-I'm not a policy debater, but I'm also not a completely lay judge, so a medium speaking speed is my preferred max.

-Be respectful and don't interrupt/talk over each other during cross, especially in grand cross.

-Feel free to keep your own time, however I will be timing as well. I will raise the palm of my hand when you are out of time, but will not verbally cut you off until you are 15 seconds overtime. You may use this time to finish your sentence/thought.

-I don't flow cross, if something important happens, tell me in your subsequent speeches

cypress bay '22 uf '26

add me to the email chain: maristizabal2003@gmail.com

I compiled this paradigm with Sharan Sawlani's and Matthew Norman's with a couple personal tweaks

///Please have preflows ready before the round so we don't start later than we should.///

tech>truth

This isn't necessary but I would seriously prefer you to number your responses in rebuttal (e.g first, second, third) so that its easier for me to know what response you're talking about.

Im not doing any work for you so extend offense please

3 minute summaries mean you have sooooooo much more time in extending defense so nothing is sticky whatsoever so extend pls

weighing is the easiest path to the ballot. Make my life easier and tell me why you outweigh dont make me intervene

Don't read responses you don't understand. Overreliance on big blockfiles is slowly eroding any educational value this activity has. (CANT STRESS THIS ENOUGH)

You can ask to look at ev during your partner or opponent's speech/cross. Idk why or when people started considering this as "stealing prep time".

Not a fan of super squirrelly arguments or theory (the next 2 bullets might answer your next questions). Im not well versed on K's nor am I at evaluating them,but if that's what you wanna read just make sure you explain it well. If I'm confused at the end of the debate I promise you won't be happy with my decision.

https://youtu.be/DGb6ubDUESM?si=ARYESmiKAHmJKWHN

Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot. If i don’t have to spend time thinking about how im voting after the round, you and i will both be happy (half of you at least).

dont have to shake my hand

if you call out your opponents on a piece of evidence I expect you to mention it in a speech and I look at it before rfd.

Im fine with going fast I'll keep up, but if you plan on spreading at least send me a speech doc.

please collapse on your arguments, dont extend a bunch of blippy args hoping it sticks

quality>quantity

I presume neg

****** i think that this is very serious: if you are planning on reading arguments that are about ism's, inequality, etc., i truly believe that you should not kick the argument. if u kick out of it, it shows that you are reading it just for the ballot and that's really shitty and kinda fucked up. i won't not vote for you but i will have a rough time being super comfortable with voting for you if you won the debate. just my opinion.

speaks are arbitrary so i wont go lower than a 29 unless you say or do something fucked

reference jude bellingham or feid well and youll get 0.3 bump

If you have any other questions feel free to email me at maristizabal2003@gmail.comor ask me before the round. Hated my decision? send all complaints to colinmorrill@gmail.com

TLDR

W: Collapse, weigh, signpost,

L: being mean, friv theory, extending thru ink,

I'm Jake and I competed in PF at West Orange high school for 4 years. I have a few important issues.

Firstly, I've been out of debate for a few years now so I can't keep up with fast speaking the way I used to. If you want to get an important point across it'll benefit you to speak a little more slowly to ensure I get it.

Also, extend anything important (cards, arguments, etc) in a clear and understandable way. For me, it's not good enough to just say "extend x, y, z..." so be sure to explain why (if they don't address something, saying that they didn't is fine).

I'll keep track of speech and prep time. I'll give about 10 seconds of leeway if someone is going over time to finish their thought. If you continue after that I won't be flowing it. And when evidence is called for, you can run prep time but don't be using it to sneak extra prep in. If the evidence is not provided in a reasonable amount of time we'll drop the card and will continue with the debate.

Furthermore, I'm assuming everyone will be representing evidence accurately, I won't call for evidence unless you specifically ask me to because your opponents are misrepresenting it.

Finally, be polite and respectful. In my eyes, it is much more entertaining and enjoyable that way. If you have any specific questions you could ask me before the round or email me at jake.baldauf2002@gmail.com

Yo, I'm Sean Behling, a sophomore at the University of Florida.

I did PF pretty seriously throughout all of highschool, but have been out of the circuit for a while now.

I'm a flow judge for PF but if its any other event consider me lay.Please don't shake my hand.

