My paradigm is based mainly on impact. I want to see what the Competors pull through at the end of the round, and most importantly that they apply good analysis of the topic in general. All that means that you need to clash with your opponent’s arguments and show me why yours are more important or relevant to the debate, and why they matter.

Debate isn’t about burying your opponents in contentions, it’s about good use of arguments and rhetoric. Of course, I also believe decorum is important, and that the competitors are respectful to each other.

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 1/7/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (PF and LD) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

IDC: Truth over tech. Speed is important, don’t go too fast. Extend in summary and FF. Links are more important than impacts. Don't misrepresent evidence. Please weigh.

Please extend and weigh, dropping a turn or link in one speech will result in you losing offense/defense.

As a judge, I want to hear clear and relevant evidence that supports your arguments. It is important for your case to be clearly organized and easy for me to understand. I listen for strong impact statements, voting issues, and weighing mechanisms that make it clear for me which way I should vote and why.

Be polite and respectful to your opponents at all times. When it comes to your speech delivery, I value clarity over speed. Make sure that you properly cite your evidence and statistics to keep the debate fair and honest. However, if you make a reference during your speeches to historical events, basic information, or economic theory, I will accept that as a form of "background knowledge" and a citation to a particular source is not necessarily required. I would highly encourage you all to make your responses easier to follow by signposting (AKA signaling which contention and subpoint you are responding to) and structuring your speeches, specifically your rebuttal, as a line-by-line refutation of the points made by your opponent. I would recommend that your summary speech consolidates the reasons why you won the round by grouping your points into voter issue(s), and that these voter issues are extended into the final focus. Make sure you present compelling impacts and use weighing mechanisms to explain how your impacts are more important than your opponents'.

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

• It’s not an argument without a warrant.

• 'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.

• ‘Probability weighing also isn’t real

• Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.

• Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

• Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.

• Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.

• Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.

• Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.

• Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.

• If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.

• You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.

• Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
• Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

• I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.

• weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus

• It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.

• Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense

• Miscellaneous Stuff

• Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there

• Have preflows ready

• open cross is fine

• Flex prep is fine

• K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.

• I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory

• I don't care where you speak from

• I don't care what you wear

I judge based on the ability to offer arguments while directly rebutting the other side's contentions. Back up contentions and rebuttals with sources. Final Focus should not be a recap of the whole debate but instead, drive home the most important contentions and how they show that your side 'won' the debate. Organization also matters. Please cover your mouth when you cough and sneeze.

Public Forum

Name: Sarah Greenswag

School Affiliation: Libertyville High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

some tips for success in-round:

-assume i have no previous knowledge of topic, tabula rasa but please no bigoted arguments

- keep time

- comparative weighing: tell me why I should prefer your args over theirs. use weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, etc)

- rhetoric/truth can be impactful when used to strengthen existing cards and impacts, just make sure you thoroughly explain why it's substantial

- signposting: mention which contention or argument you're on when talking about it

- i don't flow cx but i will be listening: if you have a point, make sure you bring up in your next speech

- identify clash points and address them

- have links and impacts: explain how you get to your impacts, strength of link >>> big impacts, but if you have both go for it

Hello debaters! My name is Ms. Hafner, I am from Hinsdale Central, and I have two years of public forum debate experience.

My biggest request from all of you is that you speak clearly--for me, this entire activity is about communication. You have all worked so hard preparing your cases that I would hate to miss something.

In the summary and final focus speeches, I would prefer you to cover the most important points that I should be voting off of, no need to include every point mentioned throughout the round. Make it very clear to me which arguments I am casting my ballot for and what those impacts are.

Any argument you want weighed should be extended through both of the final speeches. I will not vote off an argument first introduced in grand cross or final focus.

I flow all speeches except cross fire. If you do make a good point in cross fire, be sure to emphasize it in later speeches.

I also believe that the presentation of the arguments are just as important as the arguments themselves. Having a convincing and compelling tone is in your best interest.

If you are speaking second, the second speaker must frontline (addressing the opponent's attacks on their case in rebuttal).

Be respectful of each other at all times, be organized, and have fun!

Hello! I am a Special Education Teacher and started judging for debate last year. As a judge, I prefer and value clarity in the round. Please do my work for me as much as you can; tell me what to vote on, why I should vote for you, and why you win. You have far more knowledge on your debate topics than we do, so please take time to clarify your arguments for your audience (your judges). Being too complicated or detailed only makes it more difficult to keep up and flow!

