My name is Abraam, I'm a university student studying engineering. I don't have much experience in judging.

hints for high points

since the tournament is online please speak clearly and slowly, also send a copy of the case on Abraam778@gmail.com

good luck to everyone

Hello,

As a judge, I am very particular about teams engaging each other fairly and thoroughly without being rude to each other. Fair and thorough engagements include making concessions when the arguments have been properly analysed and are logical and engaging in fair and broad-minded comparisons. This is to ensure that everyone has an equal chance in the room and that everyone is respectful towards the other.

Secondly, I am fully aware of the fact that speakers usually have a lot of material to cover in a very small time, but please make sure you do not excessively speed through your arguments. It is okay to speak fast but don't run through your speeches. To make it easy for your opponents and me to hear you clearly and understand you, I advise you to speak calmly and distinctly

Lastly, be conscious of what is expected of you in the debate round and try to fulfill them. If you make claims or assertions while speaking, justify them.

Best of luck!

I am a parent judge. I judge off of the flow. No Spreading and don't use a lot of jargon. Weighing and framework is important for me. I will give higher speaker points for debaters that maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful.

I am a parent judge. Please be clear, concise and respectful of your opponent in the debate.

I want to be able to hear and write down your arguments, so please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. If I can't hear or understand you, I won't be able to take note of it.

I'm looking for a good clash or arguments and weighing from both sides. Please explain why your argument is more important than your opponents in a logical and quantifiable way. The more I understand your argument, the more likely I will be persuaded by it. Rebuttals are my favorite, but be respectful to each other. I will take note of snarky comments and excessive cutting off.

Bonus Points:
I love subtle jokes and puns in speeches and will be definitely noted in speaker points. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Public Forum

1. You have a limited amount of time use it wisely. Collapse the debate down to the voting issues you believe you are winning.

2. Offense is more important than defense.

3. Weigh the debate accordingly.

4. I engage in paper flowing during debates; however, I do not specifically flow during crossfire, though I ensure to pay close attention. My hope is for debaters to view crossfire as an opportunity for polite and orderly exchanges, leading to meaningful conversations, rather than resorting to aggression and unwarranted accusations.

5. I will base my decision based on sound logic and drops on the flow.

About me

I have been coaching and judging PF for more than 4 years.

The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.I care more about the analysis of the linkage.

Crossfire: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X.

About Framework:

please kindly explain why your framework is more important in debates.

Free feel ask me questions if you have any
akram0217@gmail.com

Email: anar.s.anand@gmail.com - feel free to add me to the threads

I am a parent judge and an alum of the Stuyvesant High School Speech and Debate Team in NYC. I have a few simple ground rules and requests.

Speech / IE

These are long rounds and I expect you to be alert and engaged throughout the round regardless of your speaker order. This is basic courtesy and you yourself will perform better when your audience is engaged so please extend the same courtesy to your fellow competitors. I come with no pre-conceived notions about your topics or performances so your choice of topic or argument is not what I'm judging. My feedback will be based on delivery, presence, soundness of reasoning and how you develop your points/arguments/characters. Most importantly, enjoy yourself up there and have fun with it - if you're not comfortable, we'll know.

LD / PF

Be respectful of one another and of the platform you are given as a debater. If you ask a question in cross, allow the other person to actually respond. If you've already presented something in an argument, restate your point concisely rather than say you've already stated it earlier. These are skills you're building for life.

Debates are won by those who make good arguments, not those who have the loudest voice. Make strong arguments with supporting evidence, present your case with confidence, drill into your opponent's case with challenging questions.

I'm not a fan of spreading as I believe the mark of a good debater is to make strong arguments and get your point across clearly and concisely rather than try to pull a confundus charm on your opponent. While I won't deduct points if you do it, keep in mind I can't judge what I can't understand. It is your job to convince me why your arguments and presentation of them should win you the round.

Keep it simple, make it interesting, have fun with it!

I am committed to always being a fair judge in debate competitions and ensuring that the evaluations are based on the arguments presented and the rules of the competition. I shall maintain impartiality and avoid any form of bias towards any particular debater or team. I shall be well-versed in the rules of the competition, including the format, structure, and criteria for evaluation. This will ensure that all evaluations are conducted consistently and fairly based on the content of the arguments presented, rather than the delivery style or personal beliefs of the debaters. The quality and coherence of the arguments shall be the primary criteria for evaluation. each debater is given equal time to present their arguments and the time allotted for each round is managed effectively to allow for a fair evaluation of all arguments. I shall ensure that the evaluations are consistent and fair and treat all debaters with respect. I will strive to create a positive and inclusive environment for all participants.

EFL Speaker

Judged some PF debates

I am a first time parent judge and I value clarity of thought and expression, clear communication and the quality of arguments being made. It would help if you could emphasize your main contentions before you start talking about them. Also whether your are going to talk about your contention or about addressing the contention of the other side. It would also help if you could maintain a logical flow of arguments. I value conciseness / less words to express an argument rather than more.

Hi!! I'm a newer judge here so just be patient with me, I will be flowing the round and will write your feedback.

Try to please, please, please, slow down a bit and try not to fit too much in your given time. Signposting will definitely make my life easier.

Explain whatever abreviations you are using, as you should assume I know nothing about this topic's literature.

Feel free to contact me after the round if there was a question with your feedback you can reach me at: padma.asrani@gmail.com

Have fun debating!!

I prioritize well proven cases and realistic impacts.

I also encourage the use of good speech rhetoric in delivery.

I prioritizes a well-rounded evaluation, taking into account not just technical proficiency but also the speaker's creativity, adaptability, and contribution to the overall debate atmosphere.

Key Components:

1. Effective Communication Skills:

   • Assess the speaker's ability to articulate ideas clearly, persuasively, and adapt to the needs of the audience.
   • Acknowledge the importance of effective non-verbal communication, including body language, gestures, and vocal variety.

2. Critical Thinking and Argumentation:

   • Evaluate the quality of arguments presented, considering the logical coherence, relevance, and depth of analysis.
   • Encourage debaters to demonstrate critical thinking by anticipating counterarguments and addressing them effectively.

3. Engagement with Opponents:

   • Acknowledge the importance of respectful and constructive engagement with opponents.
   • Assess how well the speaker engages with opposing viewpoints, fostering a positive and intellectually stimulating debate environment.

4. Creativity and Originality:

   • Recognize and reward innovative approaches to argumentation and presentation.
   • Encourage speakers to bring fresh perspectives, creative examples, and unique rhetorical devices into their speeches.

5. Adaptability and Flexibility:

   • Appreciate the ability of speakers to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate.
   • Recognize how well speakers adjust to unexpected challenges or shifting dynamics during the course of the debate.

6. Ethical Conduct and Sportsmanship:

   • Consider the ethical conduct of debaters, emphasizing fair play and adherence to debate rules.
   • Reward speakers who exhibit good sportsmanship, contributing positively to the overall debate culture.

7. Contribution to Debate Atmosphere:

   • Assess the speaker's contribution to creating a dynamic and intellectually stimulating debate atmosphere.
   • Recognize speakers who foster a positive and inclusive environment that encourages thoughtful discourse.

8. Constructive Feedback:

   • Provide detailed and constructive feedback that goes beyond numerical scores.
   • Offer guidance on areas of improvement, helping debaters enhance their skills and knowledge for future competitions.

Conclusion: I promote a nuanced and comprehensive approach to judging speech and debate. By emphasizing not only technical proficiency but also creativity, adaptability, and positive contribution to the debate atmosphere, I seek to cultivate a more enriching and educational experience for participants while promoting the highest standards of excellence in competitive speech and debate.

Experience:

I am a parent of an avid debater. I have judged debates in the past and I really enjoy when a debater brings their authentic self to the competition. Be authentic, score points.

Content:

I believe debates are won and lost in the curation of your content. When you make a claim, be very clear and to the point to make your case. Be mindful of not getting distracted by related but less important detail. Focus, focus, focus on those metrics that best make your case and be ready to let go of the ones that do not add that much. Rank your content in order of impact.

Style:

Your content can only go as far as your delivery allows. Be clear, don't go so fast that the judge has a hard time following you. Take your time, state your claim clearly and then go on to make the case. Be expressive, show emotions, modulate your voice, and the most important, make eye contact. Making eye contact shows you are confident, paying attention and care that someone is listening.

Fun:

I like when debaters have fun with their topic. Be creative in bringing out the alternate angle, add humor, add and edge to your claims and you will score points.

I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.

"historically incompetent" - aaron tian

TOC '24 Day 1: i NEED all rhetoric, and all ev from constructive and rebuttal on the chain-- not adhering to this could be detrimental to your speaks. email: dylan.beach01@gmail.com. I am pretty tired and would rather not have a super quick round where i have to decipher what you're typing, but I can if need be.

i will not intervene if i can help it

every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best

i don't think PF debaters execute theory or K debate well, so i think i would prefer you talk about the topic but i'm fine with whatever

full paradigm: i am the beach

Hi! I'm Claire. I was decent at PF in high school (College Prep BB, if you want to stalk me). I still coach (Palo Alto High School) and debate (BP and APDA at Stanford).

How I judge PF:

Tech > Truth, I'll vote off of anything on the flow as long as it's 1) warranted and extended and 2) not offensive/discriminatory in any way.

Evidence still needs warrants. Please have good evidence ethics and send evidence quickly. I will call for evidence if it's contested, and it should be a proper cut card that actually says what you say it does.

Frontline in second rebuttal and collapse well in the back half, it'll make the round much nicer for everyone involved.

Extend your arguments fully, don't just extend taglines and author names. If you want me to vote for an argument it needs to be warranted and weighed in both summary and final focus.

Weighing should be comparative. Don't just read made up jargon, give me actual reasons why your impacts are more important and tell me how to evaluate the round.

I'm fine with speed. Send speech docs (cbeamer@stanford.edu) if you're planning to go fast (or even if you're not), but I won't flow off of the doc; if you're going too fast or are unclear, I'll let you know, but after that it's on you if I miss anything.

I'd prefer you debate the topic, but I'm fine with progressive arguments and will evaluate them just like any thing else. For theory debates, I default to competing interps and no RVIs but you can change that pretty easily.

I don't care about your "brief off time road map." Just tell me what flow to start on and signpost during your speech.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round! And, if you have any questions, feel free to reach out (email or messenger).

How I give speaker points:

1. Auto 30s to everyone in the round if you collectively agree to have a paper only round with no evidence and treat it like it's British Parliamentary.

2. Otherwise, they will be based on cross. I promise I have good reasons for this; I will not elaborate.

How I judge anything else:

Do whatever you want; I probably won't know the rules of your event so you can make new ones up for all I care. Although, being persuasive, reasonable and clear will probably be in your best interest.

My paradigm is Communication. This means that if someone is speaking so quickly that I can't pick up what they're saying, then they lose points. As an academic I'm accustomed to jargon, but if that is overwhelming in a speech or debate then that meaning can be lost, so that loses points with me as well.

I am new to judging,

Hello Everyone. First and foremost - Let me congratulate you on making a choice to be part of Speech and Debate. Speech and Debate are essential tools for citizenry of democratic society with free and independent institutions and a very important vehicles to arrive at best possible solutions.

I am Raghu Bondalapati and a proud parent of a High Schooler. I have been a speech and debate judge for about a year and half. What i would like to see from Debaters is a clear and concise arguments, respect to participants of other teams and sportsmanship.

Hi, I’m a second-year college student and did 4 years of PF, Debating on the National Circuit from Orlando. Debater on the Florida State University debate team

Overarching things:

Tech>Truth: I evaluate the round solely on what's presented in the round regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. But remember the more sophisticated your argument gets the lower threshold I have on evaluating responses.

Frameworks: I default to the framework most brought up in rounds throughout speeches, If no clear framework is applied I will be forced to decide the argument by myself. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other. However, if only one team brings up a framework and the other team does not engage with it I will weigh all arguments of that one framework.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell me why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me to evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first-speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality, you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Progressive args: If you are going to run it then do so well and actually explain it with warrants. I will not buy a simple shell case that gets dropped.

Other things:

-I will flow cross. If something important happened in cross, mention it in the speech. A good cross is a great way to up speak.
- Will be lenient with going over time however DO NOT make it excessive, if I think you are abusing the system I will stop flowing.
- Quality over Quantity; don't spread. If you plan on speaking fast please send a speech doc. If I can't understand you I'll say clear and after 3 times I'll stop flowing.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense

L/D

Debate is like driving a car - you need the right accessories, and most importantly, you gotta know how to drive the car. You get better the more you drive, and eventually, you learn some pretty sick moves.. Getting a judge and getting a new car is pretty similar. Both require some getting used to, but once you figure it out, the highway is yours. You might be wondering what kinda car I am. Well, I'm not a 2020 Ford Mustang, but I'm also not a broken down 1988 chevy impala. I'm a 2006 Ford Fusion. I've been around the block and got some miles on me, but now I tend to sit in the garage. Let me give you some advice for driving a 2006 Ford Fusion. Here are some things that make the car run:

If you are affirmative, you should defend some sort of concrete action, preferably an action that can be written in one to two sentences and can be passed to your opponent. I tend to think that affs need stable plan/advocacy texts because it's important to generate stable offense. If your entire 1AC is the text, maybe this isn't the car for you. I also tend to think that the plan action should be topical, or at least topic adjacent. This is really a preference, instead of a hard and fast rule. I'm not a big fan of rejecting the res outright unless it's just that bad. If you find yourself constantly rejecting the resolution, that's awesome, but maybe I'm not the car for you.

Your 2006 Ford Fusion goes 0-60 in 8 seconds, which is a long time. As a debater, try to avoid going 0-60 in 8 seconds. I'm down for speed, but if you start the speech going full speed, I'm probably gonna miss some stuff. I can hang with your top speed, but work your way there. You can drive the car on the highway, but make sure you're using the acceleration ramp.

The car you've been given also has some weird dimensions. I think that debate is a game of net benefits, regardless of the arguments read. I tend to not vote for tiny IVIs or RVI's, but instead, I look at the entire flow. Your job is to create a larger narrative as to why I vote for you, so you should do impact calculus.

This car is a little old. Here's acceptable brands of fuel:

1. Topical affirmatives are great - especially with fleshed out advantages. I tend to award speaker points not just based on the quality of the debate, but the quality of your research. Well researched advantages with tangible impacts are best. The fiat question here isn't too important for me. I assume everything is fiated to some degree, even K affs. Just have something sticky for the neg to garner offense.

2. DA/CP debate is great for me. I love politics and hegemony debates, and I especially love them when paired with counterplans. Make sure your counterplan is competitive and actually solves the aff.

3. Theory. Theory is a great tool when used responsibly. I tend to like most theory, with some exclusions, which I'll get to below. Please note. You don't overfill your gas tank - so don't read too many theory arguments. I tend to think that 2 pieces of theory during a speech is the absolute ceiling. Otherwise, the debate gets messy and the car won't run well for you.

4. K debate. You should do some of that! You should have a clear alternative with links that describe why the plan actually trips the impacts. Saying "Plan uses the USFG" is fine, but that's only a link. Have multiple links. Also it's important that you very clearly describe the world of the alternative. Providing a really dumbed down two-sentence explanation of the action of the alt is recommended.

5. I'm gonna be honest, this car can only take special types of fuel. If you read the following K's in front of me, I'm more down to understand what you're getting at: Neolib, biopower, antiblackness, cap, fem, and on occasion, D&G. It's not that I'm not familiar with other lit, but I'm just not as well read as some others might be.

2006 Ford Fusions are not super complicated to drive, but here are some things that make it break down:

1. Perms are not advocacies, and I don't think they have net benefits. Advocacies have net benefits, but perms do not. They are tests of competition, so you should talk about competition.

2. I don't like silly theory. I think if you read an argument in the 1NC you should read it with your chest. SPEC is cool, but maybe only read it if you're actually going to go for it AND it would be strategically viable for you to do so. Also, I can't really get behind the whole "you should read the plan text in the first X minute thing." Just don't read silly theory. Make it count.

3. The car breaks down when you read disclosure. I won't vote on disclosure arguments, regardless of the format. It's not my realm to decide what happened before the round, but I often think disclosure only benefits larger schools. Disclose, don't disclose, I don't care.

4. I'll be upfront with you, there's a fair amount of car manuals that are not compatible with this version of the Ford Fusion. I get lost easily when the following lit bases are read in front of me: Baudrillard, Bataille, Buddhism, Nietzsche, and really anything in this tradition of really high theory. Again, I might not be the car for you, but if you do have to drive this car, don't use cruise control. Drive the car where you want it to go, and I'll go there with you as long as the path is clear.

5. I prefer depth. I really don't wanna see you read 7 off in the 1NC just to spread the other team out. Read maybe 3 offcase positions and drive the car real nice.

At the end of the day, the 2006 Ford Fusion isn't a hard car to drive, but there are certain ways the car needs to be driven. The car doesn't have a GPS. I don't know where you are going unless you make it explicitly clear. Rebuttals need to be wholistic and have clear win conditions. You've gotta park the car if you want the ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I expect y'all to be nice. Don't spread your opponents out if they're a novice team, and more importantly, don't be hateful in your speech. It's been a really rough year for all of us, and this is a space to get away from the noise around us. If you start spewing that kinda speech, the car windows are getting rolled up and that's an auto loss. No exceptions. I really don't really think that people should be rude.

Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about speaker points. If you drive the car mostly right, without a fender-bender, the average is around a 28. If you wreck the car or deliberately start reversing on the highway, it'll probably go down from there. Don't wreck the car.

NSDA 2021 Updates: Add me to the email chain, or however you prefer to get me the evidence.

- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
GLHF

I am a parent judge. I judge off of the flow. No Spreading and don't use a lot of jargon. Weighing and framework is important for me. I will give higher speaker points for debaters that maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful.