I'm a grumpy college kid that really doesn't want to use my brain, so please weigh as much as possible. In the words of my goat, "Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh." Signposting is also very much appreciated and will help your speaker points.

I'm not a fan of super squirrelly arguments or theory in PF, would prefer it if y'all stuck to the topic. Idk much about K's and im not the best at evaluating them, but if that's what you wanna read just make sure you explain it really well. If I'm confused at the end of the debate I promise you won't be happy with my decision. If you are planning on reading arguments that are about ism's, inequality, etc., i truly believe that you should not kick the argument. if u kick out of it, it shows that you are reading it just for the ballot and that's messed up.

**I THINK DISCLOSURE THEORY IS DUMB, IF IT IS CENTRAL TO YOUR STRAT OR STYLE YOU SHOULD PROBABLY STRIKE ME**

I want to keep things moving so please have preflows ready before stepping into the round, and contact your opponents if you want to set up an email chain. Read cards because paraphrasing is whack. i wont penalize you for it but if the other team tells me to evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics and not real evidence, and you dont respond, it's going to be a really uphill battle.

I hope that you have good evidence ethics, but if the other team tells me that a card isn't what you say it is and it is central to the round I will probably take a look at it after the round. Just don't lie and you'll be fine.

I'm fine with speed, just keep it clear and remember i haven't debated for about 2 years. I'm not a fan of spreading in PF, and it will probably hurt your speaker points but I'll do my best to keep up.

No extending through ink, please extend all offense, and no sticky defense because y'all have three minutes now. Also i do not pay attention to cross ex. I will probably be playing clash of clans or looking at memes.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me atseanbehling@gmail.com or ask me before the round. Hated my decision, want to change my opinion on disclosure theory or want to relentlessly postround? send all complaints and doxxing threats to sharansawlani@gmail.com.

Tldr:

Drip=Collapse, extend, warrant, weigh, signpost, don’t make me think, young thug, gunna, wu-tang and strokes references

Drown=Being mean, frivolous theory(especially disclosure), badly explained Ks, paraphrasing, extending through ink, bad evidence ethics, boston sports teams

I graduated from the University of Florida with a BS in Advertising. I have worked in high-tech sales, marketing and advertising. I am looking for strong speakers, clear arguments, good evidence and professionalism in tone and body language. Please do not spread. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your contentions.

I will assess the quality and relevance of the arguments presented by both the affirmative and negative teams. I am looking for arguments that are well-researched, logically structured, and supported by credible sources.

I expect to see meaningful clash between the two sides. Teams must be engaging with each other's arguments and addressing the key points raised by their opponents.

If you are spreading, I expect you to share your speech document with your opponent and all judges so that we may all follow your arguments.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

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.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

I always like a spirited but respectful round. I have a PF background, so high speed in speech does not bother me. I prefer off-time roadmaps to be brief.

*EXTEND ARGUMENTS*DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING*HAVE FUN*

1) I buy any argument as long as it has strong warrants, links and is understandable.

2) Please weigh 

3) 28 speaks means you're okay

4) I don't flow cross

5) Please cleanly extend through summary and ff. I don't buy arguments that randomly appear in FF but not summary. 2nd speaking team summary try to extend turns but I don't need you to extend response if it wasn't answered in first summary. 

I did PF and competed in the circuit as mostly as capitol CM for about 3 years. Broke at harvard, stanford, blue key, sunvite, long beach and GMU. 

My pronouns are they/them/theirs. Please do not call me ma’am. I know it's a southern respect thing but it's icky to me. If you need a title for me, I unironically like being called judge, Judge Contreras is fine, just Contreras works too. My students call me Coach, and that's also fine. Teens, please don't call me El (that's one southernism I stand by!)

Affiliations:

Head Coach and social studies teacher at L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, TX since 2022.

San Marcos High School- I competed all four years in high school, I did extemp, congress, and UIL Policy.

Speech people!!!!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. I just won’t do that. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. Also, normalize giving content and trigger warnings before your performance!! Give people a chance to take care of themselves. If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!! I'm in a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

Debate comments (PF, LD, CX, World Schools)

Just disclose. I know LD's norm is sending 30 minutes before round, I think that's a great norm.

