesses in your opponent's. I'm looking for impacts, with more weight given based on the scope and significance of the impact.

As a general rule, I will accept all claims and evidence as true -- unless you challenge them. If you challenge a claim or evidence, be prepared to argue why you have the better position.

Comms:Communication skills are an important part of persuasion. I don't mind if you speak quickly, just as long as I can understand what you're saying. If you're spreading so fast that I can't make out what you're saying, I will stop flowing. (Although I will tolerate spreading a bit more in the L-D format.)

That said, I don't mind if you read your case and won't penalize you for it. But, I do give at least some weight to the unscripted moments.

If I'm genuinely unable to determine the winner on the cases, I will use comms as a tie-breaker. With that exception, you cannot win a case with better comms. But, you can lose a case with bad comms.

Abusive Frameworks/Joke Cases: Just don't. I do not follow a tabula rasa paradigm. It is hard to win my vote with an abusive framework and impossible to win with a joke case.

Congress: I've taught constitutional law at the law school level. I don't expect high school students to be legal experts, but I do enjoy constitutionally sound positions and arguments. If you feel strongly that a bill is unconstitutional, please feel free to argue your position without worrying about consensus. That said, be respectful, develop your impacts, find the clash, resolve conflicts, add something new to the discussion, and make the bill better.

I have judged Policy Debate rounds for 10 years, but never debated myself. Accordingly, I can get lost when subjected to a lot of theory and debate jargon presented in rapid fire fashion. I want tag lines and the Plan text presented clearly and at a normal conversational pace. T is a voter for me and I apply a standard of reasonableness in my analysis. If you are going to argue a K you had better be able to explain it clearly and in your own words. If all I hear is a bunch of canned philosophy you are unlikely to prevail. I expect offense from each side and want you to tell me why I should vote for you. I like running summaries. I strongly dislike when one debater prompts/talks over/supplements his or her partner. I think of myself as a big-picture kind of guy and try to base my decisions accordingly.

Hello!

Yes include me on the email chain—Kalebhornedebate@gmail.com

I am a policy debater at Liberty University.

General things---

1. Tech over truth—-my job is to determine who did the best debating in round. I will vote for any argument regardless of personal convictions.
2. Quality over quantity—-I am much more persuaded by a few warranted arguments than by numerous blippy ones.
3. Line-by-line—- do it.
4. Judge instruction—-my goal is to have the least interventionist RFD, and telling me what my RFD should look like will go a long way
5. case/da turns are great
6. If you make me laugh, I will boost your speaks
7. Be kind, if you're racist, sexist, etc. I will vote you down
8. I'm fine with any arguments other than death good, just do what you're comfortable with

PF---

1. Make sure you extend the story of your arguments and answer theirs.
2. Speed is fine, make sure both sides are okay with it.
3. Keep track of your own speech times and prep.
4. Crossfire questions should be relevant to the arguments you are going to make.
5. Arguments in the last speeches should be in earlier ones.
6. Impact calculus is great. Tell me why I should vote on your impacts first.
7. Please give me a reason to care early in the debate.
8. If you tell me why to vote for you I probably will.
9. I don't believe in RVI's in PF, maybe you can impact turn T but I don't think that happens in PF.
10. I'm not sure that PF is debate.
11. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.
12. If you ask to preflow after start time, use prep time or I doc your speaks

I am a Lay Judge. Please speak slowly and clearly during the round. My speaker point range is from 27.5-30. Be respectful in the round and have fun.

Email: ahhuan25@colby.edu

Personal Qualifications: I was primarily an Extemper for four years but I've almost every event spanning both speech and debate.

General: If you are going to spread then create an email chain with speech docs, I will say clear as much as necessary. If you have any difficulties related to personal disabilities or other issues and are worried about your spreading/speech style/ability to flow and reply to spreading, reach out to me and I’m sure we can work it out. It is really important to me to help accommodate and promote inclusivity in debate. Tech over truth – the round is about what you argue and not what I think (my RFD will likely include my thoughts on each of your case, what would've been a good rebuttal, questions etc, but round judging is based on what you argue again, not what I think). A dropped argument is a 100% true argument unless it is clearly exclusionary and offensive or I have explicitly stated an issue (i.e. Tricks below). Theory is a recourse and I will not vote for cases of absurd abuse that community standards as far as I know don’t support (spreading 6 off against someone who has never progressed beyond traditional debate). This should take care of most issues of abuse that people worry about with tech over truth, because otherwise you simply forgot to reply to an argument that was badly warranted and to disregard it is to help you and intervene in the round, which is unfair to your opponent. I try to be a tab judge with intervention as minimal as necessary. I will judge any argumentation that isn't exclusionary and/or offensive, but my ability to judge it and what helps me best evaluate arguments are better in some parts rather than others.

Policymaking/LARP/Substance: These arguments are usually pretty straightforward and there is nothing I object to. Be explicit in terms of weighing and cross applications, and don’t rely on “implicit” or “embedded clash”. This is true for all parts of the round but especially in this part of debate where I may not have default positions I will stick to should I need to intervene (i.e. reasonability). What is implicit to you may not be the same to me, and could increase the possibility of unfair intervention on my part (for example, if there are two studies that say opposing things, and one is a meta study, this may to you be a superior form of evidence. But if your opponent gives weighing about the scope or recency of their regular study, absent weighing about why I should prefer a meta study I'm more inclined to go with the opponents arguments. I give this example so you don’t go crazy with explicit weighing, such as explaining ad nauseam that under a hard util framework that 50 deaths prevented is better than 5 prevented. Use your best judgment). I will evaluate offense based on the weighing and impact calculus of each argument and only use my own stances if I have to intervene to render a coherent decision. It really is unlikely to come to that but if you are concerned about intervention be sure to prevent that from happening If you are running a plan or counterplan, having a solvency advocate in the topic literature is key. I have a low threshold for extensions but explaining the links between warrants and evidence and impact calc and weighing will improve your speaks and the clarity of your arguments. You don’t need to restate everything, especially on dropped offense, but explain the link between arguments and tell a story.

Phil/Framework: This type of debate isn’t done and appreciated as much, and I am open to any arguments. Just be careful to not devolve into tricks (see tricks section below) and be accessible to your opponent. So long as it is properly analytically warranted (with or without evidence) is valid, just know that I may not be as familiar with arguments outside of util, deontological, or intuitionist frameworks.

I find the impact debate is often taken for granted, and one of the most important parts of debate. 

If you are running multiple arguments, explain which comes first and why. If this becomes an issue in the 1AR with new aff arguments then I think a limited scope of responses to what was said by the aff in the 2NR is fine, but don’t abuse this to make new justifications. At the very least, if your opponent asks in CX, make it clear.

Some people will say to vote down theory that is “obviously frivolous” but that is a subjective determination. For me, something such as “you must wear one shoe and a helmet” or a ridiculous or otherwise impossible to meet would count as frivolous.
Tricks I would prefer if you don’t run tricks with me. It is hard for me to remove my bias (I don’t like them) and I find that it makes debate rounds less educational and accessible. If you and your opponent are comfortable with this, I will judge the round but it will very likely result in lower speaks.

Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

About me:

I've been a member of different speech and debate programs for 5 years now where I've spent 4 years competing at the high school level in Texas and one year at the collegiate level as a part of Missouri Valley College's debate and forensics team. This experience has included 2 years of LD and policy, 4 years of congress,5 years of IEs, and 3 years of Public Forum debate.

Ev Sharing:

If you're going to do an email chain, I would like to be included: sidnihunter@gmail.com. If you know how to use speech drop and are comfortable with it this makes it a lot easier for teams to share and receive information.

General:

I'm willing to listen to just about any argument so long as it has warrants that are legitimate- in the end run whatever you prefer and what makes you comfortable. Thorough card analysis is the easiest way to win my ballot- you obviously understand the link but explain to ME why it matters. I'm more truth vs tech but I’ll vote tech if it’s obviously a tech round. With that being said, I'm fine with speed but know that if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments and that's going to hurt your ballot. Be courteous of your opponent(s) as well because if they can't understand you then there will be absolutely nothing educational about the round.

LD: When evaluating any round the first thing I look at is framework. You can lose the framework debate and still win my ballot, your impacts just have to be weighed in the framework that won the round. With that being said, there needs to be plenty of clash on a contention level basis and I expect both sides to extend your case into the 2nd.

PF: I've done a mix of both high school and college Public Forum. So, I'm really easygoing on the fact that I love both lay and techy rounds. But note that just because you're a techy team hitting a lay team doesn't give you my ballot. If what you're saying doesn't make sense to me then I have no reason to believe that it is true or matters. Make sure that your responses aren't just spewing cards and statistics at me but really walking me through the story. I wanna know why what you're telling me matters, and why what your opponent is saying is either wrong or doesn't matter. I'm a firm believer that most rounds can be won during the final focus. Give me a clear overview of the round and voters.