Hi, my name is Monali Chakrabarty

I am a Parent Judge.

Speaking: Please speak coherently and avoid spreading

Please do not bring up new evidence after the first summary

Please weigh your impacts and compare your case against the opponent instead of stating that you're better

Please time yourself, and lastly no rude comments and please be respectful

My email in case you need it: monali_c@yahoo.com

im a parent/lay judge

if u present theory u will receive a big discount

not good with speed

make sure to time yourself

summary final focus important

if there are any other questions, ask me in round

I am a parent judge, it's my first year judging.

Speak comprehensibly please. If you speak too fast and I am struggling to follow, its not in your favor

do not speak over your opponent or partner, or cut-in. its disrespectful

Avoid being loud; create more impact with evidence than decibel levels of your voice

mis-stating evidence is not good.

delaying cards sharing is also unprofessional

I'm still quite new to judging PF. Be clear in your arguments,,, I appreciate off-time road maps.

I won't flow cross, but I am listening

Add me to the email chain: imginachen@gmail.com

Please don't spread, don't use too much debater jargon, and most importantly, be kind. :-)

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily in PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

Hello, everyone! It's Kiki here.

Focus on warrant and impact.

Debaters better send your cases to

the following email in advance.

Email：

interpreterguangmin@gmail.com

or

55520056@qq.com

Thank you for your cooperation.

Good luck to every debater.

About me:

I have debated for four years in China, primarily in Public Forum and British Parliamentary formats. I am currently a student at UCLA. I understand basic rules and debate terms well, but I do expect debaters to explain them clearly when it comes to specific topics. As a judge and debater, I can fully resonate your mindset during the tournament and appreciate your preparation and efforts, so I will do my best to listen and flow in the round.

Specific suggestions to debaters:

1. Don't be rude. I will not flow if two teams are shouting and arguing.

2. I care about your arguments and logical reasoning. I will not give credit if you just throw some random data/cases onto the table.

3. I care about impact analysis. If no other framework is mentioned in the round, I would adopt a utilitarian framework to judge the debate.

4. Use your time wisely. Please don’t exceed the time limit too much, only finish the sentence you are speaking.

Debate is one of the few platforms where people can air their opinions freely based on the side of the motion they stand for. So it's the corporate responsibility of everyone to reduce toxicity to it's minimum in the circuit. One way to achieve this is by respecting the opinions of others while we are also free to reject those we may not agree to, as politely as possible.

Use of derogatory speeches on others, offensive words, and intention to hurt and lower other speakers' esteem should be avoided.

Beyond assertions, analysis of why a point should be noted is also very important.

The clarity of a speaker while speaking is very important to enable the judge and the opponent to understand one's case too.

Tips for receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. Don’t be rude. Please be respectful and formal throughout the round

2. Public speaking style and ability are required for me. Make eye contact, use hand gestures, and deliver your speech with appropriate speed and pronunciation. (too fast speed is not preferred)

3. Each speaker must fulfill their duties according to the speaker's position. In particular, the last speaker of the team should weigh out arguments.

4. Time management - Do your best during the given time. If you have time left after your prepared speech, try to fill in with improvised speeches. Time allocation is important, too. If you don't have enough time, skip the details and mention the key points.

My first time judging debates, I spent some time researching online for information on judging debates. It is important to me that a debate has a good delivery, a reasonable pace, and a good flow that explains solid arguments with logical reasoning and examples.

Hi, I am Amy. It is preferable to send me ur cases in advance via email (1369308919@qq.com).

Former state champion, retired brief writer. I flow.

The flow is a scoreboard, whoever wins more arguments will have my vote. However, if both sides agree to a judging standard or one argument having more weight I will use it. I accept theory arguments with open arms. I will not intervene or make arguments for you. Even if something is blatantly abusive and I should vote on it, tell me why it is abusive and why I should vote on it.

Hi! I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly. I will try my best to flow the round and vote on an argument, but presentation will also play a factor in my decision.

I work for the United Nations, so I have some background knowledge on this topic.

Please don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

I do not need to be on the email chain.

For constructive cases, I prefer cases that are well-mechanized with strong logic. During the debate, I have no preference for debaters' personal style meaning that whether you are aggressive or not is not important. What is important is the information you deliver. But I do prefer valid crossfire(interruption is fine but please don't shout at each other and interrupt others so frequently)I judge mainly based on the information I heard(so don't mess up too much in your crossfire please) and I prefer more direct engagement, logic, reasoning and mechanism than simply rap battle using data. I don't like the way debaters throw data out and lack of further explanation and logical reasoning meaning that I would not give credit simply because one number is smaller or bigger than the other unless you explain MORE with your mechanism. Dropping your opponent's argument and not interacting(ignoring and not listening) with your opponents could be tagged red flags during my adjudication. The argument left intact would be used in my weighing. My judgement is mainly based on clash points and I encourage all teams to directly summarize the clash points starting in summary speech. New arguments are allowed in summary speech. The one who won the most clashes would take the debate

Speaker points are given out based on your overall performance in the debate: articulation, logic, and English ability(especially listening skills, I prefer active engagement and valid rebuttal to your opponent's case)

Hi, my name is Lorena Dakaj

During the debate please keep in mind the following things:

- speak clearly and loudly at a moderate speed.

- be considerate of your opponent's mistakes or mispronunciations of words.

- extend arguments from summary through final focus.

- in the final focus, make it clear to me why your case is more persuasive or more informative.

Hey,

What's most important to me is that everyone is respectful to each other. It should go without saying that I won't tolerate any harassment or hateful remarks.

I debated PF through high school but it's been a year since I've really engaged with debate. I'm cool with you talking fast as long as you have practiced the speeches and speak clearly (especially in early morning rounds). I am generally fine with fleshed-out K's and progressive argumentation. I won't take away speaker points for using a lot of jargon unless it's getting really silly. That being said, you can treat me as a lay judge and that works just as well!

A few tips for my flow:

• I rock with signposting.
• Please please please use your rebuttal time well. If you don't address your opponents' big arguments, you best provide a good reason.
• If you think something dope happened in cross, bring it up during your next speech so I can use it for my decision.
• I will cry if you don't extend the arguments that you think should decide the round.

• This is my first time judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."

• I have a background in Business and Technology.

Hi! I'm a second year out (second year at UVA) and debated PF on the nat circuit for Blake for 3 years, qualifying for the gold TOC twice. I now coach for Blake in a limited capacity.

Add me on the email chain: wyattdayhoff@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com please :)

TLDR: I'm a tech judge, I'll evaluate pretty much whatever. Most of my takes come from Joshua Enebo and Christian Vasquez, so take a look at their paradigms and they will for sure be more in depth than what I say :D

Few highpoints:

• you have to frontline in 2nd reb
• defense is NOT sticky

• You get prep outside of your 3 mins when the other team is getting evidence to send to email chain. If they can't get it in a reasonable time I'm open to striking it from the flow
• Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh! It's easily the biggest factor in determining my ballot
• I hate paraphrasing so don't do it– I'm likely to vote on paraphrasing theory
• I'm open to any prog argumentation but I'm inexperienced with it so be very clear if you do run it
• I hate friv theory and prob won't vote for it

General:

- I can probably flow basically any speed, but please send a speech doc if you are going to spread

- If you want me to evaluate something, it better be in summary. I won't evaluate anything new in FF unless it's responding to new weighing coming from 2nd summary. To be clear, weighing for the first team should start in 1st summary. If you don't extend a link in summary clearly, I won't vote on it.

- Please weigh. It's your best friend in round because even if you lose their case, you can still win the round. If you don't weigh your argument, it's really hard for me to vote on it. Also, weighing needs to be comparative. Don't just tell me why you're case matters, tell me why it matters more than the other team's argument. Just saying "we outweigh on probability" means absolutely nothing.

- Debate should be a fun activity, so please try to be as chill as possible, it makes the round better for everyone and will probably earn you higher speaks.

- I will not tolerate racist, homophobic, or sexist comments in round and will give you a 20 at best, and drop you at worst.

Evidence:

- I hate paraphrasing. I think it's a scourge to debate ethics and makes debates overly sloppy and warrantless. I'll be very happy to vote on paraphrasing bad, but I will legit never vote for paraphrasing good. Just don't read it in front of me. While I'm not as gung ho as him, refer to Josh's paradigm and I tend to agree with him.

- If you don't read a card name in your rebuttal (regardless of if it's paraphrased or not), it's an analytic. I won't consider a card that you send if you didn't say the name in speech, that's super abusive because you can just pick any card you want.

- If you can't find your evidence (PROPERLY CITED) in 2 mins or less, I'm striking it from my flow and treating it as an analytic. It will be clear if you actually have your evidence or not.

- I would much prefer that you do an email chain rather than a Google doc. If you do a Google doc, there should be copy access and you should not remove the other team's access after the round– that defeats the purpose of sharing evidence.

- As much as I like evidence, please don't just extend a card name without the warrant that accompanies it. Evidence alone can't win you the round unless you explicitly tell me why the evidence is so godly.

- If you want me to prefer your evidence over the other team's, you need to explain why. Just saying it's the most recent doesn't explain why recency is more important in that specific instance.

Theory:

- I rarely ever ran theory during my career, but I will evaluate it and I think it's important for the debate space. That said, I think frivolous theory (shoe theory, social distancing, etc) is stupid and I will neither understand it nor vote for it.

- As you probably saw in the evidence section, I will vote on paraphrasing bad, not paraphrasing good. If you go for paraphrasing theory, though, please try to direct me to one specific piece of ev that is horrendously paraphrased.

- I will absolutely vote on disclosure theory, I think it's a good practice for debate and I always did it.

- I've never run into trigger warning theory before so I don't really know how to evaluate it, but I'm willing to listen to it.

- IVIs have been used and abused recently and I really am not a fan. Please just be nice to each other, debate is not a personal attack on anyone.

Kritiks:

- I never ran any Ks in my time debating, but I think(?) I get the gist of them and will listen. Just don't expect me to always make the right decision because of my limited experience.

Cross:

- I won't flow it, but I will for the most part be listening. If you want something that happened in cross to appear in round, you gotta say it explicitly in speech.

- Cross is a time for questions. If you are asking follow up after follow up you are making cross unproductive and I'll lower your speaks.

- I already said this in the general section, but please be chill. Cross is the place where I see emotions boil over the most so please try to be patient with yourself and your opponents.

Speaks:

Unless you say something problematic, I'll evaluate speaks on a 26-30 scale.

26- this was rough– really hard to get this low of speaks

27- below avg

28- avg

29- you were good

30- you were unbelievably good, best I've seen at the tournament.

I currently work for an organization serving domestic violence survivors- so many debate games not revolving around "truth" are frivolous and purposeless.

My flow was only slightly above average when I was doing it every weekend, I can only imagine how bad it is now, with no driving force like shame to ensure I kept copious notes.

I will vote less on dropped/conceded arguments and more on true arguments- something about the "real world" makes me less for "debate games" than truth in argument.

Explain why you're winning. It might be helpful to explain why you're winning even if your opponent is also winning something. Comparative analysis matters, like Black Lives.

Be smart. Make good arguments. If you're funny, be funny. Don't make fun of your opponents; making fun of their arguments is fair game. Don't be an a**hole to be funny tho.

Hi, I’m a parent judge. I appreciate clarity of speech. Please ensure you support your evidence with right data and elaborate on it. Be engaging in your conversations.

Hello everybody,

I am a parent judge. I like listening to debates and seeing how the flow of arguments evolve.

I admire when debaters are polite and ask questions with a spirit of inquiry.

Also, it is more important to speak in a manner that communicates your point of view rather than trying to cram facts at supersonic speed.

Look forward to some fantastic debating!

- Saurav Dey

My name is Rohit Dharne. I have experience at Toastmasters and other public speaking initiatives.

Having judged a few debates already, here is what I look for;

** Well articulated contentions on each team

** Please have at least 2-3 contentions to debate with

** Speak coherently so that the judge and other participants can clearly hear

** Do not just read out notes. Please engage in eye contact

** Show conviction in your arguments and strengthen them with facts and figures

** Rebuttals need to focus on the points the opposing team puts out and not random facts

** Strong closing

Please feel free to send me your cases via email. My email is elitting@163.com

Making clear arguments is important. English is my third language.

Be respectful to everyone.

I am a new judge with very little debate experience. Please time speeches and keep up with prep time. No fast talking. I like to see well-developed arguments that engage the opponent. Don’t assume I am an expert on the topic; it’s public forum. I am more interested in how you debate evidence in speeches than reading anything after the round. Funny is good but be kind to one another!

I have been judging debate since September 2023

1. I prefer debaters to talk slowly and concisely and not to speak with anger. I give points for proven points that have been published. I like eye contact.
2. I mark positive points when arguments and claims are supported.
3. I note when key claims are supported. I give points when the opposing team hears and counters the argument with supported evidence.
4. I value argument support and flow style. It is valuable for the two teams to hear their opponent and not only reiterate their own argument but debunk the opponents with support.
5. I consider calm rational clear understanding of the argument. and presenting in a calm manner.
6. I expect respect and clarity

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

a. cogent logic first and then data

b. clear speech first and then speech speed

c. prove your case and make the comparison

Good luck!

Hi, I'm excited to judge! This is the second tournament I've judged. Some things I look for are clear and concise speech, evidence-based arguments, detailed responses, and interesting points of view.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for mechanisms of arguments, analysis of impact, proper structure when presented, with attention to how you explicate the arguments you believe best sum your case.

When it comes to style, the ability to flow from one arguments to the next and the clarity of presenting your argument is important. That being said, respecting your opponent is of utmost importance.

It is also important to see how you collaborate with your teammate, building on top of their arguments, refering to points made by teammate (without repeating them whole) to better your point

I am a parent judge with no experience in this event. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.

Speak slow and explain your arguments clearly.

Good luck and have fun!

I’m a parent judge. My kid does PF, so I know the basics. I will take notes. Please speak slowly.

I like clarity over speed. Speak clearly and confidently so I do not miss important details that you are mentioning.

You got this!

I am a parent judge and have little experience with speech debate but I have a lot of experience as a judge in the scientific community. I request to respect each team and avoid harsh/loud speech. My points are based on how well you presented/responded and defended overall. All the best!

Volunteer judge, very little experience

Be respectful

Offtime roadmap is okay

• I have limited experience with judging debates.

• Pace and Clarity: While I understand the need to convey as much information as possible, clarity is paramount. Please maintain a conversational pace to ensure your arguments are fully comprehensible. Rapid speech that sacrifices understandability will not be effective.

• Evidence and Commonsense: Before presenting evidence and arguments, consider their logical foundation. Only utilize evidence from sources that are widely recognized for their credibility. Arguments should not only be evidence-backed but also logically sound, passing the 'commonsense test'. Additionally, don't hesitate to apply common sense when questioning evidence-backed arguments. It's important to remember that for every point, evidence can be found to support both pros and cons. Thus, smartly question your opponent's choice and use of arguments.

• Respectful Engagement: The essence of debate lies in the respectful exchange of ideas. Maintain a respectful demeanor towards your opponents at all times. Engage directly with their arguments, providing constructive counterpoints.

I am fairly new to judging so consider me lay. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. Also, please time yourselves.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as danny's

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory

My name is Lisa Grzywacz and I have been judging for six years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Hi guys! I’m Eliza and am very excited to be able to judge Stanford Invitationals this year. I’ve been a previous PF debater in China and the US for around 6 years, so am not a lay judge!!!

Debating style I’m quite happy with:

• Framing: I don’t overrely on framework debates, but if you are to frame please be wary to be consistent: usually people state their framework in constructive and just never care about it again so please reference back!

• I strongly believe the rebuttal and summary speeches (especially summary ig) to be the most important — definitely give me a clear clash list and impact comparison! Although I do admire debaters listing out incredible evidence on a random page in jstor, I have to concede that it’s not all about the numbers.. and please don’t link everything to humanitarian impacts
• I do not accept anything new in ff; be aware of the fact that I start writing voters into the ballot starting from summary, so most likely will not write new headings after that
• not a big fan of weighing in rebuttal, but will accept frontlining then

- 4 general tips:

1. I’m ok way overtime roadmaps BUT FOLLOW THEM
2. Please flag your speech (my humanities teachers have already traumatised me enough with their teaching styles so would defo appreciate it)
3. Gimme the logic links and weigh your arguments do not expect me to do it, im here to move what you say into the ballot --> personal discretion will not influence the decision, though please be sensible.
4. Cross: i do have to admit that its hard to flow your speeches — i don’t care that much if you are aggressive or fast but please be clear to not overlap each other :( respect leads to results guys

add me to ur email chain: elizag.academic@gmail.com; would also appreciate a google docs sheet.

Ps. Would rly appreciate if you can send me your constructive at the start for reference, but also additionally, extra spks to anyone who has a samoyed or teach me a british accent and u will defo be my bias (jk!!!!!) :))

Hope you enjoyed reading this paradigm and excited to see you in debate! Good luck guys!!

Be Polite towards the other team

Focus on Quality over quantity - don't rush and try to squeeze in more points in the allotted time

Speak Clearly and Be Effective

Enjoy the experience!

"I am a seasoned professional in the realm of debate, holding expertise as a debater, judge, and coach with over a decade of dedicated experience. As an educator, I am highly qualified to work with both students and adults alike. To me, debating revolves around the cultivation of analytical skills and intellectual discourse governed by the principles of logic and adherence to the specific rules of engagement associated with the chosen debate format. I possess extensive knowledge across a wide spectrum of debate formats, including but not limited to Parliamentary debates, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), policy debates, and many others."

I keep a rigorous note, I prefer argument over style but both are fairly important and I listen very attentively although I would encourage fair pacing and flow.