In PF, send case docs. Don't be secretive with your cards. Your opponents should not have to disclose a disability in order to get you to send docs. I also think sending a speech doc for rebuttal and summary is a good norm. This is not (necessarily) something I'll down you for but it could be, if you're intentionally being harmful.

I will evaluate anything as long as it's warranted and extended. I won't make arguments for you, tell me why and how you're winning. I'll vote tech over truth unless the truth overwhelms the tech. Sticky defense is so fake, extend your arguments if you want to win them. Unextended = dropped. Proper extensions, tag and cite, claim, warrant, impact!!

Both partners need to participate in grand cross. PF is a partner event! No, you can't skip grand cross. I'm listening to cross and waiting to hear the questions from cross brought into round.

Please do a www.speechdrop.net room, it is a fantastic site, and I will definitely pop in and read cards and cases if you have the speechdrop room set up. Always send case, always send speech docs. I am #notsponsored, just a fan! My email is down below.

Spell out all the abbreviations you use in round. Don’t assume I know what you’re talking about. People know what the UN is, the EU, etc, people may not know BRI, any random trade agreement, etc.

speed: You don't have to go at a conversational pace but nobody should be full-on-spreading in PF. When you're off the doc, you have to go slower. I try not to flow off the doc but I will use it as support if you're faster than I can follow. I'm not in a debate round to read off your case doc, I'm in round to hear YOU. Slow down on taglines, analytics, authors- basically anything you think is vital to my decision.

PF-specific comments:

• I'll vote on anything, not a huge fan of theory, not the best judge to evaluate theory
• i love frameworks! they should be well-developed. blippy frameworks don't win framework debates
• extensions are not just saying "Extend my contention 2", you must extend the card tag/cite and the claim, warrant, and impact! Let me hear the link chain again!!
• speaker points- these national tournaments keep giving me a rubric to use and I'm trying to apply that to all the realms I judge in. Points start at 28 and I adjust from there. Points will only be below a 27 if you did something harmful or rules/norms were horribly broken.
• PFers, please read cards with actual taglines. "furthermore", "and", are not taglines. A tag is the thesis of the card, it is the summary of the content. I've been seeing a lot of that lately- it's lazy and bad practice.

LD-specific:

• I don't judge LD often, not as comfortable with LD speeds but I'll use the doc
• I will evaluate k's, as long as they're well-developed and defended. i know theory is normative in LD and I'll do my best to evaluate it fairly and wisely. probably not the best judge for your theory debates
• consider me pretty lay, generally pretty trad. Read me a standard, read me a value, slow it down!!
• I know this event is generally more technical but again, don't assume I know what you're talking about!! spell out all your abbreviations, provide definitions (especially if you're reading a K), do your best to make the round and the space more accessible!
• pref me slightly better than a lay judge
• I come from pf so arguments such as kritiks and theory will make less sense to me butI’lltry my best to evaluate them

email- theedebatecoach@gmail.com

and

docs.anderson@gmail.com

please <3

This message is specifically for competitors in debate events; I value respect in the round. Please don’t be rude in front of me. It doesn’t make me laugh, it reminds me of uncomfortable/unpleasant rounds where my competitors were rude to me or my partner. That has no business in a debate space, please don’t bring that energy into a round. This goes double for people in privileged positions who make women and gender/racial minorities uncomfortable or unsafe in the debate space. Not only will I chew you out and tank your speaks, but I will also let your coach know about the harmful practices. it's on all of us to make the debate space inclusive and equitable.

TLDR- be nice, be kind, and be self-aware.

Congress comments:

I did congressional debate all four years I competed in high school, I really enjoyed it and love watching a good Congress round. I have a lot of respect for a strong PO and usually reward that with a higher ranking. POs that struggle with precedence, maintaining decorum, and Robert's rules of order will have that reflected in their rank.

Clash, clash, clash! Put the debate into congressional debate.

There's a line between sassy and rude. Tread it carefully.

General comments:

something that I genuinely appreciate in every event is a trigger warning before potentially triggering performances and speeches. controversially, I care about all of your experiences in a round and would like to give everyone an opportunity to opt out. If you’re a spectator or a competitor in a speech room, you deserve the opportunity to step out. If you’re competing in a debate round, you have every right to ask your competitors to read a version of their case that excludes the triggering material. As a judge, I reserve the right to step out/turn off my camera for a moment before you give your performance.