Policy:

Topicality

I enjoy a good T debate. Stock issues are still very important in traditional policy debates, and I want debaters to do it well. Run T if there is a clear violation. Please emphasize voters. Please give me reasons why your model for debate is the best model, and why your opponents' is either not as good, or actually bad for debate. Provide clear DAs and impact them out if you want a better chance at winning the round.

Disadvantages

Please read specific links if you have them. Tell me exactly how the aff plan fits into your scenario. I'm fine with terminal impacts as long as they are warranted. If you don't have a CP to solve the DA make sure UQ does not overwhelm the link.

Counterplans

I like CPs when they are run well. Please have a unique net benefit on the CP. You can read CP theory for the aff or neg. It's a neglected argument, but I actually like hearing theories on different types of counterplans. Provide specific solvency for the CP if possible, I'd rather not hear just one card on why the actor is better.

Ks

The link is incredibly important for me to evaluate the K. The alt should be feasible and clear-tell me why perms don't work and how it better solves the framing issues presented in the K. Chances are I probably don't know your lit base well so be prepared to explain it.

IEs, Congress, and Speaking events:Did these for four years so I know the rules and expectations vary by circuit. These events are so cool, but I've seen each individual one lose its distinctiveness from other events similar to it and become muddied/ washed down to another event (i.e. don't make a speaking event look like an interp event and vice versa.) You can be the best in the room but if I feel like your event is lacking the distinctive characteristics it is supposed to have or running too much like another event then I'm going to be inclined to vote you down.

be respectful to your opponent and/or everybody in your room :)

If you have any questions regarding my paradigm, please do not feel afraid to ask, I promise I will not bite you

I am a PF parent judge with some past experience, meaning I am more on the lay side of these arguments. I am a traditional flow judge, so I will evaluate the round from what I have on my flow, to ensure it makes it to my flow, try not to spread or speak overwhelmingly fast (you need to say it or I won't evaluate the round on it).

Preferences:

• Speed, jargon, etc. is OK as long as your point is clear and you are understandable
• Please do not send called cards in cross, that is what prep is for
• Although they are not particularly present in PF debate, I will throw out any theory, kritik, or tricks arguments as they are not real debate (I want to see actual debating of the topic)
• Claims, warrants, and impacts must be clear and not buried within piles of evidence (commentary is helpful in this situation)
• Absolutely no spreading
• Tell me why everything matters
• I will not evaluate crossfire, if you want me to judge on it, extend it into a speech
• I will keep track of your time, but its best that you do the same to ensure there are no errors

As always, try your best, work hard, and be passionate. I look forward to judging you, have fun and good luck!

I am a lay judge.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

Last Chance Qual:

I have done no topic research and don't even know the resolution. So assume I know nothing, because I truly know nothing.

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me
• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

I am a parent judge and fairly new to the world of Speech and Debate. Please do not spread (i.e., speak clearly and slowly enough so I can understand you) and keep your own time. I would also appreciate clearly stated and well-structured arguments so I can follow the flow of debate. I am looking forward to a respectful and courteous debate. Good luck and most importantly, have fun!

As a lay judge, I come to the debate without extensive experience or expertise in the specific subject matter being discussed. This means that I will be evaluating the debate from a perspective of common sense and general knowledge, rather than technical or specialized knowledge.

While I will be looking for clear and convincing arguments, I will also be paying close attention to how effectively the debaters communicate their ideas to a general audience. I want to see debaters who can explain complex concepts in simple terms and make their arguments accessible and understandable to someone without specialized knowledge of the topic.

Overall, my goal as a lay judge is to provide a fair and objective evaluation of the debate that reflects the values of clarity, simplicity, and persuasion. I am excited to see the creativity and ingenuity of the high school students as they present their arguments and engage in a thoughtful and respectful debate.

I am a first time parent judge. Please speak slowly and thoughtfully.

I will vote based on whoever has the better arguments that "stand" at the end of the round.

Any sort of Discriminatory or hateful content will automatically result in a loss for that team. Please be respectful!

Good Luck!

Hello,

I am the coach of the Fort Lauderdale High School Speech and Debate team. My pronouns are he/him.

I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013 at Cooper City High School. I studied law/economics/history at Cornell University but did not debate there. To be honest, I didn’t really think much about debate after high school except when reminiscing with old friends -- until August of 2021 when fate delivered me to Fort Lauderdale and back into the world of Speech and Debate. Been judging and coaching like a madman since.

TL;DR consider me the most tech lay judge ever, or the most lay tech judge ever.

DETAILS:

-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you. I shouldn't have to say this but if you're racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic in round I will drop you.

-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning. Nobody likes a sore winner, and I definitely don’t give them good speaker points.

-Theory – Run at your own risk. I don’t read “high theory” so if you’re going to quote Lacan or Nietzsche or whoever, explain it to me like I’m a baby who doesn’t know anything. That said I’ve evaluated Ks that were explained to me in a “lay” way.

-Spreading is relative – but I prefer clarity over speed. I’m OK with fast “normal” speech, but if you’re speaking too fast for me to understand your arguments then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. If you are speaking too I will tap on the desk/table to signal to you to slow down. That said, I’ve only very rarely had the need to ask someone to do so.

-Disclosure – include me in the email chain/speechdrop for your case/evidence. ESPECIALLY if you spread/read fast. I find that I can judge much more effectively and accurately when I can follow along with your arguments on my computer while I flow.

My email for evidence chains: Arthur.kulawik@browardschools.com

-I flow everything and judge the round based on that. Extend all arguments, don’t bring in new arguments in final focus, and weigh your arguments. What are the real world impacts? Why does this matter? I need to know the answers to these questions.

-Cross – It’s always tragic to me when competitors make great points in cross and then don’t bring up those points at all in any of their speeches. If it’s not in a speech I can’t flow it.

-Falsifying evidence/lying in round will lead to an automatic loss. On a related note – I don’t like paraphrasing. if you do so you better have that card in hand ready to show me. I have dropped competitors more than once for “stretching” / “creatively interpreting” evidence.

-Tech>over truth, but if the arguments you are making are based on outright obvious falsehoods you will not win. 2+2=4, the sky is blue, earth rotates around the sun.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my for the fist time.I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

I am a parent judge, meaning that I am lay. I will be flowing to an extent, but please note that I decide the round based on how convincing your arguments are. That means you need to speak at a normal pace (avoid spreading), use lay terms (stay away from debate jargon), and I recommend staying away from Theory. My flowing depends on extensions throughout the round, and I will not buy arguments which are not fully warranted and extended in Final Focus. Again, I place importance on speaking at a normal pace, this means I prefer the quality of arguments over quantity.

PFD: The most important thing to do prior to actually participating in PFD is preparation. One should know not only the current facts of the issue but also the continuity of the issue of time and its possibly complex history. This way, you can weave this history into your arguments by using EXAMPLES related to the historical ramification of the issue to strengthen your own argument while at the same time refuting the opponent.

LD: What I look for in LD is the hard drive of facts fueled by the passion of the debater. Passion does not equal emotion and while debaters tend to conflate the two LD is based in facts and most times statistical data.

Policy: What I look for in an effective Policy debate is fluidity of facts and a clear concise argument that does not get lost in spreading.

Congress: Parliamentarian: I look for proper etiquette when introducing motions. KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! I also look for the passion behind one's speeches. If someone is telling the story of George Floyd for example, the story should be told with pathos and passion rather than reading from a script. Know your speeches like the back of your hand in order to present yourself as a powerhouse on the congress floor.

The Presiding Officer: KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! The PO should have an in depth understanding of the common and uncommon types of motions in order to guide the session through both turbulence and lulls to preferably keep neither from happening. If one does not know this, refer here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Frequently-Used-Motions.pdf

Important Note: If you find yourself tripping over words when spreading, try slowing down. When faced with these obstacles, slowing down will equate to the same amount of facts in the same amount of time had you continued with speed but stumbling.

I've never debated, but I have judged quite a few tournaments at this point. I appreciate debates where the participants take time to speak clearly and reasonably slowly, so that I can hear what they are saying. On that note, I also appreciate debaters who don't speak over others, exercise kindness, and who really make an effort to consider and address other participants' input. Two sided discussions are always more fruitful than monologues that ignore each other. Lastly, I love when participants are mindful of the ways that history has shaped class, race, disability, and gender issues in our society today. Marginalized people and their histories deserve dignity, and a place in all of your discussions. Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!

-Judge Kabang Lauron

Debated 4 years at Montville Township High School, NJ

Regarding the round:

1. Remember to mute if not speaking - I will dock speakers if I have to remind you more than 3 times that you are being disruptive of your opponent due to extraneous sound.

2. I will be keeping time, but I expect you to hold each other accountable. If I haven't said anything and you know your opponents are going over the allotted prep/speech time, let me know and I will double-check. Regarding prep time, for the sake of fairness and accountability - please type in chat how much you used so everyone is in the know. (online only)

3. No new args in FF - I will completely disregard this and lower speaker points for this. It's not fair, it's an unfair advantage for the 2nd speaking team, don't do it.