Email Address: 9cassassin@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

"Here are some key considerations that will encourage the strongest analysis by the end of the debate, as opposed to arguments that may waste time, are unfamiliar, or lack strategic value:

Kritiks : a good K is cheat code and a bad K is your enemy.

I appreciate well-articulated kritiks that align with the debate context. However, if the kritik lacks relevance to the topic or the arguments presented, it might not carry as much weight in my decision.

1. A thorough explanation of the links, impacts, and alternatives in kritiks will significantly enhance your chances of persuading me. Ensure clarity in your articulation to strengthen the impact of your kritik.
2. Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative, demonstrating its significance and how it interacts with other arguments in the round.
3. Be mindful of the pacing when delivering kritiks. If presented too quickly without ample clarification, it may hinder my ability to fully grasp the nuances of your position.
4. Use real-world examples or analogies to illustrate the implications of the kritik, making it more accessible for both the judge and your opponents.
5. Consider the depth and quality of your responses to potential counterarguments against the kritik. Anticipate opposing perspectives and address them convincingly.
6. While I appreciate innovative and critical perspectives, ensure your kritik aligns with the rules and norms of the debating format being used. Clarity and adherence to format rules are crucial.
7. Feel free to engage in a dialogue about the kritik during cross-examination if it enhances understanding and provides an opportunity for clarification.

Policy: Here are five solid cheat codes

1. Deep Research:

   • Thoroughly research and understand the topic. The more knowledgeable you are about the subject matter, the better you can construct and defend your arguments.

2. Effective Evidence Usage:

   • Use high-quality and relevant evidence to support your arguments. Ensure that your evidence is recent, credible, and directly supports the points you are making.

3. Clear Argument Structure:

   • Organize your arguments in a clear and logical structure. Clearly state your claims, provide evidence to support them, and explain the implications. A well-organized structure helps judges follow your arguments more easily.

4. Adaptability:

   • Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on the responses of your opponents. If they present strong counterarguments, be ready to adjust your approach and defend your position effectively.

5. Strong Cross-Examination Skills:

   • Master the art of cross-examination. Use this time to challenge your opponents' arguments, highlight weaknesses, and gather information that can be used to your advantage in later speeches.

Cross-examination :how to spy on your opponents to reveal information and secrets, they don't want you to know.

Here are some tips for conducting effective cross-examination:

1. Pay close attention to your opponent's responses during their speeches to identify areas to probe further.
2. Enter cross-examination with specific goals in mind. Whether it's exposing weaknesses in their argument or eliciting concessions, clarity in your objectives is key.
3. Formulate questions that are direct and easy to understand. Avoid complex or convoluted queries that may confuse your opponent or the judge.
4. Use questions to guide the narrative in a direction favorable to your case. Steer the conversation toward your key points and away from your opponent's strengths.
5. Craft questions that may lead your opponent to concede certain points or admit weaknesses in their arguments. These concessions can be powerful tools in your subsequent speeches.
6. Instead of giving your opponent room to elaborate, frame questions that require concise responses. This helps maintain control of the cross-examination.
7. Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout the cross-examination. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the arguments rather than the person.
8. Take note of responses during cross-examination that you can use to your advantage in your subsequent speeches. Effective cross-examination should contribute to your overall strategy.
9. Be ready to adapt your questioning based on your opponent's responses. If they reveal unexpected weaknesses, capitalize on them.
10. Practice cross-examination techniques and review successful cross-examinations from experienced debaters. Learn from both effective and less effective examples.

Strategic Relevance: Focus on arguments that have clear strategic importance in the debate. Avoid going off-topic or introducing irrelevant points.

Clarity Over Speed: Prioritize clarity over speed. It's essential that arguments are comprehensible, and spreading too quickly can hinder this. Make sure your arguments make sense and are well-articulated.

Quality Over Quantity: Rather than flooding the debate with numerous arguments, aim for depth and quality in your analysis. Well-developed arguments often carry more weight than a large number of shallow ones.

Speaker Points: While you may not consistently receive super high speaker points, aim to make substantive contributions to the debate. Engage in meaningful clash and provide clear reasoning for your positions.

Evidence Use: Utilize evidence effectively during the debate. Reading cards is acceptable, but it's not always necessary to read them after the debate unless there's a disagreement. Use evidence when it enhances your argument's credibility.

Re-Highlighting: Consider re-highlighting when it adds value to your argumentation. Be discerning about when to use this strategy.

By adhering to these principles, you can contribute to a more focused, comprehensible, and analytically rich debate experience."

"As a judge, here are some key qualities and advice I value:

Active Listening: I genuinely listen to your arguments and appreciate when debaters engage in thoughtful discourse.

Objective Evaluation: My judgments are based on the merits of the arguments presented, not personal bias or preference.

Strive for Excellence: Push yourself to perform at your best, but also remember to enjoy the experience of debating.

Inquisitive Mindset: Don't hesitate to read and ask questions. A curious approach can lead to deeper understanding and more compelling arguments.

Open-Mindedness: Be open to all perspectives, but apply critical thinking and discernment to evaluate them effectively.

Defend Your Positions: Be ready to defend your ideological commitments with well-reasoned arguments and evidence.

Confidence: Confidence in your arguments and delivery can make a significant difference in the outcome of debates.

By embodying these qualities and following this advice, you can enhance your performance and contribute to a more rewarding debate experience."

I want to underscore the importance of impact weighing in my role as a judge. It holds a significant place in how I evaluate the entire debate, shaping my perspective on the arguments presented and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Impact weighing is the tool by which I assess which arguments carry the most weight and significance in the debate. It acts as a framework through which I analyze both offense and defense. Effective impact weighing can bolster your position and provide a clear path to victory in the debate.

I encourage all participants to give due attention to impact weighing during their speeches. Explain why your impacts are more critical than those of your opponent and show how they outweigh or mitigate the opposing arguments. Skillful and persuasive impact weighing can greatly influence my decision and enhance the overall quality of the debate.

Remember, practice and feedback are key to improvement. Regularly engage in practice debates, seek constructive feedback, and refine your skills over time. Good luck!

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality debates.

Best regards,

Mohammed Habib.

I am a parent judge.

Hi! My name is Alicia Hall, I am from Arizona and I competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of high school and I am now competing as a college student in speaking competitions. I love to see when someone can take whatever topic they're using and transcend the basis of the topic.

Arguments: You can run any argument you like, as long as you can give proper context and explain the argument well in relation to the resolution (or if you run an alternative argument, explain why your argument is better to look at than the resolution). I'm not a very lay judge, but I'm also not the most progressive when it comes to new forms of argumentation.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Lay judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Hi! Newer judge here, and promise to do my best. If I'm your judge, please note:

Go with any form of evidence exchange you're comfortable with, if gdocs/e-mail I want to be on it: andreaho.designs@gmail.com

Not a fan of speed at all. Slightly above conversational is ok, and signposting will make my life a lot easier. Please make my life easier.

I'll do my best to keep track of time, but I'd prefer it if each debater kept track of their own and each other.

Include warrants in everything, and avoid jargon whenever possible. You should assume I don't know anything specific about the topic literature or common abbreviations.

I won't disclose in prelims, but I'll try to give feedback if I'm not late to another round. Good luck!

Hope debaters in my room can speak peacefully, not speaking too fast. And I' m very like the characterizations and mechanisms on how it works when we discuss some topics.

I have been doing Public Forum for about 4 years, and I was the Novice Director at Brooklyn Tech. Overall, I love judging and I really do enjoy giving you feedback on how to grow as a debater.

If you do disclose please email me your case, it makes it easier for me to flow the round and decide who should win the round, my email is nabila.hoque2004@gmail.com.

1. Theory: YES. I love it when people run theories. However, you have to realize you're fighting an uphill battle since many judges won't know how to evaluate that. I, however, am bored and get excited about interesting arguments. The well-argued theory makes for interesting debates. This, for example, is how you call people out on rulebreaking - don't just say "it's illegal/not allowed," make it an argument with impacts.

2. Card-calling: I believe that being able to call for a card is an important strategic tool. That means it should be used, get this, strategically. You should have your cards ready and it should not take that much time to get it, however, if you are taking a long amount of time I will start running your prep.

3. Crossfire: Crossfire is your time to clarify. Don't expect me to write any argument you make during crossfire because it won't happen. Instead, follow up on strong points during your next speech. Finally, resist the urge to engage in shouting matches, it will definitely cost you speaker points and is a terrible use of everyone's time.

4. Attitude. If you are rude to either your opponent or me I will deduct your speaker points and if your attitude is off the charts I will give the other team the win regardless of the flow. Overall, be nice.

5. Rebuttals. Signposting is something I want to see all throughout the debate, however, in rebuttals it is key. I like off-time road maps and I expect that you should follow your off-time road map during the speech. I also want a logical and concise analysis of the faults of the opponent's argument, not just "this card says otherwise." Tell me why their argument is faulty and why your argument is better.

Speaker Points

30 - If you run a good meme case/if you speak with an eloquence that can only be personified by someone like Barack Obama/Best speaker in the tourney in my opinion.

29 - If you speak really well with minimal error.

28 - Good job but you can use some improvement.

27 - You need improvement, but it's only an upward climb.

26 - There's a lot of room for improvement. Don't get down if you receive this from me. The debate is all about improvement, and if you attain this score then I will definitely give you tips on how to improve and better yourself in the verbal and digital feedback.

25 - Why are you here?

24 - If I have to go down here then you should go to policy/LD/Parli/Anything that isn't PF...

I am a parent judge with some judging experience. Here are my expectations:

• I know the debaters like to speak fast but please speak clearly and use pauses and emphasis so it's easy to catch your argument.
• Please keep your camera on, and always be respectful
• Please be mindful of time.
  
  

I am a flow judge, I have done public forum before which means I am generally fine with speed. However, if you speak too fast or you are not being clear to the point where I can not understand your points, I will not consider it as a voter for the round. I do listen to crossfire, however, I do not flow crossfire. Therefore you need to tell me what happened in the crossfire that is important for your side in your speeches.

If you want me to vote for you, you need to extend your argument in both summary and final focus. Weighing is also really important, I would prefer all teams to weigh so that the round will be more clear. Evidence is important in the round, however, if it doesn't logically make sense, I will not vote of it. I would prefer signposting in your speeches as this is going to help me follow your case and ideas better.

Keep track of your time and your opponents time. I'll trust you on prep.

Don't go over time because it will impact your speaking score.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Email: juliaisabellhunter@gmail.com (please put me on the chain)

Background: I debated policy in high school at St Vincent de Paul High School in California, went to the University of Michigan and didn't debate there. I did a little bit of coaching/judging policy throughout college, and now I'm a coach at The Harker School.

TLDR for prefs: If you want to have a technically executed K debate, I'm your girl. I love a good framework debate. Classic substantive topic-based policy debate is great too. If you rely on theory tricks or are big on phil, I'm probably ~not~ your girl. Above all, be respectful and kind.

Lincoln Douglas: I judge Lincoln Douglas now. I coached at an LD camp (SJDI) a few years ago, but still be gentle with the quirks of the activity please. Some thoughts:

• If you want to persuade me on theory arguments, you're going to have to actually debate and explain the theory arguments. I'm not the best judge to go for conditionality in front of. This isn't to say I won't vote for theory arguments, because I will - just note that I have a low tolerance for bad theory arguments and theory debates that arent warranted and fleshed out. Any LD-specific theory arguments (tricks, etc) please take extra time on (or avoid).
• I love a good K debate, but note that my K background is in policy debate (gender, queer theory, high theory, identity stuff, cap, colonialism, etc etc) and I'm less familiar with LD phil stuff so you'll need to be clear/slow and really write my ballot for me.

• RVIs - I will not flow them. Not gonna happen for you. Goodnight moon, game over, no.

• There's a painfully bad trend in LD of sending analytics and then zooming through them in speeches as if they're card text. They're not card text! And I don't flow anything I can't understand! You should not be relying on judges flowing off the doc.

General thoughts:

Debate is a game. I will vote for literally anything* if you argue it well, frame the debate, and have good evidence supporting it. Techy line-by-line is the way to go always but especially in front of me. If someone drops an argument, don't just say they dropped the argument and move on. Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate and why I should vote for you with it in mind. The same is true of critical moments in cross-ex. Framing in the last two speeches is incredibly important - write my ballot for me.

PLEASE slow down on taglines, analytics, theory arguments. If you are not clear I will let you know. If you don't adjust when I tell you you're not clear, speaker points will start to go down.

*Literally anything still has its limits. I will vote for "death good" type arguments, impact turns of critical arguments (heg good, war good), and really any silly argument that you win but I will NOT vote for any argument that defends racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of oppression, or for personal attacks on your opponents' character.

Ks: This is my wheelhouse (any and all). Note that this does not mean it will be easier for you to win a debate just because you read a K - because of my background in this type of debate I will hold you to a higher performance threshold. For the love of god please do line-by-line.

K affs: When I debated, I consistently read a K aff without a plan text. I also consistently went for framework/topicality against other planless K affs. My knowledge is strong on both sides of this debate, so if you're going to do it, do it well.

DAs/CPs: Not sure if I have anything special to say here. Make sure you do deep impact analysis and case turn work. I err neg on condo + counterplan theory most of the time.

T: Make sure your definitions aren't from silly sources. You have to do internal link and impact debate for topicality too. Topical version of the aff is huge.

Theory: As said above, this is probably my achilles heel in terms of debate knowledge. If you're going to go all in on theory arguments, go slow and explain things.

Public Forum:

I'm new to this, but thus far my policy and LD experience has served me well! A few important things:

1) If I am your judge you must have an email chain or google doc. Calling for cards is a waste of time -- send your speech docs before your speeches WITH YOUR EVIDENCE IN THE DOCUMENT! If you do not do this, I will be taking the time it takes you to find the evidence and send it to your opponent out of your prep time.I cannot emphasize this enough.

2) I don't want your "off time road map" to be a list of the arguments you're going to answer. Just tell me which flow goes where - a simple "our case, then their case" works fine.

3) CLASH IS KEY - in the final speeches I NEED some sort of impact and link comparison or else I end up having to intervene more than I like to. Draw lines through the entire debate - your speeches are not islands. Connect them.

Nice to meet you! I have been debating over 4 years (1 year in PF) and would be an honor to judge you. Here are some of my preferences.

1. Do not spread. But as long as you are clear, talking fast would be okay.

2. Adequate weighing is critical in the later speeches.

3. Good reconstructions usually lead to better weighing at the end.

4. Collapsing is totally fine.

5. I would not flow words that are said after 10 seconds grace period of time.

Enjoy!

Sophomore at UC Berkeley

anish.iyyavoo@berkeley.edu

phone number: 408-913-3189

Cambrian Academy'22 - reached PF Gold TOC/round robin level, should be able to keep up w most pf rounds, and LD Policy(just send docs if you are going >250 wpm)

Feel free to ask me questions before round

Big Takeaway in all formats of debate: WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE, I NEED WARRANTING TO VOTE

Public Forum Paradigm:

Novice/Flay Paradigm(if you consider yourself a non-technical debater, read below) <-- Lay Rounds

in second rebuttal respond to the responses made on your case, address first rebuttal in second rebuttal

the arguments in final focus must be in summary

READ WEIGHING, tell me why YOUR arguments are more important than your opponents, don't just restate your argument!

Varsity/Tech Paradigm(If you consider yourself a flow or technical debater, read below) <-- Tech Rounds

tech > truth

Read TWs, avoid gendered language, No misgendering.

TLDR: Weigh everything, metaweigh, lots of signposting

everything in 1st rebuttal/summary is conceded if not responded too in 2nd rebuttal/summary - nothing is sticky, i want everything in final to be in summary - if you dont frontline properly in second rebuttal i will be very very unhappy

Second rebuttal has to respond to first rebuttal

Rebuttal has to be responsive to case, no new contentions, if ur reading generic DAs weigh them

Note: if you claim things are sticky/conceded but they are responded too - i wont be happy

You'll get good speaks(30s ish), just don't prep steal

Postrounding is cool

Full extensions required(every warrant, link) has to be extended

Send speech docs, I can probably flow around 275 wpm but send docs

TKOs are cool, Hidden links are fine, DAs/OV's cool, no framing past summary, I presume loser of the coin flip / first

Impact turns are fine

Weigh every turn/response - I like comparative analysis

I buy link level probability weighing(with warrants that aren't just asking for intervention i.e. historical precedent, actor analysis) ~ i'd be careful here though DONT READ CLARITY WEIGHING, also i love pre-reqs/link-ins w weighing

Metaweigh!! if you dont - Strength of Link > Magnitude > Timeframe > Link Level Probability ig

Prog:

Go for it - Trix are cool, Im not too familiar with a lot of high theory K literature but go for it, im pretty comfortable with theory - read it whenever, read phil if you want

I think disclosure and paraphrasing are probably good, but i can be persuaded either way

You can win turns/offensive CI's without winning RVIs, i think RVI debates are dumb

I default to competing interps, no rvi's, drop the argument

My preferences are pretty standard. I like taking notes on the arguments, evidence, impacts etc while you are speaking. I don't like new ideas introduced later in the debate. Weigh as much as possible to differentiate your narrative from your opponents, starting from the summary.

I'll weigh everything at the end of all the rounds. Public forum should encourage well-rounded, persuasive debating. Be respectful during crossfire, no time wasting tactics. I judge on your preparation, ideas, evidences, rebuttal, arguments, and impacts. My final decision comes down to all of them on both sides.

Respect is very important attribute for me. I expect the teams to respect each other.

I keep tab on the flow & time on my own. I would like to see each team use the time appropriately.

I would prefer if the debaters spoke clearly at a reasonable speed rather than rushing.