In a debate round, I’d appreciate that triggering material cut out. I don’t think intense/graphic depictions of human suffering add much to your overall case anyway, I’d rather you extend cards in that time or frontline or do anything besides exploit human suffering.

If I correct your pronunciation of a word in my ballot, it’s genuinely to educate you. It’s hard to know how to pronounce a word you’ve never heard aloud, just read (looking at you, Reuters!)

I have a degree in history, with a focus on Latin American history. Keep that in mind when discussing issues focused on Latin America. Feel free to ask me for a reading list to better understand conflicts, revolutions, and government suppression (including US intervention) in Guatemala, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, and more.

If you are spectating an event and are fully texting in front of me or attempting to talk to/distract a competitor, I’m going to ask you to leave. I will not warn you once, I have a zero-tolerance policy for disrespecting competitors or interfering with competition in that way.

In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.

*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*

Olivia Daniel

New Smyrna Beach High School '21
University of Florida '25

Introduction: My name is Olivia Daniel. I am a junior at the University of Florida majoring in Psychology on a behavior analysis track with a minor in innovation. After graduation, I plan to pursue a masters in forensic psychology. I competed in Model United Nations for all four years of high school and my first two years at UF. I was the president of my team in highschool, undersecretary general of committees for UF's college conference SunMUN, and director over my own committee for UF's highschool conference GatorMUN. I have judged five MUN conferences, and will be basing most of my judging for this debate tournament off of how I would judge MUN.

Debate: My experience with MUN has led to a debate preference centered around negotiation and diplomacy. I hope to see mutual respect over opponents and logical arguments focusing on technicality of niche elements of the main issues as opposed to generalization of the topic. I enjoy arguments that think outside the box and may not feel connected at first until further explanation is provided. I do not, however, want to hear frivolous details bordering on irrelevant to meet this paradigm.

Speeches: In relation to speeches, I expect to hear well-paced speeches spoken very clearly and eloquently. I do not have any preference over vocabulary, in fact I would prefer well-articulated speech that adequately argues the issue over a focus on sounding more intellectual than the elements of the speech actually depict. My biggest debate pet peeve is when delegates heighten their vocabulary to sound competent and extend their time, but do not actually use their time wisely to make a proper argument. Speak loudly and clearly and ensure the focus of each argument is listed early on then analyzed more intently in the rest of the speech. Finally, throughout each speech, be respectful of the topics, the judges, and your opponents.

I am a new judge, I have read a little bit about the topic in which you are debating today. As a new judge, please no spreading, weigh your impacts, and time yourself. 

Coached (and still coaching LD,PF,CX, CONGRESS, ALL FORMS OF SPEECH) for 18+ years

Jdotson@potomacschool.org email chain (yes)

Welcome to Nat Quals in Richmond!

Public Forum:

Speed

PF should be any speed except high-velocity spewing and spreading. I can still flow any speed. Just send me your doc if you're going to be fast. And at this point, just send me cases anyway.

Evidence and ethics (I am getting very tired of messy cutting and building sentences from nowhere. People need to be calling that out more) So cut your own evidence!

I favor evidence that is current or at least evidence that has not "changed" since published. Cite author, date or if not available source and date.

Watch out for biases.
Most likely know most of the evidence you are using anyway

You do not always need evidence for common sense or common knowledge so just because your opponent says you did not have evidence does not mean you automatically lose.

Flex Prep:

Sure, if we are in TOC and possibly elim rounds, but other times I think sticking to traditional PF is best.

Prep time:

I am not 100% stickler to tenths of a second; but I don't round up. I try to keep good time and remind you. My time is official prep in the round.

Timing cases:

I do NOT need you to hold your timer up when time is up on folks' speeches. I got it. MY time is official. I do not flow after time is up. You are saying stuff that means nothing at that point.

Frameworks

are not 100% needed.

Overviews/Observations/Definitions are also useful. If you know what to do with them; I will vote off of them all especially if they stay on the flow and are not addressed.