4. I've interacted and debated with/against K's and T-Shells, but I really don't remember much. Im probably not your guy if you want to run those types of args

6. First Summary should make time for defense. I debated with the 2 minute summary, so with an added minute, I think there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to include frontlines. Do I expect them to be top-quality and quantity? No. But don't use being 1st summary as a reason to not frontline your arguments. Second Summary, no exceptions, you should be frontlining.

7. Second Summary, please don't read a brand new overview, weighing analysis, or turn. This, imo, is unfair for the first speaking team considering they only have grand crossfire and 1st FF to sufficiently respond to it. If you know you're going to do one of the aforementioned, it should be read in the second rebuttal, so at least it's a bit more fair and accounts for time skew.

8. If you really think it's integral I call a piece of evidence because it's falsified, paraphrased, out-of-context, or etc, make that explicitly clear to me; I have no reason to call for evidence otherwise. If this evidence is a round-breaker, also make this clear for me.

9. You know the drill, don't be mean/rude/disrespectful or use any hurtful and discriminatory language. I have zero-tolerance for any type of hate speech - auto 0 speaks and I'll bring this up to the tourney director.

10. Speed is fine, but mic quality and zoom might make it really hard to speak fast and speak coherently.

11. Speaker points will be reflected upon 3 criteria: presence in the round, coherent argumentation and logical flow, organization of ideas. The result of the round does not affect your speaker points.

12. I can't believe I have to add this, but this just happened and I hope it never happens to me again. I don't necessarily think you need you BELIEVE every argument you make and be a supporter of it, but if I ask you, "Do you genuinely think this argument is true . . . ie nuke war good!," I'm going to be super skeptical and be unlikely to buy it if it isn't warranted extensively.

13. Unless I explicitly say otherwise or interject before a speech, always assume I am ready for the next speech. Let's keep the round efficient and fluid.

If you have any other questions - let me know.

Reach me at djl150@case.edu

*UPDATED FOR NSDA'S Big Questions.

PF for 4 Years

1 - Comfortable with spreading, but if it risks clarity, speaks will be docked + could cost you a round if I cannot understand you. I will yell CLEAR only twice before I leave you on your own to decide whether to slow down or not.

2 - No new in the 2 - I will completely disregard new args

3 - Defense is a priority for all speeches past rebuttal (consolidation/rationale). I give leniency for 1st speakers because of time skew, but the minimum should be terminal defense on any important args. Second speakers should have defense in their speeches.

4 - I don't flow "questions segment"s, but will listen. If you make a pointed attack/discuss a flaw in the opponent's case - call it back in your latter speeches for it to end up on my flow.

5 - As per the rules of NSDA's, progressive arguments (K's, T's) are NOT permitted. I will have to go to Tab and you will likely be subject to forfeit the round because it is in the rule book. Not my decision - play by the rules.

6 - You are responsible for timing one another's prep time. After it is used - make sure you are on the same page with regards to how much time is left. (3 minutes total per round)

7 - Grace Period is 10 seconds. Speak longer than 5:10, 4:10, 3:10 + I will start deducting speaker points.

8 - Signpost. Signpost. Signpost. Signpost. Signpost. Signpost. Btw. Signpost.

9 - Have no preference if you stand or sit for cross. Just mutually agree.

10 - Ask me any specifics after reading my paradigm, please and thank you. If you have questions - reach me at djl150@case.edu. If you have questions about studying to be a nurse - also email me about that.

*

Volunteering for judging Public Forum debate with limited experience.

I'll be looking for balance, balance between well established arguments and well organized refutes, balance between team members on the contribution and how each would compliment each other over the rounds.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I’m looking forward to a great debate from both sides, and I would prefer a clear and concise debate with well thought out explanations.  

Hi, I am a parent judge and it will be my first time judging this weekend.

I would like debaters to mention the arguments that they believe matter in every speech. Please talk slowly and give logical reasons to back up your arguments. Finally, please choose 1-2 arguments by the end of the round to make my evaluation easier.

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Debate Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). bigoted language is an auto-drop. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, LD, and Parli below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for the K. i'm a good judge for theory.

Meta:

I firmly believe "progressive debate is exclusionary" is wrong, and far too often a line wielded in bad faith to preserve traditionalist norms that prioritize "slickness" of debaters over the intellectual rigor of their arguments. I believe "Progressive debate" has no stable definition, but rather refers to arguments that stray from normative expectations of PF debate, including important discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird the debate to begin with. This article from Stefan Bauschard offers some excellent insights.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow, and ideally, create the email chain >5mins before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs must have full paragraphs, and include highlighting or otherwise clearly denote what words you say from the card (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. I often take longer to decide than most judges, so the more tech/admin time we can trim, the better.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one. No preference for room setup, however if there is a rocking chair in the room, I reserve claim to it.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant. Critical cases don't necessarily need to be read slower than conventional cases, but reducing your speed usually generates more "rhetorical heft", which helps your cause.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. I trust that debates will be conducted in good faith. Do not abuse that trust.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep. Therefore, author/tag extensions are insufficient, even when I know what warrant an author/tag extension is referring to. I don't judge-extend arguments, however I will cross-apply arguments made when they are clearly responsive to multiple flows. I flow overviews at the top of the first contention addressed in the speech. I flow weighing at the bottom of the contention being weighed. If you start weighing in rebuttal, I suggest weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first; Most theory and IVI debates fall under this category. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. Example: "Structural violence first" framing with probability weighing is dissonant with structural violence read as a link to a nuclear war impact -- rather, structural violence should be read AS the impact in this case, resolving both the framing and weighing mechanism, creating a more cohesive argument. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework for how I evaluate the round is resolved, I move to the contentions.

When both teams' frameworks agree, I look to the link first, specifically for answers to these questions: HOW does affirming/negating the res trigger the impact they describe? (qualify your link story) Is there an empirical precedent for the link, or is it speculative? If speculative, I move to uniqueness and ask, what conditions of the status quo produce the link, and how? (qualify the uniqueness). These questions lend me to favor probability in weighing debates.

When frameworks conflict, I ask the same questions as above, however I find myself obligated to consider solvency. Examples: If the hypothetical endorsement of the aff prevents WWIII, but cannot solve back existing structural violence, I lean aff. If the hypothetical endorsement of the negative probably creates better living conditions for marginalized people, but exacerbates to already-existing carbon emissions, I lean neg. Turns can be remarkably effective in conflicting framework debates. The ballot as a token of endorsement is also central to my view of K debate in PF. More on that follows.

If neither team is able to secure offense in the round, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo independently triggers an impact.

Notes on certain arguments:

Topical (normative) Cases - Truth is determined by the flow, unless the claim is patently false or discursively violent. The link/link chain and solvency tend to be the most vulnerable components of any given contention. I find myself to lean toward favoring probability weighing. Defense needs to be extended or conceded. I will only judge kick if the other team doesn't take advantage of the misstep. Turns are great, but be decisive and kick case if you're going for it - its a great demonstration of your technical skills.

Topical (critical) Cases - Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen. Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like? Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link. Engaging a K with your own K is a great way to ensure everyone's speaks go up regardless of my decision.

Non-topical criticisms - Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm. Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one. Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice! Look at the "theory" section below for additional thoughts that might be helpful.

"Off-case" Criticisms - I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal. If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality - I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s). I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. T is an a-priori argument, and if you go for it, it should be the whole FF. T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory - PF is still a very young format, quickly growing in popularity. Debaters do not set the the meeting agendas for the community's governing bodies. Therefore, theory rounds constitute a means for students to determine the direction of the event from the grassroots level. Theory arguments are your way of arguing what should be the broadly held best practices for the activity. "Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory. I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. Some theory things is believe: Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are and ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence. I will joyfully vote for the lowest threshold paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team. If you genuinely don't know what I mean by "cut cards", please tell me before the round and I will explain this (nicely). Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy:

3 rounds judged 2022-23. I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. Policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just shoot me an email.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln-Douglas:

2 rounds judged 2022-23. Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentary:

4 rounds judged 2022-23. I did not enjoy any of them.

change my mind! :)

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents:

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. If you're spreading faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

I am looking for clear and well-paced speech, structural narration and well labelled supporting statements and evidence.

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. Public Forum is an event designed to be judged
by anyone - that is what appears in the description of the event provided by the NSDA. Debate
accordingly.

I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.

I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.

I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.

I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.

Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.

I am a College Sophomore that used to compete in high school public forum and policy debate. I am a flow judge.

I am fine with any type of argument as long as it has a clear impact and solid links. I am fine with theory as long as you make it very clear to understand.

I am a big fan of roadmaps. Please signpost. If you intend on spreading, know that I will try my best to get everything onto my flow but may miss some things.

If sharing cases is permitted, I am a big fan of referring to it as you give your speech, although I won't look back at it when making my final decision.

Please give me clear voters.

Thank you!

I have been judging LD and PF debates for about 6 years. I do flow cases so it will be great if you could provide me with an off-time roadmap and signpost your arguments. I judge based on tech>truth.