Hello,

I am a parent judge. Am looking forward to hear the arguments from the participants. Few preferences:

• Be respectful & polite to others. Unprofessional or disrespectful behavior for others will override all factors in final decision.
• Stick to your allocated time. I will not be keeping time. Participants can time their opponents.
• Quality is more important to me than quantity. You would want to be clear & concise with good points vs saying too many things which are hard to absorb.
• Numbers, facts & researches will strengthen your case. Making good arguments based on evidence and research are more important to me than speaking fast and making too many low quality arguments.
• Quality of questions & follow up questions will be a key parameter in addition to content and delivery style.
• Have fun!

I am a lay judge, but I appreciate clarity of impact, clear and concise communication, and a respectful debate. Please avoid spreading.

I prioritize students with a much structural speech and no one-liner arguments. A peaceful yet competitive debate with clear analysis of their points and arguments are what I hope in a debate round. I prefer a student who did their homework on what points should be bring and what not, a deeper analysis will be great even if it's a small points. And although I valued matters more than manners, manners does make a speech valuable.

I'm a flay judge. Little to no experience with debate theory, but I can catch on to almost everything, so run those cool arguments (but obviously stay respectful, don't internalize bigotry through running debate args that minimize someone else's humanity).

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Avoid jargon. Explain your points in the simplest terms.

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

Hello

i am a responsible citizen with strong ethics and values

I believe in justice and fairness and support youth

Makes me proud to see youth around me so aware and confident.

I want to spread that awareness more in future and contribute towards it.

Happy to be part of speech and debate competition and I will be fair.

I am flexible as an audience with fast / slow speakers.
Thank you

I am not quite a lay judge, but my preferred style of argument is one that is geared at least in part toward lay judges. I don't like spreading; I prefer clear and concise communication. I judge arguments primarily on two characteristics: substance and organization. I don't weigh rhetorical ability that heavily. That said, if an argument is communicated too poorly I may not be able to follow it, and your side will suffer as a result. I always appreciate off-time roadmaps.

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

Treat me as a PF lay judge during the round. To win the round here are the following things to prioritize:

1) Slow and steady speed

Although I will be able to understand most of your content, make sure to slow down and be clear about what you want me to prioritize in the round (main arguments, pieces of evidence, voter issues).

2) Make sure to extend your arguments (the arguments you want me to vote on) to the final focus.

3) Be respectful to your opponents and everyone else in the round

Rather than appealing to emotional words, I would definitely prefer arguments with evidence.

Contentions and their validity are important; however, I put more importance on how you can address rebuttal posed by opponents.

I prefer to hear concise and well-summarized arguments instead of attempting to cover many points with fast-paced speech.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

Hi,

I have debated in many different formats before (British Parliamentary, World Schools, etc.), and have been debating for 3 years. I have been debating in PF for about six months, and have participated in multiple tournaments in this format as well.

I am relatively new to judging, having judged only a few debates before. I judge majorly based on the strength and relevance of the arguments presented (depending on how the speaker builds and mechanizes the arguments), but the speaking style does play a significant role.

I am really excited to judge your debate, and give you feedback to help you in your future debate tournaments as well.

Good luck!

I consider myself a lay judge. I would appreciate if speakers can talk slowly with clarity. I consider evidence and impacts as important.

I will evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not
on issues they think a particular side should have covered. I will assess the bearing of each argument on the
truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. Also I tend not give much weightage to value based arguments.

I prefer arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. During the Rebuttal, I would prefer the debater to lay out specific details, and real-world impacts in a clear manner. I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate and a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for you to understand arguments.

While I lack experience in formal debate, I possess the ability to comprehend and analyze arguments, particularly in terms of assessing the strength of their supporting evidence. While I appreciate a brisk pace in communication, clarity remains crucial. My best wishes extend to both parties involved!

Hey guys,

LD

I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:

-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.

-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.

-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.

-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.

-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:

-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.

-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.

-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this

-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this


EXTEMP

I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.

I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.

I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10

Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!

As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.

Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.

Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!

I am a lay judge, I work at the intersection of big tech and Wall Street. Argument precision and clear speech is very important to me. NO SPREADING WILL BE TOLERATED. Having a civil discourse with your opponent is critical .

Just make sure that you did all of these

• Articulate your points clearly, and exude confidence to the best of your ability.
• Cross-ex is solely for you; I don't base my vote on cross unless it's raised in a speech.
• Emphasize weighing throughout the debate, especially in messy rounds.
• Establish your world and articulate why it is superior or inferior to your opponent's.
• Avoid introducing entirely new arguments in the Final Focus. However, if your partner neglected weighing in the 1st summary, I'll allow it in the 1st FF, provided you engage in the 2nd FF without introducing new arguments.
• Maintain respect, don't stress too much, and most importantly, have fun!

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

I am a tabula rasa judge. 

As a lay judge, I prioritize clarity in argumentation, emphasizing the need for debaters to present their points in a manner easily understood by a general audience while effectively communicating their arguments in a compelling manner. I support stated facts with credible evidence, valuing a deep understanding of the topic. Additionally, critical thinking skills are essential, as I expect debaters to analyze information thoughtfully and draw reasoned conclusions. Respectful behavior towards opponents is essential to maintain the integrity of the debate.

I'm a lay judge. Do not spread, make use of your time appropriately, do not steal prep, keep track of your time, and be respectful to your opponent(s).

NOTE: send me your speech doc; email chain: k.selvaganesan@gmail.com

Introduction:

Hello, my name is Aman Kumar. This is my first time judging any format of speech & debate however I have been involved in this world throughout my education. My journey in this field has been enriching and I am eager to continue learning and growing with each debate I judge.

Communication Style:

Clarity of speech is of utmost importance to me. I believe the essence of a good debate lies not in the speed at which arguments are delivered but in the articulation and structure of those arguments. Therefore, I encourage participants to speak clearly and at a pace that allows me to follow their line of reasoning even though they still must stay within the time limit. If you chose to speed, please be aware that if I cannot follow your arguments, it may impact your evaluation.

Technical Terms:

While I am familiar with the general rules and format for most of the debates, I may not be well-versed in all debate jargon. If you plan on using any such terms, I would appreciate if you could explain them during your speech. This will ensure that I fully understand your argument and can evaluate it precisely.

Post-Round Process:

After the round has concluded, I would like to take a few minutes to reflect on the arguments presented and enter my feedback & results. Please understand that this process takes time and as such I will not be able to disclose the results or provide any feedback immediately.

Chase Laibe

Experience:

Debated 4 years at Desert Vista high school

Senior at Baylor

3x NDT Qual

Although I don't really think paradigms are that useful, I'll try my best to summarize some of my thoughts about debate down below.

email:chaselaibe@gmail.com

K general

I was a K debater most of high school and all of college. While I pretty much read and am comfortable with a lot of literature my research practices tend to focus more towards Baudrillard, Bataille, Psychoanalysis, James, and a variety of other nonsensical positions. While I am more fluent in these positions know that just holds you a higher threshold of doing it well. While links to the plan are nice, I don't really think it is that necessary. Personally don't think you need to win an alt if there is sufficient framing.

K vs Policy

Judge instruction is def a necessity in these debates, in order for neg teams to win these debates usually need to win a turn to the scholarship presented by the affirmative, or winning that the plan worsens the impact that outweighs and turns aff. Affs def should be able to defend the ideological underpinnings of the affirmative so in these debates don't be afraid to read your 5000 heg good cards. I find these debates quite interesting.

K v K aff

These can easily be the best and the worst for me, make sure to spend time explaining your theory of power and how it interacts with your opponents. I think the biggest thing for Affs in these debates is being able to clearly explain "solvency" as well as your method/theoretical approach/alternative. I think presumption is often under utilized in these debates and affs often dismiss it too quickly.

K aff vs FW

Honestly indifferent and don't have too many predispositions towards these debates, so if this is your jam go for it. I find a lot of times in these debates both teams need more explanation of there model and how it would function in debate. I will vote on procedural fairness just know I am more persuaded by the skills/education side of impacts.

POLICY

While I am most comfortable with K debate def fine with this as well just make sure to not use too many topic buzzwords as I haven't judged too many of these debates on this topic. Def fine with pretty much anything you want to read so go ahead and read your extremely contrived process CP just know I would prefer more judge instruction in final rebutalls. I like T and find those debates interesting as well.

Other Random Thoughts

Speaks: I find myself giving slightly higher speaks than average

Other Debate Events Besides Policy:

Fine with anything, note I will hold you to a higher standard of argumentation explanation, and clash than most judges

I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic if it is PF.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence (e.g., sky is purple, pink, orange, blue, a mixture of hues, etc.), particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Spreading/Speaker Score: Don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it. Competitive debate may be the only activity where confusing your opponent through mumbling is allowed. I accept it as the reality, but I don't want to reward it. Spread at your own risk.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex ideas simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes for (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing and telling me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to earning my vote.

Good luck!

Hello contestants,

I consider myself to be a novice judge for both debate and speech. Nevertheless, I’ve enjoyed observing lively speeches and vivid cross-examinations in past events.

I will be looking for clarity and concise speaking with a confident tone. I prefer structured speech over speed (understandable that you’d like to fit more content to the given time). My background is in STEM and management in career settings; therefore, I do value manner and courtesy to your opponents and audience.

Be strong with your information and bear with me as I try to figure out this judging format :)

Hi! I'm Jenna Lee, a freshman at the George Washington University. I did Public Forum for 4 years in high school, and I would consider myself a tech/flow judge.

Please share me on any evidence exchange/speech docs if you're gonna go fast: jenna.lee@gwmail.gwu.edu

TLDR: tech > truth, good with speed, but if you're spreading I would err on the side of sending a speech doc, i love well-warranted arguments and weighing, I take the path of least resistance to the ballot, run whatever kind of args you want unless they are specifically harmful/racist/xenophobic/abusive (auto-drop with low speaks)

Trad Stuff

• I take the path of least resistance to the ballot. If you tell me to look to an argument first, I will, and I will vote for the arg that has the least amount of doubt cast on it/the cleanest offense
• I will vote for whatever is winning on the flow, but I think well-warranted, stock arguments (with nuance) are usually more compelling than a 30 second squirrelly argument with one link card
• I'm kind of a stickler for extensions: please extend link, warrant, impact for any offense you go for in the round if you want me to evaluate it
• Make your weighing comparative and give me a way to solve clash so I don't have to presume, pretty please
• Anything in final focus must be in summary, I will not evaluate new arguments brought in any speech after 1st summary
• I love analytical debate: a few well-warranted logic responses go a long way and I will prob prefer it over reading 50 blippy responses that aren't implicated
• I will not do work for you: please tell me how/why I should vote :)

Theory

• Don't run theory on novices/teams who you know will not know how to respond to it

• I will vote for whatever shell as long as you win it (within reason, I'm not the judge to read paper/shoe/other friv theory on) but as for my personal beliefs: indifferent erring to the side of against disclosure and I can be convinced either way on paraphrasing
• In short, I prefer substance debate, but I am happy to evaluate theory if you believe there is a legitimate abuse in the round

K's

• I did not have a lot of experience with K debate, but I feel relatively confident in my ability to evaluate one. Feel free to run one in front of me, but just know I am not a K expert

Misc

- I will up your speaks for funny contention tags/just being fun in round (without being condescending or mean)

- Any discrimination/sexism/racism/xenophobia/disrespect will not be tolerated and I will drop you and give you 25s

Hi :) I'm a second speaker in PF debate so I prioritize weighing a lot, especially in final focus.

Speed is okay as long as your annunciation is clear and understandable.

Crossfires won't be weighed/considered as much as other speeches.

Be respectful and have fun!

Public Forum

Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the tournament!

But..

Since it is an online tournament, please try to talk slower than you normally would do at in-person tournaments. I flow on paper and listen to cross-fires as well.

Some things I look for:

• make sure your cases are well structured and easy to follow
• if you have a framework, make sure you link it to your contentions
• contentions should have either logic or evidence to support your claims
• please include impacts in your case
• if you are refuting to opponent's case, make sure you let me know which contention/argument you are refuting to and explain your logic or include evidence to support it
• try to weigh your impacts and clearly explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's
• please refrain from adding new contention at summary speech
• I should hear voters at final focus. Tell me why your team won!

Info:

• I use she/her pronouns, and I'm tech>truth.
• I'm a freshman at Wesleyan, add me clei@wesleyan.edu to any email chains pls!
• I've debated for 6 years in PF at both the local and state level

More info: If you're going to read anything sensitive, give consent warnings otherwise change what you're running.

- Extend your links and impacts through all speeches, unless dropped by their summary

- New args in ff/2nd summary are unnecessary and unfair, don't do it/i wont evaluate them

-I'm good with speed, but don't speak fast if it won't be eloquent. It's much better to be slow and understandable (if you're 300WPM+ send a speech doc if you can

- Pls pls collapse

- When you weigh, tell me why. Don't just say "we outweigh" Metaweigh if you can!

Evidence:

- If you tell me to call for a card, I will.

- If the card is misconstrued I will dock speaks, and drop u if it’s a key card

Preferably, don't make it an evidence debate those are not fun :(

Other:

-I'll put your speaks as low as I can if you make any sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic comments and drop you

-Let your opponents finish speaking in cross. I don't evaluate cross but if you're being REALLY rude i'll deduct speaks

-tell me ur zodiac sign, and if we're compatible, ill start ur speaks from 29, otherwise they start from 28

I am a lay judge. This is my first time judging debate. I value good reasoning to help me understand how your evidence relates to your arguments and make sure to stay on topic and not detour. To receive 30 points, you must have strong reasonings, good presentation, and on time. Happy debating!

I am a new judge.

Comfortable with moderate speed and appreciates clear framework establishment.

Logistics: suyanglisusie@gmail.com if you'd like to start an email chain or doc for evidence checking.

Preferences:

1. Signposting > roadmaps
2. I appreciate well-reasoned empirical evidence, extra points if you can explain the mechanism/reasoning behind the facts.
3. I appreciate impact calculus and world comparison, even better if you have a framework that you reference consistently throughout the round.
4. I appreciate assertiveness and confidence but please do not be rude to your opponents at any point in the round.
5. I'm okay with spreading as long as you're strategic about what to drop vs extend in the second half ie. summary & FF. In the end I'm voting on your impact/weighing/frameworks, not solely on whether an argument was dropped without a good explanation of its significance.
6. Please keep your own time in speeches and crossfires. Repeatedly going over time will result in a lower speaker point.

Hello my name is Wei and I am a second year parent judge.

Please speak clearly and properly explain/extend arguments during speeches.

I am a novice parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly; this will help me better understand your arguments. Also, please be polite to your opponents.

have fun!

As a judge, I appreciate the clarity of the points made. The debaters should articulate their points logically and use evidence effectively. I appreciate the debaters taking their time to convey their arguments instead of rushing it through. I also appreciate the debaters who can adapt to unexpected situations or counterarguments. I like to see the debates based on facts instead of hypothetical situation.

I'm a parent judge with some experience judging public forum and speeches. I'd appreciate if you could speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Clarify and quality of argument are valued more than quantity. Thank you and good luck!

I am a new parent judge. I will try my best to judge base on your argument, reasoning and logic. Delivery is also very important. Please speak clearly with confidence. Thank you!

I believe that debate should be used to strengthen ones ability to construct, and effectively relay, a point of view by using clearly explained and expressed evidence for support. What one learns from participating in debate can be used in our everyday social interactions. With that said, there is no use for spreading or speaking like an auctioneer in the real world, such as a debate with family and/or friends or Congress. Competitors should be aware that there is a person (most likely not a professional debator) judging their case. That judge has to listen to the points given, process the weight of the arguements, and write down those points in real time. I believe that a few well thought out arguements are more powerful than rhetorically vomiting arguements at a rapid pace.

As a judge I am looking for a well structured, thought out, and delivered case, especially when judging a finals round. During a final round both teams will most likely have equally strong cases. Sometimes how the case was presented, and which team gave me what I needed the way I needed can be what tilts decision.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

I debated for 3 years in China and won 2 NSDA China regional championships and national semi-finalist. I'm currently taking a gap year before I go to college and I have been judging PF debates for the past year. I understand basic rules and PF debate terms well, but I do expect debaters to explain it clearly when it comes to terms that are specific to the topic. Also, English is not my first language, so don't speak too fast (this doesn't mean you need to intentionally slow down, just make sure you are not speaking faster than 250 words per minute) to make it difficult for me to judge. As a judge, I fully understand the hard-works debaters did prior to the tournament, I will do my best to listen and flow in the round.

Specific suggestions to debaters:

1. Don't be rude. I like rounds that are clear and effective. I would stop flowing if two teams are just shouting at each other.

2. I care about impact calculus a lot. If no other framework is mentioned in the round, I would adopt a utilitarian framework to judge the debate.

3. I care about argumentation over presentation, pathos doesn't really work in most cases when I'm judging.

4. I do flow in the crossfires but make sure you talk about important crossfire moments in the following speeches.

5. HAVE FUN !!!!

You may know me as Peter. As a debate judge/English teacher from China, I am passionate for debate and will do my best to follow the round with fair evaluation and rankings.

For better collaboration,

(1) please do not speak too fast;

(2) use bullet points if possible;

(3) evidence and its impact matters the most.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Hi Debaters!

First, send me your speech docs ( for rebuttal, summary, ff, including constructive) for every round, I have gmail - if you don't send speech docs its hard for me to evaluate, but ill try my best.

maheshwari.ashok@gmail.com

tldr - parent judge who doesn’t understand the topic or much about PF; will only vote on FF and perceived dominance. Speak as slow as you can. Also, time yourselves and your opponents, I don't actually time anything.

I am a parent judge who understands very little about this topic. That means three things

• YOU MUST SPEAK SLOWLY! If I think you are speaking fast I will automatically vote you down because I hate fast speakers. Sometimes even less than conversational speed is needed. PF is not about speaking fast at all!!!

• If you are running a really nuanced case or something too complex to understand; don’t. I will only get arguments that are simple and intuitive to understand.