Impacts

Use them; impact calculus

Weigh them; meta weighing is helpful

Analyze them

Front lining

Mostly a must... unless your opponents were trash and frontlining was impossible

Cross Fire

Partners If you have to save your partner by talking during the crossfire that is not yours, go ahead. Better to have a round that is saved than a nightmare. But that will ding speaker points.

Also be nice but not passive aggressive. I don't like that. Chummy debate is kind of annoying so if you know each other from camp, or RRs etc, still take the round seriously.

Theory

Not a huge fan, especially when you are abusing it. Disclosure should be reserved for those who are on the wiki or those know are in out rounds. If you use dislco just to win a round, it should be against other teams that would do the same thing to you.

My coach said we can't post on the wiki;Email...text...

copout... disclo will win

Kritiks

I mind if you run a K unless it is clever and used without abusing the resolution, I listen with a slight ear to fem K, queer K, etc.... But if you have a different case that is not a K I would rather hear it. If you get hit with a K, and run stock K blocks and stock K Bad and they say K good... I mean... I just vote off the flow.

GREAT COMMUNICATOR DEBATES

If you are looking at my paradigm, you are probably already a debate student who is used to checking Tab. So I will be quick. Usually, I am a serious flow judge, but I will judge this tournament based on my understanding of the most important elements of the criteria set forth by the Reagan Debates ballot. I used to host the Reagan Debates in the Mid-Atlantic many years ago, where one of my students, Ronald Thompson Jr. qualified to the National Tournament. We traveled to the Reagan Library in 2015, where at Nationals, he made it to quarters. He is a NexGen Leader .

I know what to look for in a winner, just keep confident and do a good job debating and speaking.

other debate formats:

I judged LD years ago so if I am in LD pool I am a traditionalist

I judged CX years ago but I will listen to everything you throw at me

Super speed/Spewing/Spreading beyond recognition does not impress me but if you must, just send case.

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Former LD debater with some experience in PF and Congress. Flow judge. I make a point of being as much of a blank slate as I can, but I'm only human. K's, theory, and everything else is fully on the table, but considering how long it's been you shouldn't assume I know Habermas's or Foucault's arguments by heart. Off-time roadmaps are perfectly acceptable.

I haven't been in the debate space for a few years, so my ability to understand spreads is a bit rusty. I'll try my best to keep up with y'all, but... speedrun your construction at your own risk.

I'll try to be in our room early, so feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round!

Email: quinn.foster@gmail.com

You may send cases to me at jules@floristsreview.com.
I am a parent lay judge; here are some guidelines for success:
1) Please do not speak excessively fast. It is not helpful information if I cannot understand you.
2) Just because I am a parent judge does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is valid on all levels of responses not just your case. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy them.
3) Be respectful to your opponents and judges; any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss.

Hey, what's up!
I'm CJ Gilchrest, I debated in Public Forum to some degree of success throughout Highschool, so I know what is going on.
To me debate is a game, and I am voting for the team that best wins the game within the round. That means that generally I will be voting off of tech over truth, and will be trying my absolute most to intervene in the round as little as possible. I'm willing to vote on anything, including any kind of progressive arguments, as long as you win them I will consider them. Beyond this generic way of viewing the round I do have some specific details that will at the very least help you out with speaks.

- I absolutely DO consider first and second crossfires to be parts of the round. I don't "flow" them necessarily, but I will be paying attention, and I think what questions you choose to ask and how you respond to questions is a core part of how you are doing in the game of debate, so I will be paying attention and will be basing my decision in part on first and second cross. I will probably sorta pay attention to grand cross, but it is so late in the round and so hard to communicate effectively in that I can't imagine it mattering in a round too much.

- While I am willing to evaluate progressive arguments, I will NOT evaluate them if I feel that your opponents simply don't know how to handle them and you are only using them because you know your opponent can't. I am willing to drop on face for attempting progressive arguments against teams that clearly aren't ready for them, so think about whether or not it is worth it.

- I (probably) won't call for cards unless you tell me to, so if you think there is something wrong that I need to see, you have to tell me to look at it. It will be very very hard to still win the round if I find some kind of egregious unethical use in your evidence, so if you have that one card that you know is sus but you usually run anyway, maybe think twice about it.