I flow through the cross and pay very close attention to it.

I want everyone to have fun and be respectful to each other during the round. I'll be engaged if you are!

Good Luck! :)

Name: Max Herod

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 2

Speed of delivery- Speed is good, too much speed is bad. If your argument is more technical, consider slowing it down or you risk me not understanding and therefore not weighing.

Format of Summary Speeches- Your summary speech can be structured however you want, as long as you extend existing arguments, front-line attacks on your case that went unaddressed in your team's rebuttal, and give voter's issues.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- This is essential to win the round.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow every speech, but not crossfires. I don't care how (or if) you flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument wins you the round, style wins you speaker points. Both are important.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Of course it does, that's how PF debate works.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?Front-lining the first speaking team's attacks in your rebuttal is appreciated, but it's not the end of the world if you don't get to it until your summary speech.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No, that's not how PF debate works.

Jamari Jackson

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 3/15/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 2016 to 2023 for McKendree University. I have studied Business Administration, with a minor in legal studies, and a minor in accounting.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / Oral thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue. (I also teach comparative politics, including a chapter on India.)

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

3. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a utilitarian approach to evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

I have worked with debate teams for sixteen years and enjoy a healthy argument. I look for a debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Framework and voting issues are also appreciated as well. Be respectful to each other and mindful that a healthy clash of ideas often brings forth a refinement of your side. I appreciate the side that weighs their impact.

Hi! --- (tl;dr - tech>truth>persuasion, don't be offensive)

• Email: kaikozlov@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

• I did some PF at BNHS in high school and currently do NPDA at UIUC.

General Debate Stuff:

• As long as your arguments are made clearly (claim-warrant-impact-weighing), odds are about 9/10 that I'll understand what you're talking about. These components are required for EVERY argument you make and need to be intact for you to win offense.

• If you want me to vote on your offense (reasons to vote for you, like contentions and turns), it has to be present and adequately clean (no through-ink extension) in every one of your speeches after it is introduced to the round. Defense (reasons to not vote for your opponent, like non-uniques and delinks) can be extended straight from rebuttal to final as long as your opponent does not cover it.

• BTW, the last time to introduce new advantages/disads is the 2R (1R for prog args). The last time for new evidence is first summary.

• I'll vote on literally anything that makes sense. That includes progressive arguments (Theory/Ks) or counterintuitive substantive arguments (nuclear war good/economic development bad).

• I expect you to signpost.

• For constructive speeches, this means clearly stating the number/letter and title of your contentions, warrants, subpoints, impacts, etc., before you begin reading them.

• For all speeches after constructive, say where you're starting (flow and argument), tell me what you're doing there, then do it (rinse and repeat until the end of your speech).

• When responding to arguments, tell me the purpose of your response (ex: Nuq, DL, Turn) and use numbering if you have multiple responses.

• Unless there's a good reason to jump between flows (like front-lining an arg to link into an impact on the opposite flow), you should be finishing the job on one side before moving to the other. Ideally, I'd want a roadmap for something like this, anyway.

• Please, please, please remember that when you weigh, it should be comparative; you should tell me why your world/argument is better than the alternative proposed by your opponents.

• 

Disclosure:

• If everyone is comfortable with me doing so, I will disclose my decision at the end of the round.

• Post-rounding is one of the best ways for everyone to get better at what they're doing, so if you think I missed something or was not clear, you have my permission to question the decision and me as a judge/person. You (or your coach) can be as rude, condescending, and aggressive as you want when post-rounding, and I won't hold that against you. At the end of the day, I'm here to help.

• Feel free to find or email me if you think of anything or want my opinion on stuff after the round.

Evidence:

• I will never drop a team for misconstruing evidence, only the argument

• I will only evaluate an evidence dispute if you tell me to call for something AND explain what's wrong with the evidence

Progressive Argumentation (Theory, Ks, etc):

• Slow down for these, and ideally, I want a speech doc.

• If you have no idea what these arguments are, don't worry; you probably shouldn't be running them anyway.

• I can and will evaluate theory (Content Warning, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, etc.) even though I feel that it necessitates judge intervention.

• If you read theory or Ks in paragraph form, I will disregard your arguments.