• It will be a little hard for me to give complete RFD’s. I will write them at the end of the tournament and submit them through the tabroom.

Beyond that,

• NEVER EVEN TRY RUNNING THIS “THEORY” or “K”. I have heard of these concepts and I think it’s too hard to understand.

• What is this “evidence sharing”. This is another thing that I don’t like seeing because it takes more time than is needed. Make the round quick and stop calling for evidence. I know you are not going through the entire article in 30 seconds! Don’t worry, I don’t consider evidence in my ballot at all.

Also, for me to better write an rfd, FF should be the synopsis of the round. This means that you need to tell me what to write about your argument, and how you dealt with responses to the argument.

I vote off of what you tell me - that means two things

• I will vote EXCLUSIVELY on the FF. I think the rest of this round is just to clash on each other's arguments.

As for speaker points, or “speaks”

• In crossfires, whichever team is “perceived” to be winning and comes across as dominant will most likely also win the round.

• If you add funny things into your speech that really resonate with me I will give you a perfect 30! You gave up your weekend to come to this tournament, might as well have some fun doing it!

But most of all, be respectful and courteous to each other.

Debate is not helpful in real life because you aren’t going to speak this fast close to ever - debate is about convincing everyone else.

So, convince me.

I debated for four years in high school, three of which were in PF. I had around five bids to the TOC and I broke first at NSDA Nationals. I also champed a few small to mid-sized tournaments in HS. I'm now a sophomore and I debate BP at Hart House at the University of Toronto and I coach PF (and BP occasionally). Add me to the email chain jmai7335@gmail.com.

General:

Tech > truth.

Be nice.

Nothing __ist or ___phobic.

If there is no offense generated by either side by the end of the round, I default the team that wins the weighing.

I'm fairly generous with speaks.

The average speed of speeches has gone up, but my tolerance for speed has not. In fact, it's probably gone down since I did PF. I can tolerate around 200 WPM but anything above that, please send a speech doc.

In-Round:

Front Half:

I don't like this trend where teams blip twelve random arguments in constructive that are all underdeveloped and frankly kinda dumb, I'll still vote on these arguments if they're won, but I'd prefer a nuanced and clear debate.

Not a huge fan of disads/advantages.

Warrants are so cool and they make me very happy.

Don't disad-dump in second rebuttal or else I will be very sad.

Anything not responded to by second rebuttal is conceded.

Back Half:

Signposting is so cool and it makes me very happy.

Weighing is so cool and it makes me very happy (this includes weighing turns).

Meta-weighing is so cool and it makes me very happy.

Defense is sticky.

Don't go for too much.

Progressive Debate:

I'm not super familiar with K's, but I'm more comfortable with theory. Make of that what you will.

For theory, I default to competing interps and no RVIs.

I will vote on any shell if it is won, but my threshold decreases the more frivolous the shell.

If you have any questions at the end of the round, don't hesitate to ask.

Also follow me on IG @joseph.maii for a +0.5 speaks boost :)

(My partner from HS also stole this paradigm from me so if you ever get Rina Song as a judge, please give her a bad time).

I'm a parent judge with limited experience. I'm looking forward to a civilized debate. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace so that I can hear and understand your points. I don't prefer spreading. Thank you, and best wishes.

I did CX in Missouri all four years of high school. I haven’t kept up with this resolution or the related topics very much so that will reduce any insertions I need to make into the debate. In other words, I’m tabula rasa :) so framing the debate will also be important. As a brief note as well, I didn't compete on nats circuit flow so I'm not super familiar with a lot of the really technical jargon so a (very) brief explanation of the term would be appreciated.

I have a good grasp on the flow but my biggest request from both teams is to signpost. If you do not tell me where you’re at or what you’re responding to, I will have a harder time tracking your speech and flowing your arguments where you intended them to be. A couple of other general things that I really want to see – the first is to weigh your impacts. Failing to do so will require me to default on what I think the bigger impact is which I’m sure neither team wants their judge to do. Secondly, if you choose to card spam I want to be told how it’s relevant to the debate because I think that’s what leads to nuances in the debate instead of just a braindead back and forth.

Now that we’ve gotten nuts and bolts out of the way, here’s what I’m cool with: counter-plans (if there is no net benefit to the cp I’m not going to vote on it), Kritiks (but actually explain your alt to me and why I should care, since I don’t have much experience with them I don’t have a good grasp of the literature, weigh the framework really well and you can kick the alt and go for FW instead but warrant to me why the FW is important and why you win that) Topicality (give me a topical version of the aff), Theory (within reason, imo condo good, floating PIK good, spread theory only good if you clarify beforehand), DA’s, spreading (SIGN POST THOUGH).

Have fun!

If you need my email for whatever reason: maokevin05@gmail.com

As a judge, I value logical coherence, originality, and argumentation quality with respectful conduct. Clarity in delivering arguments and compelling reasoning without contradictions or gaps is essential in a debate. Thus, I expect debaters to present clear, logical, and well-supported arguments that address the motion effectively. I also evaluate the strength of each team's rebuttals, emphasizing how well they addressed the other side's arguments head-on, pointed out any flaws, and successfully countered or mitigated them. Debaters should interact with opposing viewpoints, providing insightful refutations and showcasing their capacity to recognize and act on points of disagreement.

A good debate fosters critical thinking, originality, and creativity. The originality of the arguments, fresh perspectives without relying on generic arguments, and creativity in presenting the arguments that are engaging in the substantive analysis are a plus.

I’m a previous policy debater, but have my share of most types of debates. My debate paradigm's are pretty straight forward. I value logical arguments, so please don’t throw around random evidence if it doesn’t make sense. Besides that, I’m okay with spreading and go with anything from more “policy” oriented (Like stock and contempoary arguments) to traditional debates based on persuasive components, but I do value debaters who can present their cases coherently. So make making sure each argument is logically sound and thoroughly supported by evidence, that said, be careful about dropping arguments answered by the opposition. While I appreciate the depth of analysis in cases and the thrill of the debate, I do also value respect and presentation of information. I also am a big fan of well constructed rebuttals, this is the place to really convince me. Overall, I will vote on the side that maintains the argument by defending their position the best.

Lay judge, no experience, truth over tech. I would appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttal.

Hi! My name is Steve and I am an attorney. I originally trained as a litigator, but am now that associate general counsel of a multi-national corporation. I also have graduate degrees in political science. I did policy debate for 6 years in middle/high school and have judged policy debate in college. I have a daughter currently in Public Forum varsity debate.

My rules of judging:

Please enunciate!! I cannot and will not flow arguments if I can't understand what you are saying. Besides that, speed is fine.

Nuclear and extinction impacts are fine. I tend to go for the better constructed argument with proper implications on HOW and WHEN it will occur. If both sides argue extinction, which ones come first?? I flow proper weighing and evidence-based arguments pretty well. Another important detail is clash. Only re-explaining your arguments in the back half of the round is pointless. Go on the offensive and tell me WHY I don't prefer the opps arguments compared to yours. Otherwise, I can't evaluate even your best arguments over your opponents.

But most importantly, please be respectful to one another and remember have fun! ????

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

In my debate space, valuing fair and thorough engagement is paramount. This involves making logical concessions after proper analysis and engaging in fair, charitable comparisons. Rudeness, discriminatory language, and disrespectful behavior won't be tolerated, and penalties may be applied.

While recognizing the time constraints, avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments – no spreading. Clear articulation is crucial for understanding. Always be mindful of your burdens in the debate; don't just assert claims, justify them. Best of luck!

My debate background: I used to debate in high school and as a university student. I have acted as a judge in different debate competitions.

How I judge: I base my decisions on both arguments and delivery.

On speed/pace: All speeds are okay as long as the speech is clear.

Hi guys~

I'm a judge who actually pays more attention to your logic rather than evidence! Sometimes, no matter how great impact your evidences have, I always prioritize whether your logic have any fallacies or not.

On the top of that, please speak clearly and slowly while you are delivering your speech, it is okay for you to be a bit aggressive during crossfire, but always remember you have to convince your judge. If I can't understand what you are talking about, then it is pretty hard for me to vote.

Last, be respectful! I know it is not a decisive factor, but it will definitely be helpful!

Enjoy every round! Gook luck to everyone~

Former Assistant Coach for Wayzata (2012 - 2016)
Experience: Debated for Wayzata (2009 - 2012), and on and off for University of Minnesota (2012 - 2016), Assistant Coach at University of Minnesota (2020)

ONLINE DEBATE

I understand this isn't exactly what every one was hoping for this season to look like, and I also recognize that most of us will be experiencing a new form of debate together--I am hoping that we will work together during rounds to ensure that the online video call debate experience goes smoothy. Please remember despite this being frustrating for some of you, this is an incredibly important movement to make debate more accessible to more members of the community.

On this note of online video call, I have some preferences:
1) Camera: If you are speaking, please keep your camera on. You may turn it off once your speech is over.
2) Volume: Be wary of your speaking volume. Some times mics don't pick up spreading well because of the volume changes. I struggle sometimes with flowing every single argument, so this is really really important to me.
3) Recordings: I know you all will be recording these rounds--I am uncomfortable with being recorded consistently during the round. We live in a very different world than before, and I want people to recognize that recordings will be leaked and edited. For that reason, I'd prefer not to be recorded for long periods of time. I recognize this is frustrating.

POLICY PARADIGM
1) Dropped Arguments -- They need a claim, warrant, and implication. You cannot just say they dropped and therefore it is true.

2) Impact calc, Impact calc, Impact calc. Please do it.

3) Tech > Truth - I interpret this as I will judge things as they go on the flow, not as how I think things should go. I try to intervene very little. Intervention sometimes, but only if something comes across / is problematic.

4) Flow Troubles -- I'm forthcoming about this, so please work with me! I still flow on paper, so there is nothing I love more than a structured flow. It will reflect in your speaker points. On clarity, I will say clearer three times before I give up flowing.

5) Email Chain - I always want to be on the email chain.

Some specifics:

1) Disads - case specific disads are fun-- I like them. I'm not particularly sure if I like politics at all, but I'll vote for it. I get exhausted by trump oriented conversation though...

2) Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between. I care about what the perm looks like post fiat AND how it functions in round. Please explain it to me.

3) Framework – So I think I have changed opinions on the K since I started only judging clash rounds in recent years--and I have been surprised to learn that I tend to lean towards "a more inclusive form of debate is good". I often am pref'd by policy aff teams hoping for lenience in K debates, and I want to highlight that this isn't the wisest strategy given how many times I have voted against framework.

Despite this, I do believe that framework can be a compelling argument in front of me if read in a way that is specific and conscious about the round. Please keep this in mind.

4) Kritiks - I'm not k-illterate and tend to be able to wade through evidence pretty well, but I am not super familiar with the literature. Explain to me the specific link, impact, and alt action, and please explain it specifically. I want you to get detailed and nuanced, and explain the scope of the argument. I really want you to contextualize a specific link to the 1AC / 1NC / Topic literature.

What are more popular kritiks nowadays? Generic postmodernism is something difficult for me sometimes, but then again, I'll vote on many different things. Honestly, I'd prefer you to go to a little slower on this, which would reflect in your speaker points. I like topic-specific K’s. Neolib, imperialism, etc. are all very viable strategies in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically. I would also highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”.

Off-beat note: Many years into debate, I still like small, soft policy, K-friendly topical affs which defend a small-ish impact, and critique disads / net benefits. I find this kind of debate refreshing. An aesthetic I can stan for.

5) Theory – conditionality is almost certainly good, unless it is way excessive, like 5 counterplans. I do however think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps/judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so.

Finally, I hate wipeout, I think the argument is gross and irresponsible, and I'd appreciate if you don't read it in front of me.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

I will evaluate the debate using skills from policy -- technical debate will be had!

I am a parent judge with limited experience, so please convince me why you win using ordinary terms. I do not understand debate jargons

Hi All,

Look forward learn interesting topics.

This is my 2nd time being a judge!

Only request: Please do not talk fast. Take it easy and slow. Stay cool and have fun.

Good luck!

Cheers!

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

In Public Forum Debate, i will be prioritizing the student's capability on analyzing the facts from the materials they have and explain their argument and analysis based on that fact, and modify those informations and facts into a solid argument, using legitimate proof as the basis of their argument, such as examples, study case from legitimate articles or journals. Rebuttals and responses are also taken into consideration, which is when the students could prove the truthfulness of their argument, hold their stances,and recognize the gap in the case from eachother's teams to achieve a productive debate.

-I am a parent judge with limited judging experience, so make sure you go slow and state your claims clearly.

-Stand up during speeches and cross.

-Make sure you are respectful throughout the round; you speaker points will reflect this.

-Don't assume I have any prior knowledge on this debate topic.

-Try to extend key arguments through all speeches and tell me why I should vote for you vs the other team.

Hi,

I am a lay judge but i was judging for the last 4 years and have experience with PF, LD and also speech events. I am not a huge fan of spreading and really appreciate respectful interaction among all teams.

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.

I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

I h I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

a. I l pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

a.

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.

Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – Debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Given that, I'm a good judge for T/framework. One might even say it makes the game work. I don't think the correct palliative for inequalities in the debate community is to take a break from debating the topic. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. That is SO easy to do on the high school CJR topic - I would much rather listen to a reform vs abolition debate than rehashed stuff from past years. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points- My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Saying "baudy" caps your points at 28.7.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

For me, Speaking is a hobby and I love listening to various speeches too. I’m a flat judge with experience in judging PF, LD and a few other speech events. He/Him pronouns.

I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy.

Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.

Zoom Specific:

My campus's wifi is not very nice, I do advise you to disclose your case to me at roseoh1004@gmail.com before the round actually starts if you are planning to spread. Ddd me to the email chains while you're at it!

can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit

I don't care if your camera is off or not if your wifi is also like mine but turning it on is recommended to replicate the in-person debate experience to the largest extent

Please try to wear headphones so that no one echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!

General:

My debate terminology is a little rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand and follow them to the best of my abilities.

I'm tech>truth, so make sure to call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important at the end of the round - this is why i suggest teams to send me their cases)

If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points

If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20

If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card (actually Yale requires me to be patient a little, so I'll just deduct prep time until u run out lol)

Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content

I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me

Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so

I consider defence sticky in the 1st summary

2nd rebuttal should frontline offence

extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for you

impact weighing is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round

please do the work for me. I do not like to build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!! DEBATE IS NOT THE END NOR THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD

Biography:

I did too much ofPF, Congress, and Extemp. Currently a law school student and PF varsity coach for MVLA.

Judging Philosophy: Tech > truth

I'm down for anything as long as it's warranted and linked properly. Please do impact analysis/weighing to make my life easier. The more messy a round is, the more likely my flow becomes the wild west. Strike me if you don't want to do terminal link work.

Growing List of Pet Peeves:

• Even tho I'm tech over truth, if you break evidence ethics, either drop the card or it's an auto-drop from me. I don't really care about paraphrasing but will evaluate paraphrasing theory.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be.
• I'm good with speed and if I can't keep up, I'll say "clear".
• Add me to the email chain. I'll disclose my email in round.
• I make faces, I'm sorry.
• In varsity: I don't time because it slows my flow, but please flag overtime. In JV/Novice: I will time and give hand signals if needed!
• I like a spicy debate with clash so please try your best to create clash.
• I half (don't really) listen to crossfire so if it's important, bring it up in speech.
• Please be kind to your opponents.
• Don't try to extend everything in summary and final focus, collapsing is your friend. If you go for everything and all your extensions and links are surface level, I WILL NOT give you access to your impacts/args.
• Please have a basic level of round etiquette. If you do not know what this is, please ask me or I will heavily dock speaks.
• Good theory and Ks are aight. Bad/poorly done theory/Ks are an auto drop. TW stuff is my least favorite to evaluate (this means don't run it).
• To get access to your impacts -> you need to provide me the terminal link and it's not enough to be a surface-level link/card read.
• Using debate language inaccurately is cringe/a speaks dock.
• I usually disclose right away and if I don't, that means the round was messy and I have to clean up the flow (that's a bad sign).

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

I am a lay judge. Speak clearly and slowly.

Bala Palaniswamy (He/Him)

Background:
• First Time judge
• Preparation includes reviewing Judging resources and watching past PF debates
• Daughter currently in PF Varsity debate who provided debater perspectives

Personal Philosophy:
• Assess the argument presented and rebutted without any bias.
• Do not get swayed by aspects that are not substantive. (E.g., Jokes, Antics, Body Language etc.)

Expectations:
• Clear and concise delivery of the cases.
• Perceptible transitions between the arguments. (Avoid jumbled arguments but explicit linking is fine)
• Be true to the claim that is made. Passionate defense of argument with strong evidence and warrant will be appreciated.
• Speed is fine but not up to the point of spreading.

I am lay judge and I believe that Debate is primarily a communication activity, which means if I cannot understand you because you are not speaking clearly or are not presenting your arguments in an organized manner, I probably won't be able to write them down.

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

As a judge, my primary focus is on the effectiveness of message delivery and the debater's presentation skills. It's essential for debaters to engage with their audience and judges through confident and dynamic delivery. While I understand the necessity of referring to prewritten statements to ensure accuracy and coherence, excessive reliance on these notes can detract from the overall impact of the argument.

Key Aspects of Effective Delivery:

1. **Eye Contact**: Maintaining eye contact demonstrates confidence and helps in connecting with the audience and judges. It's understandable to glance at notes for reference, but constant reading from the paper may give the impression of being underprepared.

2. **Vocal Delivery**: The ability to modulate voice, pace, and tone is crucial. It not only aids in emphasizing key points but also keeps the audience engaged throughout the debate.

3. **Body Language**: Non-verbal cues, such as gestures and posture, play a significant role in reinforcing arguments. They should be natural and complement the verbal message.