Beyond that, just ask me any specific questions before the round starts and I'd be happy to answer them, and most importantly, just have fun with it. As long as everybody is being respectful to each other, its just debate, so please try to calm down and have fun with it. Also feel free to ask me anything after the round, about your specific round, debate in general, or even stuff like applying to schools or UF. If you want to ask me any questions after the round is over, feel free to email me at itsacusterthing@gmail.com.
Good luck and have fun! :D

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) PLEASE SET THIS UP BEFORE THE ROUND.

4 years pf in hs (broke toc, states, multiple nats), 3rd year competing in NFA-LD, president of debate at FSU (qualled to nfa-nats 3x)

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine (just send a doc if ur fr gonna spread), weigh, warrant, signpost, just try not to be blippy. if this doesnt answer ur questions then just ask.

How I evaluate rounds:

1st: Go through all pieces of offense extended into summary then final, then determine whether every piece of the argument is extended properly. If offense is not extended properly, I have a pretty low threshold for evaluating it.

2nd: Then I look for defense on each piece of offense. I only really evaluate defense if it's terminal, otherwise it better be weighed really well for me to properly evaluate it. If there is no weighing done on a piece of offense, then I default to the path of least resistance. However, if weighing is done I look to the argument that is weighed comparatively and smart (some smart ones include prereqs, link-ins, and short circuits). At this point, I will also look at framing and see if it applies to the round.

Overall Specifics:

• Speed: I am fine with speed, if you are CLEAR. However, I find speed unnecessary; good debaters can win arguments and frontline properly without the need to speak fast. Plus, for the most part, at least, the faster you speak, the blipper your arguments get. I will clear you if you are not being clear, but that has never been an issue in a PF round ive judged.

• Weighing: Weighing is one of the first thing I evaluate on any flow. However, if the weighing is not comparative and warranted correctly, it will just seem like an extension of your argument. If you are going to weigh, please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing responses in rebuttal it makes my job easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

• Progressive: I have came to the conclusion that if you are at a varsity national tournament, you should be prepared to debate some type of progressive argumentation. Now, this doesnt mean run theory or a K on some novices. Specifics: K's better have a good alt that you can explain well (or it's just a DA and will be evaluated as such) + framing that is well explained in the round or don't expect me to vote on it. I would say my understanding of K's mainly comes from NFA-LD, which is more similar to HS policy and I don't know what norms exist in PF for such arguments. I am familiar with Cap, Set-Col, Virilio, Rhetoric K's, Security, and psycho. Theroy is okay as long as there is an actual proven violation in the round. I rather not judge some bs theory debate that probably doesn't accomplish any real norm setting. T is fun but never read :(

• Extensions: Many teams think that if they frontline case, that just counts as an extension; I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made, and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions. Good extensions extend warrants and internal links.

• Collapsing: Collapsing arguments early makes your narrative so much cleaner, and also, I don't have to spam extensions and card names all over my flow.

• Evidence: I will not read evidence unless explicitly told to. I aim to minimize judge intervention via evidence

• post round me, idc.

Things I do not like:

• Overviews: I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments, but I will have a super low threshold for responses, and your speech will likely reflect this.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Things I like:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfjeGfX_5I&ab_channel=Tay-K
• house music.

Message me on FB here for questions or ask me before the round!

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

Above all- maintain decorum. Assertiveness is perfectly fine and even encouraged. But unprofessional behavior will only get you an easy L.

Public Forum:

Self-described as hybrid trad-tech judge, slightly trad-leaning.

If you try to run a theory case, just know it has a 99% chance of falling flat and failing with me.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll cut you off if you go too far over.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary.

Don't let things go- if something goes unrefuted, that's another easy ballot to submit.

Student Congress:

I value an efficient PO. If you keep the chamber productive and run it fairly, I will likely rank you.

Unless you are the author/sponsor, you should be clashing.

Please behave like actual senators; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

Blue Key: I didn’t have time to get all my comments in before they closed If you are interested, email me and I will send you an extensive reply.