• I will vote on a K but

• Assume that I have no familiarity with your authors

• I have minimal experience evaluating K debates (as in, I might screw you, and you'll be sad)

Prefs:

• I can comfortably flow anything up to ~300 WPM without a speech doc, assuming you're clear, but please make sure you actually need to be going fast to make the arguments you are making. Most of the time, you can just improve your word economy and go slower.

  • You can spread against anyone even if they are not ok with it, but

  • If they are novices, you have to warn them before the round. If they say "speed"/"clear" and you don't slow down, I'll stop flowing.

  • If you have factors preventing you from following speed outside of your control (i.e., a disability), then tell your opponents or me about it (I'll keep this anonymous), and I'll make sure that no one spreads.

  • I'll be receptive to theoretical arguments, assuming they are properly structured.

• I encourage teams to pursue unconventional strategies, like responding to the first constructive in the second constructive or taking out all offense on both sides and telling me to vote on presumption.

• Speaks are arbitrary, so let me know if you're in a bubble and need high speaks to break.

• If you flow in crayon, I'll give you an instant +0.5 speaker point bump.

• TKO: If you, at any point in the debate, believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever, i.e., a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. If I agree with you, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20.

Also, if you REALLY want more specific information about how I will evaluate your round, check out my old coach's paradigm here. She taught me everything I know.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Explicit signposting and road mapping is always appreciated. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.

I'm glad you're doing Debate, I look forward to watching your round, and I wish you the very best of luck!

Before all else, I am a FLOW JUDGE. Here's more specifics on what I want to see in a round:

• All arguments need clearly explained logical warrants, as it's not my job to make logical leaps for you
• Claims must be grounded in evidence, and when there's contradictory evidence on both sides, I'd like an explanation of why to prefer your evidence/warrant, because otherwise I'm left guessing
• Structure your speeches how you feel is best, but signpost so that I know where you're at on the flow
• In a good round, both sides will have valid arguments left, so please WEIGH IMPACTS in later speeches
• I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens there, make sure it's in your next speech
• I expect you to stand your ground (this is debate after all), but maintain a baseline of respect/decorum
• I would much rather you ask a clarifying question than attack an argument that wasn't made (don't strawman your opponents, ever)
• I'm cool with a little speed, you have a lot to cover, but please don't spread, because that defeats the point of this activity (I also don't like K's/theory/progressive debate)

I'm always happy to answer any questions before or after the round, since this is an educational tool before all else, and you're here to learn (don't lose sight of that).

Have a great day, make a friend, learn something new, and enjoy it.

Hi Debaters.

I am an English and public speaking teacher, as well as a speech coach at Fenwick High School. I also judge Public Forum debate. As a judge, I look for speech clarity, logic, and organization. I look for a quality argument, preferring evidence backed reasoning over hypothetical scenarios. Watch spreading so that it doesn't backfire. If mumbled with lack of articulation, I won't be able to critique an argument I can't understand. Be respectful at all times, and show your passion for debate.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- ?????

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? ?????

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm only a sophomore in university, so I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! Happy debating!

Hello debaters! My name is Mrs.Ruth, I am from Hinsdale Central, and I have two years of public forum debate experience. I am still very new at this.

My biggest request from you all is that you speak slowly and clearly. You guys have all prepared so much, I would hate to miss important points due to you speeding through them!

In the summary and final focus speeches, I would prefer you to cover the most important points that I should be voting off of; no need to include every point mentioned throughout the round. Make it very clear to me which arguments I am casting my ballot because of, and what those impacts are.

Any argument you want weighed should be extended through both of the final speeches. I will not vote off an argument first introduced in grand cross or final focus.

I flow all speeches except cross fire. If you do make a good point in cross fire, be sure to emphasize it in later speeches.

I also believe that the presentation of the arguments are just as important as the arguments themselves. Employing a compelling tone is in your best interest.

If you are speaking second, the second speaker must frontline (addressing the opponent’s attacks on their case in rebuttal).

With that being said, be respectful and have fun!

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

Hello, I am a Sophomore at Carleton College. I competed in PF on both the local (4 years) and national circuit (2 years).

Things to know about me:

I am a flow judge.

Make my life easy and do extensions starting in summary.

Make my life even easier and weigh.

If you run an argument that is "progressive" i.e. off case you must go for it and it must be the main thing in the round for your teams. This includes but not limited to Ks, theories, and anything resembling either version. To be clear, I am okay with these types of arguments.

Cross ex can do a lot for you if you use it correctly. That being said, anything you say in cross that you care about bring up in the next speech.