4. **Engagement**: Effective debaters interact with their content and audience. This can include responding to the dynamics of the debate, demonstrating flexibility in argumentation, and showing genuine passion for the topic.

5. **Preparedness**: While occasional reference to notes is acceptable, debaters should exhibit a thorough understanding of their material. Frequent reading from scripts may suggest a lack of familiarity with the content.

Evaluation Criteria:

- **Clarity and Structure**: Arguments should be clearly articulated and logically structured. This includes a coherent progression of ideas and effective use of evidence and examples.
- **Persuasiveness**: The ability to persuade, not just through logic and evidence but also through the strength of presentation. This involves making a compelling case to the audience and judges.
- **Adaptability**: Demonstrating adaptability in addressing counterarguments and navigating the debate's flow while maintaining a strong presence.

Conclusion:

While content and argumentation are undoubtedly important, the power of presentation cannot be overstated. A debater's ability to deliver their message with confidence, clarity, and engagement significantly enhances the persuasiveness of their arguments. My judging will lean towards debaters who skillfully balance the substance of their arguments with superior presentation skills, marking a comprehensive approach to debate.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

Hi, my name’s Sarah (she/her) and I’m a second-year at Western University in Canada. I did debate all four years of high school, mainly LD (NC state champ) but with some experience in PF (like three tournaments) and World Schools (nsda quarters x2) as well.

As an LD debater I focused on traditional and policy debate and don't have much experience with K's or theory. That being said, I am open to hearing most kinds of arguments, and will do my best to evaluate them (except tricks, I will not vote on tricks) as long as you are clear and debate assuming I have zero topic or argument knowledge. If I don't understand the argument, even if you "won" on the flow, I won't vote for you.

Please don't spread.

Add me to the email chain - stpicciola1@gmail.com, but if you go too fast or aren't clear when reading I won't fill in the gaps for you.

Other things to keep in mind:

• IMPORTANT: debate should be an inclusive space. I will drop you and give you low speaker points if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or discriminatory in any other way.
• For online debate have your camera on.
• I flow. Make your arguments clear and PLEASE signpost. If I don’t know where you are there is no way for me to be able to understand your argument or properly write it on my flow.
• Have good evidence ethics. I might ask for cards at the end if needed so please make sure your evidence actually says what you are saying it does and that you aren’t misconstruing or lying about what your author is saying.
• Your last speech NEEDS to consist of voters and weighing. If this doesn’t happen it makes the round very difficult to evaluate.

• Bonus speaks if you make me laugh.

If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!

First and foremost - don't yell over each other during cross; I will lower speaks for it.

Second - I have done primarily public forum and a bit of LD judging, so give me a bit of leeway with other events.

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

Actual Judging Info:
I will almost certainly not vote off a single dropped argument by the opposing team unless it's an especially strong argument, but I will vote on arguments that have been responded to if I think the response is weak/not explained.

I like condensing into a few strong arguments that each side has talked about, so if your opponents say they dropped an argument - I drop it from my flow and will not vote on it. I am not perfect, so taking 10 seconds from your speech to mention that the argument is dropped would be great.

Don't try to link implementing a universal basic income to an extinction impact unless you are certain your link chain is bulletproof - I really won't buy it.

I have no particular familiarity with a lot of critiques or topicality arguments, so if you run them explain them. I'm not stupid, so I'll probably get it, but I won't vote for you if all you bring to the debate is tropicality.

I will ask for evidence if I think the card is very short or seems suspicious. I probably won't decide a debate on a single bad/un-researched card, but if it's critical in your link chain or for impacts I will care.

Expect me to have a decent level of knowledge about most topics, but if you don't fully explain an argument to the point where I feel like I would have to ask you a question to be able to understand the argument chain then I won't flow it through.

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

Debate Structure Stuff:

Spreading is mostly fine, but don't expect me to be able to understand a 12 minute speech compressed into 7 minutes. Clarity over argument quantity with me, because I will go off what I write down/understand from your speeches. Make sure you are understandable.

I get really peeved if people start going over time repeatedly or say they have their own timer and then don't start it. If you have a timer, use it and stick to it - saves time for everyone in the debate in the end.

Evidence exchanges should happen on an email chain where I'm included - ask me for my email address before the round starts. I am fine with the emails being written off time, but once you get the evidence you asked for, start your timers.

I appreciate respect for an opponent who doesn't respect you, but if it keeps happening, either say something to the opponent or to me.

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

If you have anything specific that you want me to decide on before a debate, ask me - I think after a debate is a bad time to ask clarifying questions about judging style.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments
I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument.
"Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

Hello Debaters

-No spreading please. I cannot follow and may work against you.

-Clear logical arguments always resonate with me.

-Passion is great but rudeness or aggressive behavior is not. Be respectful of your opponents.

-Good luck to all.

Hello Contestants,

This is my 1st time judging, so I am quite excited about this. I am an engineer by profession. Please make sure to speak slowly and clearly. Please be respectful to the other contestants.

lay judge

if you do plan to speak fast, please send a speech doc

add me to the e-mail chain: m2joyce@hotmail.com

please collapse in summary it makes everything a lot cleaner and easier for me to vote on

in final focus, write my ballot for me, if you don't make a connection/reason i won't do it for you

i'll time your speeches, so please don't exceed time limit

be kind

good luck and have fun!

I'm new to debate this year; going too fast doesn't help me understand how you are actually debating within the round. Be respectful to one another and have fun!

In Public Forum Debate. I will prioritize the students capability in creating further analysis in regards to the facts and materials that they deliver during their speeches. Letting people know the step-by-step process on how your claim is happening. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner or "they say-we say" debate, a deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will be more credited.

Hello!

I am Dhana, a lay parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can understand and judge better.

Simple and clear arguments and rebuttals help me decide the rounds.

Looking forward to listen to you all. All the best.

I will not intervene against any argument that has a warrant and has an implication on how I should be writing my ballot. I feel most comfortable evaluating topical rounds. I will evaluate any arguments about why things other people do are unfair or are bad for debate. I typically look to the argument that is best weighed assuming a reasonable probability of it happening with rare exceptions that you should delineate in the round. Answer all offensive arguments in the rebuttal speeches and answer rebuilding arguments/ frontlines when extending defensive arguments. The earlier the better.

I am excited to be learning about the nuances of speech and debate as a new S&D judge, while I have been an avid debater in my younger days and continue to be a public speaker at my sphere of work.

Please bring your best self to the debate with your authentic voice and demonstrate your skills in communication, critical thinking, collaboration, diversified though process and creativity. It is refreshing to see some humor punched into your story and I am open to some fun while we are at this pretty serious endeavor! Try to be memorable and preferably in a good way. :-)

While you project your voice, be clear and concise, slow but sure. We are all here to support each other through your growth journey in the world of speech and debate and beyond. So, trust your instincts and be ready to enjoy the experience; humor is often a great medicine and be prepared to laugh at yourself when the chips may seem to be down! Remember, clash is a great way of making your points get through and stand out!

Feel free to ask questions, if any, as per the event guidelines. Let's have a great learning time together!

Best,

Shouvik Ray (He/Him)

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years at Kennedy High School (2015-2019).

While I do find debate to be strategy based, I prefer arguments that follow a logical well thought out narrative. I keep a flow, but I prefer truthful and reasoned arguments.

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh. It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Signpost! At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I prefer teams to not just say "extend Smith 19"- you need to explain the evidence and what that is directly responding to

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- For first and second summary I would like you to extend responses on your opponent's case in order to extend it to final focus

- within this speech it is important to collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I have no experience in LD or Policy so if you choose to run this type of argument you need to dumb it down for me. Personally, I would prefer a traditional contention over this type of argument. I am not a fan of disads read in rebuttal.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- I understand rounds can get heated and I like respectful humor and sassiness, but do not be condescending or rude to your opponents

- Have fun!

I am a parent judge. Speak slow and clearly, explain your arguments well

I'm a parent judge so make sure to speak clearly and not rush your case. Your core arguments should be concise and supported with evidence instead of laying them out for me to make sense of. Do your best to analyze/explain evidence instead of throwing our cards. When titling, the titles should be clear and not unnecessarily complicated. Be respectful of your competitors throughout the round and good luck to everyone!

I am a parent judge. I judge of the flow. No spreading and don't use a lot of jargon. Weighing and framework is important for me. I will give higher speaker points for debaters that maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful.

I believe that debate provides a valuable platform for developing critical thinking, research, and communication skills.

As a judge, I value clear, concise, and well-structured arguments supported by strong evidence. I also appreciate your ability to critically analyze and interpret the evidence. Show me how you have evaluated sources and identified their strengths and weaknesses.

Treat your opponents and the judge with respect throughout the round. This includes avoiding personal attacks, inflammatory language, and disruptive behavior. Even in disagreement, maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the rebuttal. Additionally, I appreciate respectful engagement and insightful rebuttals that address the core issues raised by the opposing side. Do not just attack, offer alternative interpretations or counter-evidence to strengthen your own case.

Speak confidently, clearly, and at an appropriate pace.

General Stuff:

- Tech > Truth

- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new evidence in second summary.

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.

- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.

- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.

- Please COLLAPSE and extend case properly in summary and final focus. I won't grant you any offense if you don't extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.

Things I Like:

- I don't value weighing as much as most judges. I think that if you disprove your opponents then you don't need to weigh because your opponents are wrong anyway. That being said, you should still weigh because you won't be able to guarantee that you disprove your opponents from my perspective.

A. Weighing has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.

B. Please metaweigh. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.

C. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).

- Consistency between summary and final focus is important

Things I Don't Like:

- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round.

With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.

- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.

- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.

- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I don't believe it has a place in PF. If you run it in any massive way I will drop you.

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

Dear Debaters,

As a parent lay judge, my focus is on the combination of content and delivery. I appreciate clear and logically structured arguments, delivered at an understandable pace, and supported by quality evidence. I expect you to maintain a respectful tone, engage with the audience, and manage their time effectively. Please articulate your points clearly and remember that I may not be familiar with complex debate terminology.

I am here to appreciate your efforts and evaluate your performance based on the strength of your content and the quality of your delivery.

Good luck!

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a sophomore in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF (mainly middle school and novice).

Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com

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

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Speed is fine but don't full on spread, especially if we are online.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Fix it, I'll be happy. Don't, well it will reflect in your speaks and possibly in my decision.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to solely rely on me.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or the speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but online people are just starting to take prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

Weighing is cool, you should probably do it. I enjoy a good prereq, linking into your opponents' contentions is one of the best things you can do.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

• To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
• On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long it should take to exchange evidence, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
• If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
• To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

Frontlining is very important and should be done as soon as possible. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up and says that only frontlining in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

I'm a lay judge so don't spread

Unrealistic impacts, that I dread

Speak clearly and fluently

And behave civically

I am a parent judge and have been part of passive debate and flows through my daughter who is part of PF for last 2 years

value clarity of thought and expression, clear communication and the quality of arguments being made. It would help if you could emphasize your main contentions before you start talking about them. Also whether your are going to talk about your contention or about addressing the contention of the other side. It would also help if you could maintain a logical flow of arguments. I value conciseness / less words to express an argument rather than more.

Above all please be respectful to each other during crossfire

Please speak at reasonable pace. I personally don't like a lot of materials dumping, so please be clear on the main points and impact weighing. I tend to buy in more analytical arguments, so heavy mech is welcome.

I am a parent judge and listen to both pro and con arguments as a common man. Give weightage to construct, clarity of speech, defense of key arguments, and ability to keep audiences engaged. The debater should understand the opponent's arguments and present relevant and succinct responses to get positive points. Irrelevant arguments/ obfuscation/over-aggressiveness will go negative.

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John

Hello y'all!!

My name is Schylar and I just enetered my junior year of college at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. I debated all four years of high school at Timberline High School in Boise, Idaho. I did policy my freshman and sophomore year. My junior year and senior year I did PF. If you have any more questions, you should ask me before the debate. I will try my best to put everything on the ballot, but if you have more questions you can email me. My email is schylar.jordan.smith@gmail.com. I am not familiar with any of the topics so try and explain them without missing the more niche parts of the debate! Debate is supposed to be fun and educational so I am fine if you do pretty much anything you want. I have some specifics laid out for the different debate types so read those :)

I hate overviews!

I think that they use up valuable speech time and aren't strategic. Also most overviews are just arguments that can be put somewhere else on the flow.

Policy:

I am basically a TABS/ flow judge in policy. I am fine with any argumentation but you better know how to execute it. On topicality you need to go slower than regular to make sure I get all the standards and voters. On disads I am looking for clash. If the aff hasn't done enough coverage and I still think the impact of the disad is reasonable, I will vote neg. If the 2NR goes for a disad or two I still want to see sufficient extention of the case debate. Other than that I want strategic debating. For Ks, I am pretty fine with anything. I am the least framiliar with them, but still understand the debate. Framework on the K is really important to my voting so don't just wash over it or go through it really quick. I am fine with any speed but slow down on tag lines so I can flow them. I rarely flow author names so refer to the arguments by author name and what the argument is. You can tag team in CX but if one partner dominates both answering periods or questioning periods, I will give you both lower speaker points. Put me in the email chain... its at the top :)

PF:

I have the most experience in Public Forum. I went to nationals in PF in 2021 and 2022. I view PF as the debate type that any one can judge. That means that you should be very good at explaining and persuading the judge. Other than that I think you can do anything that you want. I think that you should have some sort of framework because that helps me evaluate the round. Cross fire periods should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If someone dominates then I will lower both you and your partner's speaker points. Final focus is the most persuading to me if you clearly lay out voters. A lot of debaters try and touch on both sides of the flow, but with so little time this is not very helpful.

LD:

LD is very interesting to me. When it comes to arguments I am basically a TABS judge, although I still want the value/criterion debate. I vote on a few things when it comes to it. (1) If the other side proves that your case doesn't fit under your value or your criterion. (2) You should try to prove that your value and criterion are best for evaluating both sides. I am fine with any argument, including CPs on the neg. CX should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If you dominate the CX periods, you will get lower speaker points. In other words, let your opponent answer/ask questions.

This is my second year regularly judging speech and debate tournaments as a part-time teacher of the sport.

My college major was in history and I have an ongoing career conducting public policy research across economic, educational, and environmental fields.

I do my best to flow throughout all debate speeches and ultimately weigh your arguments on their magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

The quantity and quality of your evidence as well as the logic chaining of your arguments will be the most important components in my consideration of these factors while regular road-mapping and a clear speaking voice will help me avoid mistakes in making objective evaluations.

I do not flow during or take into consideration any arguments made during cross.

Please make any pre-speech organizational or road-mapping statements within your allotted speaking time.

I debated PF for three years in high school as VDA MS. IIRC, had four career TOC bids, broke first at NSDA Nationals, and champed some small to mid-size tournaments before. I also did a bit of CNDF, BP, and Worlds. I'm currently a sophomore at the University of Toronto so I'm probably not too much older than a lot of you. Add me to the email chain rinasong699@gmail.com.

General:

Tech > truth (to a reasonable extent, ex. I won't buy racism good). The more frivolous the argument, the lower my threshold for responses.

Assertive is good :) Aggressive is no good :(

Nothing __ist or ___phobic.

If there is no offense generated by either side by the end of the round, I default the team that wins the weighing.

Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you think you're going to go super fast then send a speech doc. Also, don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Enunciate.

Time yourselves. I don't want to have to intervene during a round. I will be timing, however, and if you go over time I'm probably not going to cut you off (unless it’s egregious) but I WILL stop flowing.

In-Round:

Front Half:

A few well warranted arguments are a lot better than a bunch of blippy ones. I'll take a well warranted response with no evidence over a blippy warantless piece of evidence any day.

Don't disad dump in second rebuttal.

Anything not responded to by second rebuttal is conceded (so yes, you need to frontline in second rebuttal).

Back Half:

Please signpost. Please. Also, off-time road maps are cool but doing an off-time road map is not a replacement for signposting.

Weigh.

Don't go for too much.

Anything you want to win on in FF must also be in summary. That includes responses, frontlines, and preferably weighing (absolutely no new weighing in second FF).

Cross:

I will be paying attention but I won't be flowing cross, so if any concessions are made, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

If you're rude it will affect your speaks. Be nice.

Progressive Debate:

I'm not too familiar with theory/K’s/etc. When I did debate in high school, my partner basically wrote all my responses to any progressive arguments for me lol so I think that tells you all you need to know. Run at your own risk.

If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask!

follow @sirhowell.affirms and like your favorite post for a +0.5 speaks boost :)

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

I am a lay/parent judge and this will actually be my first judging. Though I am new, I am open minded and receptive to diverse ideas and perspectives. I do want my debaters to recognize the sense of duty I possess and realize that I wanted to do the right thing and render a fair decision relative to what I perceive a neutral position to be. I sincerely thank you for engaging in this important exercise, bringing your ideas and showcasing your talent. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Thank you!

Hello, 

As a novice judge , i prefer the below  

1. I value more probable impacts than impacts with large magnitude
2. Be respectful of your opponents
3. No spreading or talking very quickly
4. Avoid using many debate jargons
5. Speak Clearly

All the very best !!!

I can flow but I prefer a more "lay" type of debate.

Hello, I'm a parent judge.

I appreciate arguments made in a simple manner that can be connected to your side clearly (+speak slow and clear).

When making refutations, state what exactly you are refuting in your opponents points and provide layers to invalidating opposing side's points.

Give me clear judge instruction and tell me where to vote in the debate. Identify major points of contention in the debate and why aff/neg won in that point.

Hi, I am a parent judge.

Here are a few things I consider:

• clarity > speed
• logical arguments with backed up rationale
• speak confidently
• Have fun debating!