Add sophieguarnieri31@gmail.com for docs/chains

If you don’t know some of the terms I use in the paradigm, don’t be afraid to ask

PF

competed vpf at tournaments like NSDA, NCFL, TOC, Harvard, Emory, Blue Key, etc.

researcher for debatetrack & student at UF

in general, substance/logic/warranting>>tech

Speeches

**Signposting and off time roadmaps are encouraged for every speech following initial constructives**

AC/NC: Any speed is fine by me, but clarity is important. If you plan on speaking fast I’m going to encourage and email chain to be set up amongst teams. Make sure link chains are cohesive and that your evidence means what you read in case. I’ll drop speaks if you get caught misinterpreting evidence.

Rebuttals: If frameworks, observations, overviews etc. are being ran by either teams constructive that you plan on addressing, please address in the beginning of your rebuttals as they prereq all args. Respond as best you can, and frontline.

Summary: This is where I want you to crystallize voting issues. Write my ballot for me, tell me why your arguments still stand and why your opponents do not. Weighing should begin here- it’s easier for my to give you my ballot if you use comparative weighing, our impacts to their impacts. Even if you believe you delinked an impact that they still collapse on, I want to see it being weighed.

FF: Simple. Tell me why you won, and why they lost. Re affirm key voting issues. Extending warrants that were expanded on in summary won’t be flowed, it’s not fair because the other team can’t respond.

CX: I won’t flow cross, but I will be paying attention to what’s said. Bring up and extend any concessions made by opponents in speeches as Cross alone isn’t enough to win a point.

Have fun. Debate should be enjoyable.

Prog Stuff

Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow some common stuff but better to play it safe and fully explain. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.

Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it, but I am not a big fan of it personally. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured and I’ll evaluate it. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise. Also, don’t read anything on round reports. That’s just stupid. Frivolous theory will result in 30 speaks if I find it genuinely amusing, but you’ll probably take a high speak loss.

Disad: Idek why this is considered prog, I’m cool with them just signpost well if you plan on running them in your rebuttal.

Don’t run Counterplans in PF, thats just not fair for the AFF.

LARP/Trix: Don't know anything about it, try it if you want but I have 0 experience

Other

Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28.

Add me to any docs/chains that you do set up.

Rascism, sexism, homophobia, ad hominen etc. will drop speaks to 25 and almost always lose you the round. Don’t be a jerk

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. You have approx a 10 second grace period.

Email if you have any questions about my rfd.

My name is Javier Hidalgo-Gato. I've debated and judged for Christopher Columbus High School.

I primarily competed in World Schools Debate with minor experience in PF.

Pace of speaking is essential , as well Composure, posture and eye contact. 
Respect to one’s opponent and a firm knowledge of the topic with strong evidence will be assessed. 

Flow and respond to what the other team says.

I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.

Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.

Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.

Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Aff's that don't defend the resolution.

Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.

Judge pref disclosure

Disclosure

Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.

Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.

Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.

Bataille

Baudrillard

Settler Colonialism

Deleuze

Psychoanalysis

ontological argument

epistemological arguments.

In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.

PIC's

Condo CP's

Topical CP's

Consult CP's

conditions CP's

A Critique of Full Text Disclosure

Spreading bad

A Critique of Disclosure

Vote only for women

This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.

So what is left you might ask:

Case debate

Topicality

Da's

CP's that are not listed above.

Other things you might want to know:

1. Da's can have a zero-risk.

2. Aff adv's can have zero risk

3. Solvency can have zero risk

4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.

5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.

I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.

Updates:

PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.

I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.

1. I am more truth over tech. I would consider it
2. You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
3. The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
4. Probability is more important than possibility.
5. Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
6. Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
7. The big questions on the topic matter.
8. Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
9. Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
10. I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
11. Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
12. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!

Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.

If you have questions before the round ask me.

UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.

important: please do not read arguments pertaining to human trafficking/sexual violence in front of me. by that, i mean don't dehighlight the cards and replace sexual violence with gendered violence. i cannot hear these arguments. read an alternate.

add me to the email chain - 19sabrina.huang@gmail.com

i debated under cps hp. currently i coach/judge for american heritage broward. i don't think i'm super picky but heres some basic stuff:

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc. you must delete the cards you did not read and visibly mark cards that you did not complete reading.

postrounding for clarification questions/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u shoulda is not. just try to keep it short - i will cut you off at a certain point

william and i were really techy so that's the kind of debate i'm best at judging. but if both teams wanna have a lay round, that's fine too. i'll give feedback based off of how convincing you sound or sum

in general don't be a jerk, esp in cx/crossfire. it's fine to be witty, but if you're being rude your speaks will get tanked. my bar for being a jerk is pretty high tho. either way, cross isn't binding.