It is important to have a clear framework, so make sure that you state that this is contention 1, subpoint 1 etc. Please extend your arguments and make sure that you have cards for your evidence since I do read them. I like clash so you have to defend your contentions during cross examination.

Please be respectful to your opponent during cross examination. Do let your opponent finish their question or sentence. I will sign my ballot the second that I hear any discriminatory language.

Have fun, do your best and good luck!

Westwood '22

Currently coach for Westlake

TFA State

I would rather judge good substance rather than silly progressive rounds. Specific preparation will be rewarded in good speaks (i.e. reading specific blocks against cases, not just dumping generic DAs, etc.) Innovative arguments will also be rewarded in good speaks. Send docs before any speech where you will read new cards - I will not call for evidence that isn't in the chain.

Email for email chains (I want to be on it)/questions/anything really: amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com

I will flow every speech and be focused on the round. I love the activity and know how much time you put in - you deserve a judge that pays attention and that cares. Go as fast as you want but be clear. More often than not you don't need to read 4 contentions or go as fast are you're going - quality is way more important than quality.

Speaks are a function of strategy (good collapsing, weighing, going for dropped turns and doing it well, etc) and practices (disclosure, cut cards, etc). I do not care what you wear. Speaks will range from 28 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.

I will research most, if not all, of the topics. So, you can assume I have background knowledge, but if you're reading something super specific explain it and your acronyms.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

If you want a short version - I agree with Akhil Bhale.

Non-negotiables:

- No prep stealing (it's quite obvious)

- Have the cut card for any piece of evidence that you read easily accessible (bare minimum), if your going to send links to large PDFs please strike me.

- I am uninterested in listening to and will not vote for arguments that endorse self-harm or suicide. Spark and other hypothetical impact turns are fine.

- Do not use racist/sexist/misogynistic rhetoric.

- I will "flow" cross-examination and it is binding (it exists for a reason). I hate it when teams don't understand their own arguments and this is the time to make it obvious. Probably won't be a voting issue but could be made into one.

"Preferables" (your speaks will automatically improve but I won't hold it against you unless convinced otherwise by theory etc.) :

- Disclose previously broken positions on the wiki (personally think new Affs/Negs are good but that is a debate to be had)

- Read from cut cards

- Send constructive and rebuttal docs with all the cards before your speech. I will never call for specific evidence after the round. If I think the evidence will decide or influence my decision I will go to speech docs to read it, if it isn't there too bad. Sending evidence after the round is just a way for debaters to send new evidence they didn't read, highlight evidence, cut parts out - I don't want to deal with that. TLDR: It helps both you and the debate if you send docs. I am a sucker for good evidence. If you have some really good evidence make sure I know about it - call it out by name. Again not an excuse for not debating - don't hide behind your evidence.

- Pre-flow before the round.

General:

- Tech > Truth (to an extent) - if an argument is dropped it is considered true but still has to be an argument for you to win on it (ie. it must be extended with uniqueness/link/internal link/impact), new implications or cross applications justify new responses to the specific implication. If you blow up a 2-second rebuttal blip - my threshold for responses won't be very high. More stuff on progressive arguments later.

- Read whatever you want to read - do your own thing. More on specific progressive arguments later.

- Open CX is fine (both people can speak/explain during cross-examination). Flex prep is fine and often good (ask questions during your prep time).

- 2nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline everything on the argument you're going for. Efficiency will be rewarded with good speaks. Defense is not sticky. Most "weighing" is new responses more on that later - at the latest 1st final but that's probably way too late and justifies 2nd final responses which isn't good for you anyway. 0 risk is a thing, but most defense will be evaluated on a probabilistic scale. 1st summary is the last time, I will flow new arguments. (There is a distinction between new arguments and new weighing - be careful.)

- Most substantive questions will be revealed on a probabilistic scale - comparative risk of the arguments. In 99% of debates, both sides will win some offense so comparative weighing and impact calculus can and often decides rounds. Procedural arguments often have to be evaluated on a yes/no basis (does the AFF violate the interp, RVIs or no RVIs, etc.)

- Turns. I love them but they are often done terribly. 99% of link turns need uniqueness to be offensive (ie. If the AFF tells me there is no negotiation in the status quo, and the NEG goes for a link turn about how the AFF makes negotiation worse, I have no idea what the impact to negative negotiation is.) Impact turns are also often interesting debates - if the link is contested (I hope it isn't if you're going for an impact turn) or if your opponents go for a different argument, then extend it clearly. If both teams seem to agree to the link and it just becomes an impact debate, I don't really care about link extensions too much. There are only 2 types of turns. Link turns and impact turns. New DAs and ADVs are often labeled as turns but you won't fool me and don't try - more on that later.

- Weighing. Also something I love but is often done wrong. There are three weighing mechanisms: probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a subset of those three (ie. scope is a subset of magnitude) or isn't a weighing mechanism (ie. clarity of the strength of the link or whatever people like to say.) Unless convinced otherwise (which is easily possible), link weighing/debating > impact weighing. I often find that nuclear war outweighs climate change or poverty outweighs death is irrelevant with good link weighing. I will give examples of link weighing below: at the latest these arguments need to be introduced by 1st summary. Probability link weighing are no-link arguments or "mitigatory defense." Stuff like "it is hard for terrorists to get BMDs because of monetary and technical constraints" is definitely link defense and needs to be in 1st summary at the latest. Probability is a function of how much defense you win on an argument, I will not arbitrarily assign probabilities (ie. say climate change is more probable than nuclear war) - you have to explain to me why that is the case which often is just link defense. Timeframe link weighing can be great. Arguments like the NATO bank at the earliest even if created won't get funding for years etc. Magnitude link weighing is really good and often underused (ie. "scope of solvency"). Solving bitcoin emissions won't solve climate change writ large etc. That being said, I can be convinced that impact weighing comes before link weighing. Arguments like extinction first and Bostrom and viable and can also be good. I hope everyone knows what impact weighing is so not going to go too in-depth on that. Last note - turns case is really, really good and also really, really underutilized in PF. Conflict probably ends negotiations, climate change probably makes war more likely, economic growth probably resolves underlying conditions for crime, etc. These types of arguments can really help you frame a round and establish why your came case comes first. Impact weighing and turns case can come by 1st final by the latest.

- Try or die can be convincing if done well. It is often a great strategy if you are going for an extinction impact and the NEG has conceded uniqueness. This is not an excuse for not frontlining - 0 risk is a thing. Timeframe is a really good weighing mechanism in try or die/extinction first debates and can often implicate probablity.

- Framing debates are also really interesting - extinction first etc. Framing arguments are not a substitute for link debate but a supplement. If you win policy paralysis and the other team wins a very large risk of their extinction scenario, the other team has probably won the round.

"Substance":

- Quality > quantity. Not too many interesting thoughts here. Good weighing and link debating wins rounds - avoiding clash, being shifty, and dumping blips doesn't.

- Empirics aren't arguments but can help your position combined with warrants. If you have good empirics that are specific to the mechanism of the resolution/your argument you're probably in a good spot.

- I could care less about quantified impacts. They are often random predictions by conspiracy theorists or terrible models. Even worse, debater math. I would much rather your impact be economic growth than some math you did with different studies and percentages. Extinction is an impact, recession is an impact, etc - I do not care about your 900 million card.

- Kicking case in reading a new DA/ADV in 2nd rebuttal is a bad idea. You essentially just wasted half of the debate. I will have a very low threshold for responses and encourage theory. This is different from reading 4 minutes of turns (ie. kicking case and just going for prolif good). I am perfectly fine with that, in fact, that would be quite fun.

Below are some thoughts on progressive argumentation. Don't read these arguments to win rounds - it's quite obvious. You disclose for the first time and read disclosure theory, change from full text to open source for 1 tournament to meet your interp, etc. I will still vote for it if you win but your speaks won't be great. Also, don't read progressive arguments just to beat novices - I will give you the worst speaks I possibly can.

Theory:

- I have mixed feelings on disclosing broken interps - could be convinced either way. In general, meta-theory is interesting and under-used.

- Topicality is also interesting. Define words in the resolution. Intent to define and evidence quality is extremely important. Unlike most theory debate, precision, your interpretation, and the evidence matter a lot more to me than the limits/ground debate.

- While I will not "hack" against these arguments be aware it is an uphill battle if you are defending paraphrasing good or disclosure bad. If you win your CI and everything on the flow of course I will still vote for you. If it is a close-round, you know which way I am probably going to vote.

- I default to competing interpretations, no RVIs, spirit of the interp, and drop the debater. I can easily be convinced otherwise. If paradigm issues are dropped/agreed upon they do not need to be extended in every speech. If the debate devolves to just theory under competing interps - I am voting for the better model of debate, I could not care that you won no RVIs (personally, no RVIs doesn't mean you can't win on a counter-interp in my mind)

- Reasonability is a good tool against mis-disclosure (open-source versus full text etc) and frivolous shells. You should still read a counter interp - but explain why the marginal differences in your models of debate are outweighed by substance crowd out etc.