Tobi is a student sometimes, a part-time oceanographer and an amazing adjudicator every day. If there is anyone to be referred to as one of the faces of adjudication in Africa, Tobi is one of your go-to people. With over 60+ breaks in tournaments, you can think about, Grand-Final and Semi Judge at about 25 including, PAUDC 21, Western IV 2022, and IIT Bombay 22. He has served as Language Officer at Campbelltown Australs, NEADC 22, SANUDC 22, and was on Appeal for Madrid WUDC 2023. He is the absolute definition of excellence meets hardwork. He is also the first West African to judge the Quarter-finals of the World Universities Debating Championship, Belgrade 22, talk about awesomeness. He was on CAP over 10+ tournament including, RRAC 23, Kampala Open 23, Debate A+ 23, Uganda National Team trials, Zimbabwe National Team trials and, Jozi Open, others. Outside of the debate room, Tobi is that sweet and soft guy you want on your corner everyday of the week. Always willing to help however he can.

I am pretty much a debate judge, I can follow along and flow a debate really well. I understand parli jargon, but I dont like to see it outside of appropriate rounds. I also very much favor structure in debate. If you can make your arguments clear and understandable, then it makes it so much easier for me.

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

• I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
• If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
• if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

• Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
• 25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
• 27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
• 29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

• I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

• I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
• There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

• norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
• gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
• norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

• A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
• most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
• in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
• Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
• Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
• Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

I am from Shanghai Jincai Highschool International Division. I have been judging debate for about 3 years now. I have mainly judge the World Scholar's Cup competition, but I have also judged a few public forum competitions.

I award points based on the quality of the arguments presented and the use of evidence and solid reasoning. I also consider how effectively the speaker used their time, as well as the clarity of their speech. I value clarity over speed.

I do try to take detailed notes of the debate, but I also place an emphasis on flowing the debate. Speakers should make sure to highlight real world impacts and discuss relevant implications of the arguments being presented.

I also value speakers being respectful to each other during the crossfire by allowing each other to ask questions and not dominating the time and discussion.

I do debate.

Instead of doing a coin flip, you should turn on your camera and do a backflip. If you land it, I'll let you choose first. Extra 0.4 speaker points if you turn on your camera at all.

If your prepared blocks are literal building blocks, you get an extra 0.2 speaker points. If you enjoy playing golf then I'm taking away 0.1 speaker points.

I allow swearing as long as you're not rude to your opponent or to me.

If you can make me laugh somehow, you're guaranteed at least 26.7

If you're cocky then I'm taking away 0.7 speaker point. Arrogance ain't cool

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.

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

Hi!

Please do not speed-talk

Don't forget this is an activity that you enjoy! It's okay to be stressed, but just take a deep breath, relax your shoulders a little, and try your best. Be confident in yourself.

Eye contact is important. Please don't just read your speech to me off your screen or notes.

Good luck!

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.

Hello! I am new judge.

Please speak SLOW. I need to be able to understand what is going on in the round so please make sure to be engaging and speak clearly and loudly.

Please be sure to keep track of your own time after every speech/crossfire.

Please be very respectful to me and your opponents.

I look forward to being your judge.

Thank you!

In Public Forum Debate, I will prioritize the students' capability in creating further analysis in regards to the facts and materials that they deliver during their speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know the step-by-step process as to how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner or "they say-we say" debate, a deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will be more credited. I expect a debate where students are able to cite factual and scientific resources such as journals and papers which has gone through scientific methods and researches rather than newspaper or website, although I wouldn't penalize you just because you cite them because they may also provide important facts and information. The team that wins, would be a team that can provide more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful to us in the future.

Combination truth and tech

Back up arguments with facts and evidence, not assumptions and hyperbole

No spreading, quality of arguments outweigh quantity of arguments

Courtesy and professionalism go a long way.

I'm an experienced policy and Lincoln Douglas debater during high school.

Best of luck and have fun! Participating in this activity is a lifelong valuable skill being developed. Goes a long way in the real world.

I wanted to share my inputs to better judge for debaters as the kids have put their hard work.

1) Usually its hard to understand what the participating kids say because they usually rush through their debate content, they have prepared, in order to finish in the defined timeline.

2) If they are using a specific term in their practice or if a term is being used in the topic of debate, they should give one line reference/define if needed, so we as Judges get the context.
(pls remember that we are not suppose to learn the topic beforehand so we do not get biased).

3) If the kid has already responded to a question during crossfire, do not repeat the same question to the kid unless has not answered properly OR mention the reason why the same question is repeated.
(repeating the same question to summarize in the end or ask igain inthe 2nd round shows that the kid who asked the question repeatedly, inspite does not have any thing else to strengthen their position).

I do have some speech and debate experience.I'm not lay but also not super technical

Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me.

Here are my some preferences -

Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. If you typically speak quickly, then adjust your speed to match my judging style. If I am unable to follow your arguments and comprehend what you are saying, then you will not be successful in the round.

I prefer arguments that are backed by empirical evidence, rather than those that rely solely on emotional appeals. You will not win the round by trying to persuade me through an emotional argument.

I appreciate a well-planned and logically sound case. I prefer to see a clear connection between your points and ideas.

While I am capable of taking notes during the debate, I may not be as skilled at doing so as someone who judges Public Forum Debate (PFD) regularly.

It is important to remain respectful during the debate. While assertiveness is acceptable, actions such as screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head-shaking, and showing contempt are not appropriate. Even if you win the round, you may receive a low score if you display such behavior.

Good luck.

Former Parli debater at Los Altos High.

Scroll down for event specific stuff. Parli is broken up into Case/Theory/K if you're curious about anything specific.

General Philosophy:

1. I will flow everything and am fine with speed. I do protect the flow but will flow after time until opponents call it out. You can ask me to refer to my flow or cross apply arguments.

2. I am fine with jargon in Parli and LD. Probably fine in PF as well but I may ask you to explain.

3. I will try to give as much feedback as possible at the end of the round/provide a detailed RFD and don't hesitate to ask questions.

Speaks:

1. I don't really care about speaks and won't take them super seriously. Unless I see an amazing performance I'll just give the winning team 29s and the losing team 28s.

2. Speak clearly, do not spread your opponent out of the round. I'm fine with speed but make sure your opponents are as well.

PARLI

Case:

I was mostly a flow case debater when I competed. I guess I'm "truth > tech", but I really just mean you have to properly explain and warrant out your arguments for me to buy them. I try not to intervene unless it's a very messy round, and I will vote for arguments I hated.

1. Collapse in your rebuttal speeches please. I prefer you to weigh impacts as well as it makes my job easier as a judge. Frame the round if you have time as well.

2. Have internal links please. I had seen a lot of people not have internal links even in open.

3. Tabula rasa. I won't bring previous opinions into the round to a degree. Obviously my previous political opinions won't influence a round, but I will accept obvious truisms (the sky is blue) as not doing so forces one side to have to do unnecessary warranting.

4. Net benefits is my default weighing mechanism for the round regardless of type (fact, value, policy, etc) if the affirmation does not specify a weighing mechanism.

5. I assume presumption flows neg unless someone tells me otherwise (which I am open to buying) , but I don't really want to vote on this.

Theory:

1. Theory is fine. Competing interps > reasonability. I definitely buy reasonability if you have a clear brightline and can argue for it.

2. I don't buy dress theory.

3. Put all interps in chat.

K:

I'm fine with K debate in general if you must, but I have read very little critical literature so just keep that in mind. I'm probably not familiar with your lit base. Don't spread your K's and take POIs.

CP:

1. Counterplans are fine.

LD

1. I "did" LD for six months about four or five years ago so am very very vaguely familiar with the format.

2. Read the Parli paradigm and cross apply anything that would apply here.

3. I don't expect you to have your case memorized.

4. I do understand jargon - don't define.

PF

Just gonna quote Aman Shah's paradigm here, but I AM open to theory/K/CP so knock yourself out:

- Crossfire: I will listen to Crossfire and it will count towards speaker points. Please do not demean your opponents in any way, shape, or form. Just answer questions concisely and to the point. Please also make sure that you give your opponent equal time during crossfire. Be kind and fair! Allowing others to have questions, respecting their time, etc. will exponentially help your speaks. Also, anything you say in cross that you want me to be flowing as part of the debate must be in your speeches.

- Weighing: Super important! Make sure to compare both worlds in summaries and spend time weighing in final focus as well. This is a main portion of how I will decide the round, so if you do not weigh, it will be an automatic win for the other team. Mention voter issues! Why should I give the ballot to you?

- Framework/Standard: For PF, I will automatically assume that its net benefits.

- Type "Jordan Poole is the greatest basketball player of all time" in chat at the start of the round so I know if you read this .

- Jargon: Please explain technical terms in your speeches to both me and your opponents, to a reasonable extent. I am a senior, have not prepped this topic, and am NOT knowledgeable on this topic, so please do define obscure jargon/names of programs in your speeches, otherwise the point will be lost on the flow and I will not extend it.

- Arguments: You can run basically anything as long as it is not offensive in any way (racist, sexist, etc.). Please warrant your evidence! Although it is technically okay to bring up new evidence/arguments in second summary, just don't. Debate etiquette exists and it's really crappy to bring up new arguments in second summary. It could affect your speaks in a negative way.

PARADIGM STATEMENT

Email: vyasjigna@yahoo.com

1. Don't speak too fast as I will not hear the argument.

2. Please explain things; I am a lay judge.

3. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.

4. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

5. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.

6. Time yourself and tell me loudly when you are starting.

7. Keep your own prep time, inform me that you are taking prep, and tell me how much time was taken after.

8. Speak your contention very clearly at the beginning of your points.

9. If a coin flip is required, the debaters will flip and decide and inform me after which side they are on and speaking order.

10. Rudeness will hurt your speaker points. Don’t be condescending.

Conduct

Civil in XF without excessive deference to one another, please.

Impacts

I like to see measurable benefits & harms. Long term considerations are good.

I don't like to see FF impacts suddenly inflated for hyperbolic effect. Keep it real please.

On disclosure

I am against disclosure. I accept and acknowledge that in round it can create better 'clash' however, I think it is toxic for the debate community as a whole. Frequently debaters exchange cards, and the debate system degenerates into a 'this card beats that one' where debaters are presenting rote learned arguments rather than engaging with the actual content of the topic at depth.

Call it a shibboleth of mine, but I do believe that a debate is a clash of ideas - and that this requires debaters to engage with the concepts in round, rather than rely on suggested responses generated by a team outwith. Solid research & engagement with the topic will see good debaters through.

In any tournament where the rules do not actively require disclosure please take account of the above.

On evidence

Be willing to call for card checks on your opponents. Happy to see debaters offer fair and reasonable scrutiny of your opponents' research. It's part of the game and it is debater's duty to police proper use and application of research.

If the round hinges on a piece of evidence, I may ask to see the card. This is because our activity is based on empirical evidence and to ensure fairness and adherence principles of integrity.

On the nature of public forum

By its name and nature, PF should be accessible to the public. Practices such as spreading eliminate its utility as a tool for learning how to communicate effectively to the public. The quality of analysis which has gone into a case read at speed simply to 'outrun' your opponent by their not having sufficient time to respond to your contentions is not something I usually find compelling.

Unionville '23

4 years CX, 3 years LD. i hated reading thru paradigms so i'm keeping this short :)

tech > truth. be nice, have fun! pls add me to the email chain: unionvillewn@gmail.com

CX at cal:

- Haven't judged this topic yet, so please don't assume I know the acronyms

- start slow then build up, takes a bit time for me to adjust to circuit speed.

did all speeches at some point lol. My partner was more policy-focused while i was more K-focused, read plans on aff and neg strat was a combo of DA, CP, and cap K. So i'm def familiar with most argument style and had plenty of rounds on both sides of K v plan.

--> would prefer to have less than 6 flows

--> explain your CPs, would say that I'm def not the best judge there for complicated CPs, usually find them hard to understand & interpret. Also I do think that some random niche process CPs are probably abusive?? Not to say you shouldn't run them, all depends on the round and what's strategic

--> not great for judging topicality against plans, esp w/ my limited topic knowledge here.

--> threshold for voting on theory might be slightly lower than your average policy judge bc of LD experience

--> love clever cross-apps and turns

--> love a good K debate

--> love a good clash debate w/ good weighing

To LDeRs:

1 - stock Ks, larp

2 - creative K-ish phil

3 - theory, T

4 - confusing CPs, Kant & Hobbes (smh), pomo Ks

5/S - tricks, friv theory

for novices:

1 - please use up all your speech time!!!If u still have time left, default to doing some weighing or summarizing your case, those can never go wrong.

2 - Rebuttal Speech Structure (not required but it helps to be organized) should follow a SAR structure: Summarize, Answer, Respond. First, summarize your contention (this is your offense), answer the defense that your opponent has read against you, and then respond and attack (offense) against your opponent's case.

3 - Extending your case--> There's often a misconception that if your opponent drops something, then it's auto-assumed that you win it and it is true. It's only true if you also summarize your contention and provide warrants for why your contention is true and how it outweighs your opponent's impacts

speaks:

+0.2 for being paperless, debate doesn't deserve to waste that much paper

+0.2 for not spreading when you go against novice or traditional debaters, make the debate educational and not inaccessible

-0.2 if you read theory or tricks against novice or traditional debaters (other type of args are fine tho)

I'm a fourth year university student at SFU studying Health Science.

Generally, I'm open to every argument, but please (please!!) keep your delivery slow and clear. It's more important to have quality evidence than quantity of evidence. Please do not be rude or cheat. At the end of it, I vote based on the flow and the debate round.

Feel free to contact me after the round if you need more feedback. You can reach me at Jasminewxb01@gmail.com.

(Debaters better send your cases to the email in advance :) )

I'm a Senior at Missouri State University and have done a bit of everything. Be nice, have fun, I'll adapt to you!

Add me to the chain, linnzoppolin@gmail.com

I don't know a lot about the highschool topic outside of the camp files I helped cut, do with that what you will.

I take pride in being thorough, and feel that it is my duty as the judge to have thought through my decision to do my best to make the right one, and to be able to tell everyone involved why I decided it how I did.

Top level: If you make me start figuring things out at the end of the round you are going to be upset because I almost certainly think differently about debate than you do. The easiest solution to this is to spend time doing impact calc (be it for an extinction scenario, some form of structural violence, theoretical debate standards, etc) and to write your ballot for yourself in the 2nr/2ar. I really do mean that you should probably say, "You vote aff/neg BECAUSE _____."

Disclosure is a norm not a requirement, but it is also a reflexive responsibility we have to each other so you should probably do it. I am noticing it less in person now, but I am not a perfect flowing computer who will write every word you say, having things in the doc means that I don't have to just shrug and say, "I missed it" if I end up seeing something out the window and lose focus for a second while you're spreading a T block. If you don't send analytics or disclose before the round I to a certain degree implicitly assume that you aren't convinced that it can really stand up to rigorous testing which won't affect my decision, but will make me sad. I haven't had a lot of time/experience to figure out how I really feel that disclosure affects the round from a theory perspective, but if you think its strategic to read I'll listen and figure it out based on the round.

tech over truth usually, tell me if I should decide things differently. Warming good is almost certainly not true, but I'll listen and flow accordingly.

"AND!" (+.1 speaks if you do it [at least almost] every time)

Policy affs - cool, you should solve something.

In "Policy" debates writ large I'd suggest slowing down a touch, with boatloads of cards being tossed this way and that I tend to get a little bit lost. Same goes for flagging where you are, "Answer to ___x___ ---" will go such a long way to helping me give you credit for what you've said.

K affs - cool, I like these either as much or a teeny bit more than policy affs. You should be tied to the rez and should solve something be it in round, in debate, or in the world.

K V Policy - I am a bit of cap hack if I'm being honest with myself... That said, don't adapt to me and do something you aren't confident in, I've been apart of enough K rounds and read enough of the lit base on lots of stuff to say that I can come up with a coherent decision so long as you make sure to tell me what the alt is, what it does, and how that solves a thing. My FW for the K thoughts are pretty generic, if you lose the fw debate as the aff you probably lose absent some really good offense that doesn't require me to weigh the aff, which also means that I am very willing to not consider the 1ac if you're behind there. I have been told lots of times what an intrinsic perm is, still not really sure how its all that different from severance. A lot of perms are severance. Same as everything else, if you think its a winner to extend it, go for it.

K V K - I really like these rounds. Same as the other K section, I've read enough stuff to be reasonably confident rendering a decision on anything from Baudrillard type high theory, to identity arguments. More explanation is almost always good especially as we enter the rebuttals, "how does the aff/alt solve? what does that mean and look like?" are questions I find myself asking and if I have to end up answering for you, prepare to be disappointed. I don't really understand, "no perms in a methods debate."

T - I like T debates. You should have an impact that voting negative solves (IE education, fairness, something else) Limits over ground is my lean on T. See FW for more thoughts.

FW - Debate is a game that has a lot of real life effects and consequences that often reach the level of being more than "just a game." Having gamified portions of our activity isn't always a bad thing, but I can be convinced to that it is for the purpose of the RFD. Oftentimes people treat fw as if it was ONLY T which isn't (or doesn't have to be) the case. Usually these rounds come down to two different visions or models of debate that I have to compare based on what the 2nr/2ar tells me. I do think that predictable limits are good, and that fairness and education are important, but also that there should be room for affs that aren't just, "USFG should." Interps that bracket out K debate from the activity are going to be harder to win than an interp that tries to level the playing field and allow people to do what they want within a reasonable topic. Reasonability is a thing, but I am not really sure how "reasonability solves" means that I shouldn't evaluate your interps versus each other. It does modify how I see those interps.

CP- I know what the words mean, please tell me why they matter. CP to solve the aff and avoid a disad is a winner. They can solve/be the whole aff, or just an adv, do impact work, tell me why the thing solves, and why I pref it over the aff (usually a net benefit)

Disad - politics, cool; other things, cooler. It should outweigh the aff, and tell a solid warranted story of what happens post aff.