I will call for cards if they are bad or sound to good to be true. I.e. have good evidence ethics.

The more absurd the argument the more absurd the response to it can be.

I start my speaker points at 28 and move up and down from there.

Watch my reactions I have no poker face.

Email: gabewseidman@gmail.com

Be respectful and kind to your opponents during the round. Please speak clearly and signpost during the round so I can get everything you say. Please use voter issues so it is clear why I should vote for your side. Try to introduce voter issues in the summary and extend them to the final focus.

Experience: I have been judging Public Forum Debate for 2 years, and am a former congress and forensics coach.

I am a public speaking teacher and a parent.

Public Forum in essence is the clarity of persuasion. Clarity is driven by the ability to tell a compelling story that is supported by effective evidence. What I am looking for is the following:

Speeches

· Present your arguments in a clear and organized manner.

· Slowly speak; do not speed through your speeches. Assume I have never learned anything about the resolutions given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic.

· Robustly support your contentions with thoughtfully presented evidence. I am a truth over tech judge.

· Create realistic impacts that fall within the scope of the resolution. Do not pretend the world will end if it won't.

· Thoroughly understand your source. Be able explain how the study was done, who did the research, the credentials of the expert, etc. And be able to explain why this a strong piece of supporting evidence.

· Create a compelling story.

Crossfire and Grand Crossfire

· Propose incisive questions that the other team understands clearly.

· Succinctly answer questions using relevant evidence.

· Expeditiously produce the card for evidence if asked.

· Translate your thoughts into coherent speech quickly. Do your best to avoid "like," "y'know," and "um;" you are still speaking and being heard during cross; a judge should not have to ignore what you say or how you sound.

· Be polite and have respectful exchanges, and please do not talk over one another. Both partners should participate in grand cross.

Summary

· Explain which of your arguments flow through and weigh your impacts, noting which of your opponent's arguments you have discredited.

Final Focus

· Clearly present the weaknesses of the other side.

· Be able to extend the weighing mechanisms your partner used in summary to tell the end of the story.

Other Notes

· Make sure your judges are actually ready before you begin speaking. Don't simply ask them out of habit.

· Clearly demonstrate an understanding of the narrowness or breadth of the resolution.

· Oh, and do your best not to use nuclear war as an impact unless the topic is clearly of a military nature.

Name: Dave Van Zummeren

School Affiliation: Belleville West High School (Assistant Coach)

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? NONE

Number of years judging:1^st year

Have you judged in other debate events?

I judge tournaments when we are short on judges. I usually judge novice LD.

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)

I prefer speakers to be clear even if they are a bit slower. It is important to me that speakers clearly state their contentions and value.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

As long as the speaker can relate the case to their value criterion that is what I am looking for.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)

In this I like the big picture approach.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

They are not necessary in my decision however, I do think they can help strengthen a case.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches- somewhat critical.

Flowing/note-taking-

This is a big thing! I look for speakers to attack what the opponent said.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

I value argument over style.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?

They can win with using their opponent’s framework. As long as the debater can prove their argument is the better option than their opponents.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?

Evidence is important. You must be able to back up your thoughts and assumptions with evidence in order to win the round.

Any other relevant information:

I currently teach Social Studies at Belleville West High School and this is my 2nd year as the assistant debate coach at Belleville West

General Thoughts

1. I appreciate students who are organized and can prove they have prepared for their topics .

2. Showing confidence in your arguments, proves you are well prepared.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about the rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine. Delivery is an important skill but I am more concerned about completing your work and your preparation.

4. Mistakes happen, I do not mind mistakes, but I appreciate aggressive mistakes! Keep going even if you make a mistake, everyone will!

5. The crossfire is an extremely important part of the debate. Please keep this in mind and make sure to attack specific points your opponent is making.

Best of luck to you

I look forward to judging you.

Dave Van Zummeren

I debated PF in high school, first and second speaker. I have experience with nat circuit and local Illinois debate.

I mostly go off of the flow, so please please please signpost. Don't drop cards and then just say card names when extending. PLEASE weigh in your speeches, it makes all the difference in who I say wins the round. Rebuilding/Frontlining needs to be done. If you are going second, you need to be rebuilding in rebuttal. I will not flow your rebuilding if you do it second summary. Tech over truth. I am not a big fan of spreading. I will (and often do) vote off of a turn. They are offense and should be treated as such.

extending down the flow>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>voter's issues