- Read your shell the speech after the violation (if they paraphrase in 2nd rebuttal - feel free to read paraphrasing theory in 1st summary.) Theory after that is fairly late and really hard to have good clash, thus probably will result in intervention but if you think its necessary read it (bad language etc.)

- For some reason, small school counter-interps are quite popular and I get why (I read them myself a few times.) However, I am inclined to believe that arbitrary entry limits are just that arbitrary. Also, a lot of small schools are in big prep groups with a lot of resources, or just don't have a lot of people competing etc.

- Theory is unaccessible is a terrible argument - there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to any other argument.

- Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

K's:

- "Substantive Ks" like Cap K or Security K are great but probably will just be evaluated as DAs or impact turns. Reading it as a K is often just an excuse to get out of the uniqueness debate, and when your alternative is just rejection, I don't think that gets you very far.

- Non-topical positions are also fine - I am familiar with most of the stuff people read in PF, but if you're reading high-theory or something confusing - slow down and explain it. I won't vote for something I can't explain back to you. This is my one exception to disclosing new Affs/Negs. I strongly believe non-topical positions should be disclosed before the debate to allow for clash.

- I slightly lean towards T/FW against K affs/negs probably because K debate in PF isn't done very well - but can easily be convinced otherwise. K teams should go for impact turns, weigh the K against the shell, and have a good CI that mitigates the limits offense. Do not read a K based on research about x argument and discourse and then make a prepouts bad argument on theory - that doesn't make too much sense. Weighing is really important in these rounds and I find that the theory teams get away with some stuff too easily (answer stuff like fairness is key to participation which comes before your method.)

- I am also down for a method v method debate, or PIKs etc. Conditionality is probably good against a new K aff/neg (ie. fine with T/FW combined with a PIK etc)

- Long pre-written overviews are not as useful as line-by-line and specific weighing.

- Also, please have an actual method. If you say "vote for me because I pointed this out," you probably won't get my ballot.

- Paraphrased Ks are a big no. Non-negotiable.

If you got this far, thank you for taking the time to read this. If you have any questions feel free to email me whenever. I will always disclose unless the tournament explicitly tells me not to. Postrounding is good if it is constructive and educational - but this time, I will have already submitted my ballot and will not be able to change it. Feel free to email me questions after the round as well.

Hello debaters! I am a parent judge, but I have some experience with PF judging. Keep in mind that I am not a tech judge, I don’t value spreading, don’t talk extremely fast. I will be flowing in every speech, so dropped points are going to weigh very high. Please signpost, it makes everything much cleaner. Terminology is not my strong suit and if you say something like “that’s wrong because Mendel 18 delinks” and move on, that’s not something which would effectively do much for your side. Reconstructions are also important!Logical constructive and rebuttals will be impactful to me, and in final focus tell me why your impacts outweigh but don’t read outrageous impacts just because no one’s going to respond to it. Good luck!

I use they/them pronouns

Make and bring me these please: https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1015819-chocolate-chip-cookies

Background on who I am. I did mainly Public Forum and Congress at Cherry Creek High School in Colorado and went to Nationals and State multiple times for PF. I currently do Parliamentary Debate(NPDA) at Whitman College, an impromptu policy debate (imagine CX but we get the topic pre-round and only have 25 minutes to prep) and have placed nationally multiple times.

I will vote down teams that run any arguments that are blatantly bigoted.

For PFers:

Do whatever you want within reason. Off time roadmaps good with me. I'm a flow judge. 15 second grace period. Debates a game I'll treat as such, run whatever you want. I love weird cases. Ive run all sorts weird things and am happy to hear whatever as long as you can back it up and youre topical. Id like to think I'm pretty fair, I will listen to arguments that are more shakey on a logic level if they are carded and well defended. Please collapse in the FF dont lose the round bc your FF refused to give me clear voters.

If you are running Ks and Ts look to CX.

For LDers:

I dont know a ton about LD and it is the debate I have the least exposure. However I have been judging lots of LD rounds and still think I'm a fair and good judge. If youre collapsing to Criterion or CV tell me why I should care I think one of the biggest mistakes around CV/Crit debates is just telling me you won it but dont telling me why I should vote on it. 15 second grace period. I love listening to weird cases as well and have read a lot of philosophy lit, but am also cool if you treat it more like a policy/PF round and go harder for the impacts. Pretty much just do what you want within reason.For LD debates that want to treat LD more like a policy round look to Policy below for most of my opinions on that feel free to ask questions.

For CXers/Policy:

The majority of my Policy experience has been in college that being said I've heard lots of cases, Ks, Theory, etc. I don't love speed I can do pretty fast and will slow you if I'm losing you basically dont spread. Make it clear when you kick things. I can understand most jargon you can go tech heavy if you want. I lean tech over truth.

TLDR on CX:

Good with almost everything. I love Ks. Feel free to run wild arguments.

On Policy based Cases (Plans, Ads, DAs, CPs)

Signpost well. Make sure to do good impact calc and collapse clearly. Idk ask me before round about specifics here. I am okay with PICs and PTX.

On Ks

There is one exception to my paradigm on Ks. I wont vote up a team that runs a K based on an author who directly participated in a genocide. Basically dont run Mao or Stalin(you can think of more examples that arent marxist I'm sure), there are plenty of really good non-genocidal communists.

I am a bit of a K hack. I love Ks. I have run/heard/know Anti-Cap, Anti-Blackness (pess, futurism, optimism), Queer-Pess, Queer-Jouissance, Biopolitics, Legalism, Orientalism, Baudrillard, DnG, Freud, Pacifism, Militarism, Speed, Debate Machine and more (again I love K). That being said run whatever you want in terms of a K as long as you can make it make sense and explain it well, Ive run plenty of "non-traditional" Ks off of random lit bases. Run your new whacky K that you dont think anyone will listen to, I will. I am good with Aff Ks too.

On Theory

I like theory as long as your correct. This doesn't mean you have to run boring theory, but also doesn't mean you wont win off of normal theory. I dont default to apriori against an Aff K if the K makes a compelling argument for me to uplayer.

TL:DR

Do what you want have fun, dont go too fast, signpost, convince me and defend your cases and youll do well :).

I also dont actually expect you to bring cookies but hey i mean ill take free desserts...

I have been competing, coaching, and judging in forensics for over 3 decades.  I have judged, competed, or coached just about every type of debate that exists at the high school and collegiate levels.  That being noted, my paradigm is as follows.

The debate is defined within the round by the competitors.  However, I do prefer full arguments and positions rather than blip arguments.  I do not mind any arguments being offered as long as there is a rational, logical, and coherent justification to do so.  I prefer there is cogent argumentation rather than tricks or K for the sole purpose of trying to win, this cheapens the activity and reduces it to a game. I believe there are valid reasons for running a K, but those justifications need to be made apparent within the debate.

I also have the highest respect for this activity and hope that students do as well.  This activity is about arguments.  As such, any ad homs or discrimination of any kind will result in a loss.  These are antithetical to the fundamental principles of debate and the respect that competitors deserve.

I will admit that I am not a huge fan of speed.  I can flow fast debates, but if the arguments are incoherent, I cannot judge them.  I do not believe that my reading of a case or arguments is an actual debate.  That is not to say that I won't interrogate or call for evidence, but I do not want to rely on reading cases to be able to understand the debate.

I love debate and want to make sure that students are holding this incredible activity in the highest esteem.

General

• Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
• I have some difficulty hearing, so I would appreciate it if you speak loud!
• I do not understand K's or Theory, unless it is it is disclosure theory, trigger warnings theory, or paraphrasing theory. I flow it, but it may not weigh heavy in my decision.
• Email: blmeints1@gmail.com

PF

I can handle any speed however, I am out of practice, so if you are going to talk fast make sure you are speaking clear and you are more in-depth in your arguments.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).

I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.

Congress

In Congress I like to see sound use of evidence and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see extension and elaboration on arguments, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. Questioning is also important, because I want to make sure that you are able to defend your arguments!

LD judge:

On Speed, your welcome to spread your evidence however, I would prefer you slow the rate of speed for the actual articulation of your argument.

-A participant can likely sway me to their persuasion with strong empirical evidence. While more recent generally is stronger, but depending upon the topic, some evidence/data can be older if tied to a relevant argument.

I prefer qualitative supporting contentions that link to your philosophical framework. I prefer traditional LD.

-I prefer debate rounds that are on the actual resolution...you may note when you feel the opponent is abusive and will be considered...but if your entire argument shifts to become non-topical (aka theory or kritiks)...it will be tough for you to win the round.

PF Judge:

All of the above applies.

My favorite type of PF round is when the competitors argue the pros and cons of the policy proposal imbedded in the resolution.

You can reach on your impacts, but the more practical go further with me in most cases.

I am an Engineer with several tournaments experience at Varsity PF judging. I like a narrative approach where you lay out the framework of your case even if it comes down to a technical RFD. I rely heavily upon evidence-based arguments and impacts. Don't argue that 100's of millions will die by nuclear war if it is a non-unique argument or you have not even presented a good probability we are headed in that direction.