Case debate - do it, do it more, it's great. I LOVE impact turns, not sure about how ethical wipeout style args are but I will evaluate it like basically everything else absent a good warranted reason to reject it

Theory - I'm not very experienced in these rounds, a lot of condo is probably bad. (3+ advocacies modified by perf con or other warrants you think should change how I feel) I will accept the challenge of figuring out the round if you think it's strategically right to go for it.

The rest - I will stop the round if you do something really horrible (incredibly offensive, physically violent, etc) I will probably not stop the round for much less than that but will make a decision around something that meets those general guidelines but doesn't rise to the level of my needing to immediately intervene. (IE reject the team args are things I will evaluate, but they should have an impact and be warranted out for me to vote on them.)

I am probably a bit better of a judge for K, by that I mean that the way I just don't have the intuitive knowledge of "policy" jargon which makes some spells less dangerous sounding when cast by a 2nc. Spend time explaining your impact framing, and I especially mean that in DA rounds, try or die is not enough to explain what I should consider when evaluating the round.

I believe all the debaters have make an exhaustive preparation on their cases and long for make the best of them in every round. But I highly suggest debaters pacing themselves when providing a speech in order to avoid slurring words together and to make the content more understandable since audiences and judges are not machine and they’re not knowing about everything for every motion. Make sure ur essential linkage,impact and evidence are understandable.

I think aggressiveness in debate can be good. It can really make the debate more dynamic and active. However, I believe a good debaters can differentiate aggressive and rude.Debaters who cross the line and disrupt the order will be punished.

Which team can provide more solid logic link (probability) and concrete impact (magnitude) can win this debate. Evidence is also important for me to weigh the exact impact from both team but I do believe it means little if the linkage and impact are underdeveloped.

Very experienced judge and coach for Saint Francis high school. I will consider pretty much any arguments that are not blatantly sexist, racist or crudely discriminatory (blatant is the key word here, much of this stuff is debatable and I will try not to punish you for my general feelings about your arguments).

It is important to me that debaters be respectful and polite to each other, this puts the spotlight on the arguments themselves and I am not a fan of extra drama.

I try hard to be fair and the following things help me do that:

- I rarely call cards. I like to focus the debate on the analysis given by the debaters (of course I will usually give more weight to analysis that is taken from qualified sources). I do not like to decide debates on random parts of a card that neither debater really focused on. I will call cards if I forget what they said, if there is a conflict about what they say and I can not remember, or if I am personally interested in the card.

- I try to judge on the flow in the sense that I evaluate the debate on the arguments presented, explained and extended into the rebuttals. I will occasionally do the work to weigh impacts or decide framing if the debaters are not doing that for me.

- I will not yell "clear", so mumble and slur at your own risk (I don't yell clear because I don't want a team to find that sweet spot where I can understand them but their opponents can not). I will also not evaluate arguments that I can not hear. I do not read speech documents during the debate rounds, sometimes I will look at them after the round (see calling cards stuff above).

Argument preferences:

I am cool with critiques on the aff and neg.

I am cool with framework (I like the debaters to work this out and I am pretty neutral on this question).

I like clarity (both in speech and arguments). I am not impressed by things that are "too complex" for me to understand but I will do my best to try to make sense of it. I am confident enough to not pretend I know your position and I will not fill in the blanks for you.

I am cool with policy arguments.

I have a wide breadth of knowledge but little depth on certain positions, don't assume I know your literature.

Speaks:

I give high speaks for clarity, efficiency, a pace that I can flow, respectfulness and occasionally speaking style.

I feel like the speaker point range I give is pretty close to average (I am not a reliable source of high speaks for everyone, but I will reward excellent debate with high speaks).

Contact info

mail all speech documents to: headofthewood@gmail.com

anything else (if you want me to read the e-mail or respond): thomaswoodhead@sfhs.com

Be respectful to your opponent.

Philosophy: I approach LD debate with an open mind and value clarity, coherence, and well-grounded arguments. My background is not deeply rooted in debate theory, so I appreciate clear and accessible explanations. I believe in fostering a positive and educational environment for all debaters.

Flowing: I will do my best to flow the debate and follow the arguments. However, please make sure to signpost and clearly articulate the structure of your case to help me stay organized.

Speed: I prefer a moderate speaking pace. If you notice me struggling to keep up, consider slowing down, especially during crucial points or complex arguments.

Framework: Clearly establish your framework and provide reasons why it should be preferred. I appreciate a straightforward framework that guides the debate, making it easier for me to evaluate your arguments.

Content: Present your arguments logically and provide real-world applications when possible. I value substance over pure technicality. Avoid heavy jargon, but if necessary, explain terms to ensure clarity.

Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. A well-articulated clash helps me in determining the strength of your case.

Case Construction: I value well-structured cases that present clear, logical arguments supported by credible evidence. Arguments should be signposted clearly, making it easy to follow along. I appreciate when debaters articulate the significance of their arguments and how they interact with their opponent's case.

Evidence and Empiricism: Quality evidence is paramount. I expect debaters to present statistical support and explain its relevance and impact on the debate. Misrepresenting evidence or failing to provide sources upon request will negatively affect my assessment of your credibility.

Clash and Engagement: A good debate is characterised by direct engagement with the opponent's arguments. I look for teams that can effectively refute and dismantle their opponent's case through logical reasoning and evidence rather than simply restating their case. Rebuttals should be specific and address the core of the opposing argument.

Delivery: Clear and concise delivery enhances persuasiveness. Speed is acceptable as long as it does not sacrifice clarity. I value debaters who can effectively communicate their arguments, making it easy for the judge and the audience to follow.

Crossfire: I view crossfire as an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extend arguments. I appreciate debaters who ask pointed questions and provide direct answers. Civility and respect during crossfire are non-negotiable.

Final Focus: The final focus should crystallize why your team wins the round, tying back to the framework or weighing mechanism established earlier. Be clear and concise, prioritizing your strongest arguments and why they outweigh your opponent's.

Decision Rationale: My decision will be based on the flow, considering which team has effectively established their case, utilized evidence more persuasively, and engaged more effectively in refutation and rebuttal. I value strategic argumentation that demonstrates understanding the round's key issues and how they interact.

Feedback: I believe in constructive feedback that helps debaters grow. I aim to provide specific and actionable comments that focus on both strengths and areas for improvement.

Conclusion: As a judge, I aim to foster an environment where debaters feel challenged and supported in their growth. I look forward to rounds that showcase the debaters’ ability to argue and their passion for the topics they are discussing.

Experience

I have competed in varsity PF and have 4 years of experience. Additionally, I've done other debate formats like CNDF and BP. I have a couple of bids and have qualified to the TOC for 3 years. Add me to the email chain: Hannahxu0320@gmail.com

Stuff

• Will vote tech > truth (to some extent)
• Won't evaluate anything in crossfire unless brought up in a speech.
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Won't call for evidence unless you tell me I should. Nevertheless, cite your cards, and don't use sketch evidence.
• I'm open to Ks but not a fan of theory. I’ll evaluate theory if there is an actual rule break, but no friv. I don't want to hear anything disclo related (I debated for a small school :)
• I will only vote on stuff extended in the summary and final focus.
• Weighing >
• Signpost, please.
• Don't go for everything. Collapse on something.
• I'm fine with speed, as long as you are audible.
• Warrant your arguments and extend your entire link chain.
• Time yourself. I will give 10 seconds of grace time, but anything beyond that, I will not flow it.
• If you are rude, I will not hesitate to dock your speaks.

For debating, I have broken in World university debating championships and shanghai international debating championships.

For judgeing, I have served as invited adjudicator for united asian debating championships and judged a plethora of PF prep for nationals

a few points:

• I am a flay judge.
• I flow on paper, so please speak with poise and do not spread
• a combination of rhetoric, structure, and body language win on delivery/the lay appeal
• on the flow side, I vote based on (1) collapsing. providing me with the clear/cleanest points to vote on in a debate will win my ballot-(2) quality + depth of your contentions. this means that I will highly value the link chains/impact worlds (whichever is relevant in the round)- and (3) dropped contentions. make it extremely clear which points your opponent has dropped/conceded (and why they matter!), as I will take these into high consideration
• when your opponent is speaking, please stay respectful
• if you want to communicate with your partner, please try to "look like you're talking at a whisper." what I expect/mean by this is to not look like you're talking normally at a normal volume- it can be distracting for both your opponents and the judges.
• instead, I really don't mind any other communication as long as it's out of the frame or make it look like you're whispering- simulating an in person tourney
• remember, each debate is a learning experience, not a symbol of how adept you are because so many other factors+ implicit biases go into each RFD.
• good luck!

info:

i did 3 years of public forum debate in high school; 3x national pf champion in china
yangivy@sas.upenn.edu

but to reiterate, for pf, i:

• will flow
• tech>truth
• accept spreading (send case if >350wpm)
• accept t/k (not my favorite if you cant execute it properly)
• ask that all new offense is presented in the first half of the debate (before summary)
• want you to have fun (if you make the debate fun for me too, ill give you rly high speaks...im so serious give me some fun arguments please please please) with the assumption that its actually a smart arg

as for ld, i evaluate trad rounds the same as pf; for progressive rounds, im mildly familiar with the common fws/ts/ks and ill try my best to follow but you should probably try to treat me as a lay judge oops

Hi! My name is Tiffany. My email for the email chain is: tyangrt2012@gmail.com. My pronoun is she/her.

I am a parent judge; I judged for the Middle School Debate before.

1. I like to take notes while judging, so please do not spread (speak conversationally).
2. I am tabula rasa, meaning I do not have any background knowledge on the topic
3. I like well-organized speech, meaning your speech with a topic + enough supporting points/references
4. Impact scenarios are good
5. Speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability
6. I will not disclose rounds
7. Good luck, and Have fun!

New judge.

Don't spread

Be respectful

I'm a new judge to PF. Keeping your delivery slow and clear is very important to me to understand you better. Pausing before you move to the next argument so I can have enough time to follow along in my notes.

As a judge, I prioritize logical reasoning and evidence-backed arguments in my decision-making process. I encourage debaters to present their points with precision and coherence, supported by relevant data and analysis. Convincing me requires not only persuasive rhetoric but also a solid foundation of logical reasoning and quantifiable evidence.

In evaluating debates, I prioritize the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

Misrepresenting evidence is unacceptable. Integrity in citing and referencing sources is crucial in debate. I will call for cards if there are concerns about evidence accuracy or misrepresentation.

Extreme speed and/or overuse of jargon could negatively impact your performance. If you can speak quickly while maintaining clarity, that's perfectly fine. However, if your speed compromises the clarity of your arguments, I strongly advise you to slow down.

I do not disclose my decision after the round to keep the tournament's pace and maintain fairness across all debates. The ballot will be the sole determinant of the round's outcome.

⁃ Please be respectful in the round

⁃ Talk as slowly and clearly as possible, things that I don’t catch will not count towards the round

⁃ I will give speaker points based on structure, clarity in speeches, confidence and connectivity, and how you defend your argument (PF)

⁃ No tolerance for inappropriate behavior, be professional with others

⁃ Feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round

⁃ Have fun and good luck!

I am a lay judge, so please speak at a normal pace.

Speaker Points:

Be to the point and concise

Be organized: Give roadmaps

Don't cut your opponents off in crossfire

Weigh in summary and final focus: Tell me why you win

Extend in summary, don't bring up new topics as second speaker during summary

Final Focus:

-Voter Issues

I am a very, very inexperienced lay judge. I know the structure of PF and that's pretty much it.

- Please speak clearly and slowly.

- Break down your arguments to me as if I'm a granny. Explain why your impacts matter and how they outweigh your opponents in simple terms.

- Signposting would be nice.

- No theory, Ks or progressive arguments. I won't understand them.

- Use good evidence and be ethical. Don't make up stuff. Don't pull shenanigans.

- I may not disclose.

- Last but not least, be respectful and have fun!

Hi, my name is Meiqi Yuan (she/they), and I'm a former debater with 5+ years of experience in PF/BP/WSD (*some of my achievements are listed at the end of this paradigm*). I've done some research on the February topic but I'll try to be as "blank slate" as possible.

Add me to the email chain: amberyuan546@gmail.com (it's not the one I registered on Tabroom since I’m using a second laptop for flowing/checking evidence).

Preferences:

I am largely tech > truth because of my previous experiences as a debater, so even if something goes against my knowledge/understanding, I'll still count it as long as your opponents don't point it out/refute it.

Case

• I’m fine with any speed below 250 wpm or my brain will start malfunctioning. If you really need to spread, I would greatly appreciate you sending over your speech doc so I don’t miss anything important.

Rebuttal

• Signpost, please and thank you.
• Please frontline in 2nd rebuttal.
• Weighing in as early as rebuttal is oftentimes a good way to give me a sense of what your strategy is.

Summary

• Weighing and extending are very important. Provide a clear comparison between you and your opponents to prove why your side should win. Don't forget to extend the link in summary and not just repeat numbers from a card.
• When you use jargon for weighing, please tell me specifically why that is the case - don’t just say “outweigh on magnitude” and immediately move onto the next thing without explaining.

Final Focus

• No new arguments/evidence
• If you're collapsing, make sure the argument(s) you're going for in ff are aligned with your summary.

Other random stuff

• Be punctual in terms of showing up for the round.
• I’ll be timing your speeches and prep but please still keep track of your own prep time. Please don’t rely on asking “judge, how much prep time do I have left” in case I lose track.
• I probably won’t click into a certain piece of evidence unless you tell me to do so in your speech.

Theory/Ks:

I’ve never judged these types of round and rarely encountered them when I was competing, so unfortunately I don’t have much qualifications/experience in terms of this but would try my best to evaluate.

Ground rules:

1. Respect each other and be nice. NO racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic etc. behavior or I will drop you.
2. Try your best and have fun :)

*Some achievements mentioned before*:

-TOC Asia WSDC 2022 Open Div. Finalist

-Winter WSD Championship 2022 Finalist

-Marist Ivy Street Invitational 2022 Varsity PF Semifinalist

-37th Annual Stanford Invitational JVPF Quarterfinalist, No.7 ranked spk out of 200-ish people

-Doxbridge WSDC 2022 Open Gold Div. Quarterfinalist

-48th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament JVPF double-octafinalist

-I’ve also competed in the Chinese PF circuit for a while, winning the NHSDLC national championship in 2021 and a few regional tournaments here & there

I'm Andrew (he/him) and I'm a freshman at Johns Hopkins University. I debated for Vancouver Debate Academy for 4 years. I have 8 or so career TOC bids, broke at Nats, and I champed a couple mid-size tournaments.

Please set up an email chain and add me to it: AndrewDebateEmail@gmail.com . Depending on how long it takes for teams to find evidence I may ask both teams to send a card doc for their constructive and/or rebuttals.

TLDR: I'm a flow, please: frontline, weigh, signpost, and extend. Don't spread or read prog unless you're in Varsity. Don't abuse evidence exchange time.

Tech > Truth (I will evaluate clash based on arguments made in the round and not my pre-conceived biases/beliefs). But if one team makes an argument that is under-warranted or ahistorical then the other team has a lower burden to disprove it. This doesn't mean you can drop the argument or not explain your responses.

Frontline (respond to the opponents' rebuttal) everything you want to go for in 2nd Rebuttal.ALSO frontline in summary and final focus.

NO NEW RESPONSES OR ARGUMENTS IN SUMMARY & FINAL FOCUS.You can apply and implicate previously made arguments in different and new ways and make new weighing arguments, but nothing entirely new.

You need to EXTEND your arguments in SUMMARY and FINAL FOCUS (this includes case arguments and rebuttal responses). For case arguments, this means BEFORE or AFTER you frontline re-explaining the uniqueness (status quo), link (what the resolution does), and impact (who's affected). If you DON'T I WON'T vote on it. Include the warrants but author names don't really matter unless you want me to remember some key evidence.

I will also probably call for evidence if it's really unclear, although I would prefer you make the arguments instead of your authors.

PLEASE weigh in summary and final focuses. It needs to be comparative, so specify which of your arguments you are weighing against which of the opponent's. I enjoy both solid logical interaction (why your argument is a pre-requisite/links in/shortcircuits theirs) and weighing utilizing evidence butit has to compare with the other team's argument.

Brand new weighing is allowed in final focuses if there hasn't been any before then. That includes 2nd FF because realistically some sort of comparative should have been made by the 1st-speaking team before that anyway. I treat frameworks as more formal weighing—if there's cards the FW should be introduced before summaries. I don't consider FW as progressive debate—a good framework debate is nice and I encourage it to be run in all divisions as long as you can handle it.

PLEASE signpost where you are otherwise my decision will be very weird. This means in speech, not just during your offtime-roadmap. This applies to summaries and finals especially but also numbering your responses in rebuttals can help.

If you have dropped an argument, unless it was a super short blippy argument that's unwarranted or simply untrue, it's probably best that you don't try to answer it later on, but just try to outweigh whatever it is or go for another argument that you are winning.

Please don't spread. For me that's 250 wpm. Above that I will call for a speech doc with cards and if you aren't clear I'll tank your speaks.

For progressive debate: if someone says something __ist or is exclusionary then they lose automatically. Teams in all divisions are welcome to make analytical, paragraph-based arguments about why something a team did or said was bad—if it's a question of norms I'll evaluate off the flow but if it involves safety/inclusion I'll intervene. For varsity: Shell format is fine—I'm neutral about paradigm issues (reasonability vs CI, yes/no RVIs)—and I'm open to performance or K. I tried Cap and Security but I don't know much about authors like Lacan for instance so please include some context or definitions in the tags. Tricks like presumption or a prioris are fine but I'm not fully confident I can evaluate trickier stuff like skep triggers.

For online debate: When evidence exchanges are happening the other team must stay unmuted and not prepping.

Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.

I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.