If you have not won me over by the start of Final Focus, you better layout all the reasons why I should vote for AFF or NEG. Lead me to a decision.

The narrative isn't the only thing I consider, but try to be cohesive... i.e. connect the dots.

A few notes:

- You will never lose the round for being a JERK in cross, but I will give you low speaker points. Rudeness or excessive sarcasm is not rewarded here. Equity in all forms is expected.

- Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! I'm not going to catch everything so I need you to give some sort of weighing mechanisms and have valid probabilities for your impacts.

- I can take speed but do not spread. I will say "clear" or "Speed" twice and then I stop flowing altogether.

- If you go slightly over time that's OK, but keep it under 10-secs.

- 2nd rebuttal must front line.

- Speak up a little, I can't hear well (no, I am not kidding). I will miss most of what you say if you speak to me from behind your laptop. Beware of over-sized lecterns if you need a stand for your laptop.

- Time yourselves, please. Don't steal prep time just because we are ONLINE.

PS: Don't get too comfortable entering the room. After the coin toss, I prefer PRO on my left. Yes, I realize this does not apply in an ONLINE environment.

I am a traditional flow judge who was president of my high school debate team. I vote based upon the flow but require warranting and extending your arguments to inform my decision. Include impacts in your argument and weigh/meta weigh during rounds. Be sure to collapse on your arguments before FF. It is difficult for me to reach a favorable conclusion if you base your argument on theory, counter interpretation, or disclosure theory.

Other things to consider: Please signpost. PLEASE. My decisions are influenced by which individual/team more clearly, concisely and factually presents and supports their case. You can speak quickly but don't spread (220 wpm +). Try not to fall into "debated speak" as it makes it more difficult to understand/relate to your arguments. It is much more important that I can understand and follow your line of reasoning and how you build your argument. Building a logical case supported by a well thought out argument with supporting evidence is much more important to my decision than how quickly you can rattle off information. It is very important that you can support (or cite evidence for) "statements of fact" in your argument. You can off time roadmap but limit this to less than 15 seconds. Please don't laugh at, belittle, or otherwise show disrespect to your opponent or you will be docked individual points. Most importantly have fun, be nice, and we'll all have a great time. If you have questions please feel free to email me at trmoffitt@yahoo.com.

Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.

Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.

Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.

Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches

Spreading is fine! I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow.

Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, stronger clash, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots. Definition debates are my least favorite thing ever! Clash with the content of your cases!

I judge primarily as tech over truth. If you say something that is outright NOT true, I cannot overlook that, but I leave my bias/knowledge at the door as much as is appropriate & will judge simply on what happens in-round.

Don't be afraid to make me laugh!! Bachelorette/Survivor references are always appreciated.

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

read a content warning if you are graphically depicting something intense

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

add me to the email chain morgandylan183@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll dock speaks if you prep steal

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

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

I don't like disads, read turns.

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

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

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

Progressive Args

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

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

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Hello! I am a parent judge (lay).

A couple of key things

1. If you speak too fast, I won’t understand anything you say and you’ll likely lose the round. It will also affect your speaker points.

2. Don’t run anything racist, homophobic, discriminatory, etc. This is a clear violation of PF rules and will lead to you losing the round and <25 speaker points.

3. Please time yourself for each speech.

4. I will be listening in crossfire but if something important happens in crossfire, make sure to bring it up in later speeches.

At the end of the day, debate should be a fun activity and debaters should enjoy it. I love clashes in the round but don’t be rude to your opponents. Be respectful in rounds to both your partner and your opponents. Enjoy!

1. Focus only what I hear from each participant in the debate.

2. Speak clearly, slowly with good eye contact instead just reading from notes.

3. I collect notes from entire debate flow and give the points based on individual performance and finally compare both the teams and decide the winner.

I have done PF judge for several years as a parent judge. I don't have certain merits what would guarantee a win. Please prepare well, be yourself, try your best, and never give up.

It will be very helpful for me if you could provide signpost, compare evidence, weigh impact and scope. Summary and final focus is very important for decision making.

Enjoy the journey and have fun!

amanda072086@gmail.com
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.

I'm a parent judge and new to this. Please keep time throughout the round. I'm looking forward to listening to you debate today!

Hello, my name is Olamilekan Oderanti. I’m a debater, public speaker, orator and a seasoned debate coach. I have vast experience in different styles and forms of debates including: public forum, congress, Lincoln Douglas, British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC) and more.

I like to hear well-structured arguments with clear proofs, values, clashes and transitions. I jot down a lot and would always refer back to them when I make my decision.

There will always be clashes. Rather than repeating the same point over and again, please focus on the burden, It's my favorite part of debate. So, state and connect them clearly throughout your entire speech. I sure know how to reward good speakers.

Although presentation has never impacted my decision, it is dear to me! I was a speech kid, after all. Expatiate, have good wit, good structure, etc. Whatever makes you confident as a speaker.

Just be yourself and give your best to the sport.

Hello,

I am a parent judge and am new to debate year. Please speak at a rate and level that allows me to track all of your important points.

I look forward to hearing and judging your debates.

Best wishes!

Tristan

I am a first time parent judge, please do not use any jargon and go slow so i can understand you. And do not read any progressive arguments or very technical ones because i will not understand them. Thank You and Have Fun!

Hi, I am Pallavi Patel. I am a parent judge. My student attends Interlake High School.

I am a lay judge. I will enforce the rules of debate including speaking during designated times. I like strategies grounded in literature about the topic, well explained arguments, and clear organization. Teams that have good consistency in their arguments is also important.

New judge, please no spreading. I will vote for the most logical arguments. Please make sure to pinpoint the most important things I should weigh on.

Good Morning. I am a parent Judge and have judged only few times. Make sure your arguments are clear so that I can understand and judge accurately. I prefer if you don't spread. All the best.

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

Hello everyone!

My name is Michele Reich and my son is in public forum. Please speak conversationally and use a normal rate of speech. I really don’t like when debaters speak super fast to cram in a bunch of info. I will automatically vote against you if you run theory- please be respect of each other!

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a current senior at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I really hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if it’s really important you should bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I really hate off time road maps!! I prefer you to just tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in collge cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Dont get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post there case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

hi! i'm anisha (she/her) and i've been doing LD for the last 4 years at Enloe

add me to the email chain: anisharoy0211@gmail.com

a couple things to keep in mind:

• i consider framework debate before weighing the contention-level. however, don't have a values debate if they're essentially the same, move on to weighing impacts.
• i tend to be more traditional, but can judge progressive LD -- willing to entertain theory, K's, progressive case structures, etc. explanation/narrative is still key, i'd like to see that you know what you're running
• fine with spreading, just ensure that your opponent is too
• weigh!!! say your impacts outweigh and explain what weighing mechanisms matter most
• please signpost!
• i like seeing voter issues in the last speeches, use them to concisely and effectively tell me why you win
• be respectful and kind! i will deduct speaks for disrespect
• as for speaks, i'll start on 28, and go up or down based on efficiency, decorum, and attitude

good luck and have fun!

I'm a traditional parent judge. I focus on how you present and lay your framework and how strongly you do your research to support your contentions.

I'll time you guys, but I suggest you time yourselves and your opponents.

I like debaters who speak clearly and seem confident. I do not like to see arrogance. During Cross exams- respect your opponent- do not cut or be rude ( I will count it negetive) .

Have questions reach me at moonroy2405@gmail.com

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

I am a traditional debate judge.  I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments.  I do not believe that Kritiks and other cases like that have any place in PF debate.  Speed should be reasonable.  I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.  

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 10 years. Out of all of the events, I’ve judged LD the most because getting LD judges is not as easy as other events.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have a plethora of experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes it doesn't make sense, so truth over tech is definitely my stance although I mostly stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that benefits the debate/educational event. I do believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning strategy and to learning overall, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says.

So, to review - I DO NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote...the things I've been the least convinced of have been among tricks and skep, but even those I've still accepted if argued well enough.

I can handle speed or spreading pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate the students that don't take extra ones.

Hello, my name is Paxton (He/ Him) and I love debate! Depending on the event you are in you can jump around my paradigm. PLEASE LOOK AT MY OVERALL SECTION THO.

My History

I have done well in LD, BQ, Worlds, BP, Policy, and PF. I am very familiar in any event I am judging. Policy and LD were my main events in high school. I was a state finalist in policy and a state champ in LD. I also finished 3rd at NSDA nats in LD. I am now currently coaching high school level and debating in college.

Overall

I am a tabula rasa judge. I prefer a clean flow with solid evidence and warrant extensions. I will vote off the framework, so tell me what that is! If I get no framework I default to impact calc. I WILL LISTEN TO ANY ARG. If you are running something ultra complex then do the extra work so I can understand the advocacy, but theory and k’s are great. (If you run a theory or k please give me role of the ballot analysis and do the proper extensions.) I am good with speed.

1. If it is policy (and sometimes PF and LD which I will ask in the round), please make an email chain and disclose evidence to everyone in the round before the speech. I will ask you when we get there and just please say yes. It is good for the debate community and makes it easier for me to judge fairly. If it is not mentioned before the round please don't take that as a wide open opportunity to run a disclosure theory. If you are going to run that theory just ask before the round or speech.
2. Don’t yell at or attack your opponents for who they are, please be civil. There is no excuse. I do understand that debate can get intense, and that is ok.
3. Roadmap and SignPost
4. Don’t lie. Now I know debate is a game of lying or bending the truth but just don’t make huge lies about your opponents. I’ll be flowing hard, and it makes me very frustrated when you go off a huge lie.
5. Have fun and try your hardest! If you have any questions ask me after the round.

LD

I love this event. Give me good impact calc through the criterion. Cover the flow. When making extensions I need the card name, the arg, and why you are extending it or why it matters, basic stuff.

PF

QOL is not a framework. If you are going to read a framework please make sure it is unique and not just weigh impacts. Read one if you are actually framing the round in a unique way. I love evidence and warrant extensions. Sometimes slimming the case and dropping points is ok if done strategically. I will vote off of impact calc.

Policy

You do you. I’ll vote on anything, just make sure to tell me why. I err aff on T. Only run it if there is a clear violation. If you run it, give me good analysis on the impact of the violation. Solvency is very important, aff please extend it, neg please attack it. I am cool with CP’s, k’s, and theory. All I ask is that you do the work to fully develop them if you are going to try and win on it. I want role of the ballot analysis if you run a k or theory.If you run a ton in the 1nc I will be happy and excited for the round. If you run 1 or 2 very deep complex advocacies I will also be pleased. I err prog in policy but I also think all policy can be good policy.

My name is Lindsey (she/her) and I competed in public forum debate for four years. I have two years of experience coaching public forum debate and three years experience judging public forum debate.

***EDIT: If you are here from the article citing my paradigm, please read the following:

The first quote used by James Fishback was taken completely out of context and written two years ago. I updated it before I started regularly judging tournaments again. I feel my current paradigm explains my reasoning much better. The main intention behind the 2 year old quote I had was for debaters to have a bit of a heads up when discussing very graphic or disturbing impacts, especially if the argument is off-topic from the resolution. Essentially, I just want debaters to have empathy for one another, but I realized the quote could be easily misconstrued to look like I want to prevent arguments, so the next time I had a tournament I removed this quote from my paradigm. I thought I had removed it rather quickly. His screencap he shared with me in our correspondence includes an old school I had worked for and I would have taken this information out after I had stopped working for them in 2022.

Even when this was in my paradigm statement, I had many lines of my paradigm dedicated to telling debaters I will not intervene with my own thoughts in round. I am Technicality>Truth above all else. I really did not mean for this sentence to be a voting issue and it was not placed under the "path to my ballot" subheading. I never said I would auto drop an argument that fell under this category, just as I would not auto drop someone for not condensing or not extending an impact.

More importantly, I meant for the sentence cited to be an example of something that could be considered unkind to do in a debate space and may make the debate less productive. I didn't intend for it to mean I would drop the argument entirely. In fact, I have judged many debates in which this was the case and I still voted for the team that ran the argument because they won the round. It was meant to be a NVI (non voting issue). Additionally, in the sentence, I was referring to off-topic arguments that refer to very graphic race-based impacts run by teams not affected by the impact just as a means to get a win. This is why I ultimately took out that sentence to clarify better what I meant; this was a decorum issue, not a voting issue. I will never prevent a debate on an important issue from happening and I never have.

The author of the article took misconstrued my follow up quote. Here's the entirety of what it said:

Hey James! I don’t know if it’s exactly my place to say what arguments will/won’t make marginalized communities feel unsafe in the debate space and that’s one reason I updated my paradigm. I want it to ultimately be the debater’s decision, but I want to ensure a team that is directly affected by the argument is comfortable discussing it in the debate space. Another reason I eliminated this sentence was because I incorporated a similar idea in my section about progressive debate and I feel it captures the main idea better: I think debaters should communicate before the round to make sure both teams are aware of what topics will be discussed and are comfortable with it. In essence, I think arguments that may be super hard to argue for communities that are directly involved with the impacts should be discussed prior to the round to ensure debate is fun for everyone. My goal isn’t to “eliminate free speech”, but to have both teams be able to have a productive and fun debate.This kinda goes along with my first comment, but I didn’t eliminate the idea itself. I wanted to clarify later in my paradigm that students should notify one another to see if their opponents are comfortable with a proposed topic. I think these topics are important to be discussed, but not when one team is using the argument as a means to get a win without considering the feelings/experiences of their opponents (especially if their opponents are directly affected by the impact).

When explicitly asked how I would evaluate a round in which a debater expressed discomfort, I told James that I would still evaluate the round in its entirety. He completely left this out of his essay. Here is my exact response I gave James:

I consider everything that happens in round. The goal of debate is to be a productive, positive-sum experience for everyone, and debaters need to be considerate of that goal when deciding how to run an argument and whether to run it at all. You can look at my updated paradigm if you want more information as the one you have is nearly two years old.

Here, I tried to make it very clear that my goal was never to censor freedom of thought. In fact, I had in my paradigm for the entirety of the past two years that I am non interventionist and will always evaluate tech>truth (meaning I will evaluate the debate based on how well the debaters responded and not what my own beliefs are). I thought James would operate in good faith when I sent these messages, but my response (with its nuances) were misconstrued. Of course, this is what happens when an individual writes a piece of journalism that is intended to be incendiary and not productive.

Please do not try to contact me if you still have my personal information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Start here to read my actual paradigm:

In general:

You can read any argument you want. I will not auto drop you (and have never in my entire history of judging auto dropped a team) for reading a bad argument. However, do keep in mind that if your argument is off-topic, offensive, or ridiculous, you may have a much harder time winning the round due to increased opportunities for your opponent's rebuttal. Debate was created as a truth-seeking activity, so I have found that arguments that are more grounded in reality tend to hold up in round better. Part of debate is being able to present differing ideas in a respectful and productive way; it is a valuable skill to be able to disagree respectfully.

Please try to read content warnings when discussing sensitive topics as it is kind to give your opponent a heads up if you are reading really graphic impacts. Debate should be accessible to everyone!

Be respectful and make the debate fun/ productive. I don't even flow cross X, so talking over your opponent to get more offense in than necessary doesn't accomplish anything and can look a bit rude.

I won't read evidence unless I am explicitly asked to read the evidence. I would prefer to not read evidence and have debaters settle evidence disputes in speeches.

Tech>Truth. My expectation for quality of rebuttal will get lower the dumber the argument is. David Lyons put it perfectly when he wrote in his paradigm: "If your opponents run an argument that army ants are going to overthrow the Romanian government and take over the world, a response of “that’s unlikely” is probably good enough. That said, a response has to exist. If your opponents say Iron Man is engaged to Thor, and you don’t respond, I guess we have a wedding to go to."

Provide an impact with your turn, it makes it much easier to weigh.

I cannot stress just how important weighing is. It makes me really sad when I get rounds where at the end of the debate I am left with like 5 impacts that are completely different with no guidelines on how to evaluate them. If both teams access their impact, but don't weigh, it is basically as if I am flipping a coin.

Condense throughout the round.

I am fine with speed, but if you are going fast, please give an off-time roadmap/signpost.

With offense, it makes it much easier for me if you extend. If you want me to evaluate an argument that you have fleshed out already in an earlier speech, even a one sentence extension is adequate. Please terminalize any impact as well (What does your impact mean in weighable terms? i.e. a recession is bad because x amount of people will go into poverty).

Defense is sticky until frontlined. After your defense is frontlined, you will have to respond to the frontline if you want to extend the said defense. If the defensive response is unaddressed it remains sticky.

I do not flow cross. If you want me to flow something, say it in your speech. Cross is a great time to poke holes in your opponent's link chain and build a narrative that you can later refer to in speeches. Cross is not a good time to talk over your opponent and get in as much information as possible.

Progressive Debate:

1. I ran a half-baked K once in HS. I am not a seasoned prog debater, so please don't expect that I am a master at evaluating Theory and K rounds. However, I'm totally cool with teams running theory as I think can be a good tool to check back against abuse and set better norms in debate. I will evaluate theory as a form of offense for the team running it and I will evaluate a Kritik as framing/offense. For example, if the Aff wins their role of the ballot by weighing it effectively against a counter role of the ballot, I will see which team has the most offense and best weighing to support the winning role of the ballot. For example, the winning role of the ballot is to eat mac and cheese, and the neg supports building a Kraft factory on every corner and the Aff is anti mac and cheese, I'll vote neg. It's essentially like a normal pf round for me but with framing that will determine the debate if it is not won. Maybe this isn't your way of evaluating prog debate, but this is intuitively how I see it.
2. I'm not going to play dumb and not evaluate arguments just because the other team isn't familiar with the technical lingo. If your opponents respond to your Kritik or theory shell, but don't use technical lingo, those arguments will still be considered. Respond to their rebuttal regardless. For example, I don't want to hear "they agree to our role of the ballot so they concede our argument" when the opponents had contested it but without saying role of the ballot. It's just like how a turn is still functionally a turn even if you don't say turn.
3. I am non-interventionist. I will not drop an argument because you misquoted a philosopher and I picked up on it. The burden is on all debaters to provide responses to arguments.
4. Try to consider the space you're in. Below are some helpful questions you can ask yourself before running a prog case. As mentioned before, I will certainly not drop your argument just because you don't fit the criteria, but it makes the round more productive and educational (which is why we all love this activity).

A) Are my opponents comfortable and familiar with theory/Kritik?

B) Do I belong to the group in which the Theory/Kritik intends to help? If I am not, did I ask opponents that do belong to this group if they are comfortable with this argument?

C) Am I setting better norms?

If yes to all, this will be a fun/productive/educational round. Just be nice is all I ask. In 5 years, nobody will care/remember how many trophies you had or what your record was at ToC. They will remember if you were a nice person. Be kind and cherish your friends in this activity.

Path to my ballot:

The first way I evaluate the round is by comparing how much offense each team has on the flow. If there are responses on a piece of offense you have, you must frontline them or you cannot extend it.

The second way I evaluate the round is based on weighing mechanisms. If you don't tell me why your argument matters, I can't evaluate it. Weighing must be comparative. Don't repeat your impact without interacting with your opponents' impact. Quantification really helps with weighing.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Hi Debaters,

I started participating in debate judging about six years ago when my son began participating in debate. My focus is to understand the discussion from an ordinary person's point of view who is not well versed in the topic. This helps me understand who can convince me of their point of view and rebutt other teams' arguments.

My style is of a lay judge. I like/dislike the following:

- Clear and concise arguments

- References should add value to your argument

- Speak at pace to be understood

- Be respectful to the other side

- focus on rebuttal but don't take all the time to make your point

I am looking forward to learning from you on the topic of debate.

Good Luck.

Sandeep

Please speak slowly and clearly at high volume.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

-Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though.

-You have to frontline offense in second rebuttal

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I coach PF for American Heritage.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing critical arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

Evidence exchanges in the virtual space can be a little smoother. I think they are easier when a google doc is created. I would really appreciate it if you all could send each other speech docs to limit the amount of time for evidence exchanges. At the very least, I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find and then use your prep time for the remainder of time it takes you to send the card. I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Cultural Competency Certificate

Working in a small business in Silicon Valley

Please make your contention clearly.

Slowly speech is appreciated.

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! at9yuf@virginia.edu

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.

progressive arguments:

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!

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Offer a value with more than just a common dictionary definition. Support the value with a workable criterion through which you can link your contentions. If you accept your opponent's framework, be clear about how your case works better within that framework.

Spread at your own risk. National champions don't do it and spreading often is an attempt to hide weak cases. If you must spread, make sure I flow your tag lines and any critical information you deem essential to winning the debate. You will be able to tell when I am confused or miss something. Respond accordingly.

I should not have to read your evidence to understand your case. Consequently, the only time I ask for evidence is if your opponent believes your evidence does not support or misrepresents your case.

Indulge in collegiate pyrotechnics at your own risk. If you go off-case, offer very clear definitions and impeccable logic.

Finally - be civil. If you are rude or disrespectful, you will lose my vote no matter how strong your case is. See the last paragraph under my PF paradigm.

For Public Forum I take the role of an educated citizen. Public Forum was meant to be heard by an educated public not necessarily trained the same way a policy judge would be trained. Consequently, I frown on debate jargon. If competitors use phrases like "framework", "extend the flow", "solvency", etc. without properly defining those terms, they will have trouble winning the debate.

Be clear and actually give speeches, much like you would for Oratory, rather than simply reading off a screen. This is not Policy or Lincoln Douglas. I should not have to work to understand your speech. Again, your audience are laypeople, not debate experts.

Source credibility is becoming a more central issue. Be careful with your sources.

Finally, I place great weight on closing speeches that crystallize the debate. Don't give me a laundry list of reasons why you think you won. Give me key reasons you think you won and why those particular contentions hold more weight than others.

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.

Weighing and spelling out to me as a judge why your arguments are more important than your opponents is significant and holds worth for the outcome.

It would be much preferred if each speaker spoke clearly and at a slower pace. The faster the pace, the harder it gets to process everything of significance, therefore, speaking slower has more advantages. However, I do not mind if the pace is still slightly fast.

I expect a clean, respectful round where both teams hold true to being mindful of their attitude and tone. While I love to see clash in a round, I hope that nothing gets too aggressive. I like to see strong arguments thoroughly presented with evidence that backs them up.

She/Her pronouns, but I would prefer if you just referred to me as the judge.

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I am also the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Highland Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am getting my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to eachother. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

Hi!

This is my first time judging. I have the following preferences:

a) Please speak clearly and try not to be too loud.

b) Please be polite.

c) Please explain your arguments clearly

d) Please use off time road map and sign posting

e) Please show clarity on the definitions used in the arguments.

Thank you!

-Lay judge, first time judging

-No Ks or theory

-No spreading, please don't speak too fast

-Please make your logic clear, provide evidence and reasoning to back up a claim

-Please treat each other with respect

Have fun!

Debate is fun. I enjoy judging. Most of my judging experiences are PF followed by LD. I also judged limited rounds of parli, policy and congress. Except for PF, don't assume that I am familiar with the current topic. I usually disclose and give my RFD if it's allowed and time permits.

Add me to the email chain: cecilia.xi@gmail.com

I value clear warrants, explicit weighing and credible evidence. I do care a lot about the tech side, but pretty much tech = truth if you read substance.

- Speed: talking fast is not a problem, but DON'T spread (less than 250 words per minute works) - I can only listen but not keep up flowing. If I missed anything, it's on you.

- Warrants: the most important thing is clear links to convince me with supporting evidence (no hypothesis or fake evidence - I will check your evidence links). If you drop your warrants, I will drop you.

- Flow: I flow everything except for crossfires. Clear signposts help me flow.

- Rebuttals: I like quick thinking when attacking your opponents' arguments and probing weaknesses in important and threatening arguments. Turns are even better. Frontlines are expected in second rebuttal.

- Crossfires: don't spend too much time calling cards (yes, a few cards are fine) or sticking on something trivial.

- Weighing: needs to be two-world comparison. Bring up what you want me to vote on in both summary and FF, and extend well.

- Timing: I don't typically time your speeches unless you ask me to do so (but if I do, the grace period is 10 sec), but I often time your prep and CX.

Non-substance:

Ts: limited judging experience. Explain well to me why your impact values more and focus on meaningful violations. Don't assume an easy win by default reading Ts, if you sacrifice educational value for the sake of winning.

Ks: not a fan. No judging experience. Only spectated a few rounds. It seems to fit policy better than other formats of debate. Don't understand those big hollow words unless you have enough warrants. If you really want to do Ks, do those of the case or debate, instead of performance.

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I strive to be impartial.

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone off, or condescending.

I stop listening when you go over time.

Have fun!

Hi, I'm a parent judge. This is the second time I am a PF debate tournament judge and the first time a VPF judge. So you could consider myself as a lay judge. I am not a native English speaker. Please do not speak too fast, as I can't evaluate what I don't understand. I vote for, on balance, the cleaner speech throughout the round, the stronger logic and reasoning backed by pertinent level of facts, and the higher level of confidence and better manner in which the arguments are delivered. Enjoy!

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain please, speak slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES I used to say I’m good with LD level of spreading but Policy was too much. In today’s world, I definitely feel like that has flipped as I have had more trouble with the speed in LD rounds versus Policy. In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories. You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will impact your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

1. Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
2. Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
3. Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
4. Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

1. Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
2. Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
3. Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
4. Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

1. Follow precedence with few mistakes
2. Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
3. Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.

Hello all!

I hope your tournament is going well and I am excited to be a part of it! I have been doing debate since I was a high schooler like you, so please, don't be worried about me keeping up.

That said- I appreciate good structural analysis in your flows, so do your best to sign post to keep things neat. Impacting out to something weighable will make my job, and consequently your job, much easier- so where you can, do! Try and define topic specific terms because you will have spent more time researching this than me (keep that in mind for most studies to- your speech may be my introduction to a study or term- so quantify what it means).

Above all else, and in regards to speaking point scores, I request that, to the best of your abilities, you practice good etiquette and class; remember you are debating the arguments, not your opponents (but don't be shy to defend your points or be assertive).

My ballot will likely come down to who can best provide a through-line in the flow for me to judge on, and a reason to weigh it above that of their opponents. Please remember that despite being your judge (and therefore judging you), I am rooting for you all the way, so try not to be too nervous.

At the end, if you have learned something, the day is worth it- and I commend you for your choice of activity.

Good luck!

Since I am an English teacher, I care about the organization of your speeches. If I have a hard time figuring out your argument, I will be more likely to dock speech points. I absolutely do not tolerate any discrimination in my rounds. I prefer hard facts that are relevant and up to date, and if you lie or exaggerate/understate your evidence, I will vote that down.