generally please dont yell that much, calm down it aint that deep ????

first and foremost, i prioritize the safety of debaters. that means: don't trigger people, use correct pronouns, etc.

that also means i wont evaluate any arguments rooted in bigotry. i will also not evaluate death good. be mature, and good people. also idt u can run pess if both of u arent black. i cannot believe i have to say this, but dont

to quote miguel harvey: "DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it." i don't think i can word it better.

send all cards before speeches so we reduce prep steal. i do not want evidence sharing to take up 16 minutes of a round (i have seen this happen irl) please spare me

i always presume neg on cx and almost always on pf - but if it's on balance res, i'll presume first bc first summary is hard

we can skip grand if both teams want to idrc about it tbh

if both teams want a lay round thats fine j lmk

on evidence:

i wont drop u if i notice an egregious evidence ethics violation myself but i will do smth if other team points it out/asks me to call for the card at the end of the rd. i will point it out and tank speaks if it is not against official rules usually (unless its rly bad, case by case basis) but if it is against NSDA rules i will auto drop

generally - i dont like para bc i have to comb through ALL ur ev. if you do not know what para means, ask.

i think bracketing can be a slippery slope - id rather u read something that sounds grammatically weird out loud than bracket, bc if you bracket a lot i have to check all ur ev for misconstruction and i dont want to do that.

if you notice clipping and u want to pursue it dont just read a shell - again, it's against nsda rules and needs to be evaluated per the handbook. just stop the round. it would be helpful if you have a recording of the clipping too.

speaks

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc and i'm gonna call tab

25 = minimum baseline for explicit, egregious evidence ethics violations or u were a big jerk

27-27.5 = you did smth horrible (debate wise)

27.6-27.9 = decent amount of stuff to work on

28-28.2 = you're getting there

28.3-28.5 = avg

28.6-28.9 = nice

29-29.3 = good. you might break to elims

29.4-29.7 = i think you should be top speaker

29.8-30 = ur better than me congrats

you start at a 25 if i notice ev that is explicitly against nsda rules - this is not just creative highlighting, this is stuff like added ellipses

+.3 for OS disclo

+.1 round reports

-0.5 for improperly cut cards (no context, no citation, no highlighting, etc)

-1 para or bracketing (-2 if u have both bc addition)

-1 if u have no cards and u j send me a link

also,

defense is not sticky

frontline everything in second rebuttal. do not be blippy and say "group responses 2-5 no warrant" and then move on. ACTUALLY WARRANT EVERYTHING OUT. if you are blippy, i will be very lenient towards the other teams responses.

analytics r cool if u have warrants.

i dont think theres an inherent problem with theory, but theres this trend where teams make hella responses and nobody collapses and it makes the round super messy so that makes me pissed like i dont think we have time to cover every single possible voting issue in 2 mins yk what i mean

anyways if it's frivolous i'll probably give u the stink eye. u can read friv if u reallyyyyy want but depending on how funny/boring it is ill get upset/be less upset. RVIs are silly, i prob won't vote on no RVIs. i don't think you should lose for trying to be fair.

call me interventionist but i think disclo is good and para is bad and i dont see myself voting on the opposite. sorry

i think ks are generally educational and i know how to judge them but i genuinely believe they don't belong in pf j bc the timings weird. if you read one, i won't immediately vote you down. either way aff gets to perm the k. also read an alt. and actual fw. do this well and u wont make me upset

CPs are fine on fiat resolutions (usfg should __) but idrk how this would work on an on balance res. but since these are technically not allowed per nsda rules i will also evaluate CP bad theory or whatever arg u can come up with

no tricks please i dont think i can evaluate them well and ill probs drop you bc idk how they work - run them in front of someone else

go as fast as u want as long as you enunciate. i will yell clear 3x before i stop flowing, dont make me do this

signpost. if you want to spread, you must slow down on tags/cites and then you may speed up on the body of the card. then, when you move onto another contention/card, let me know in some way. pause. say and. i dont care as long as u do smth

stop extending everything through ink, makes the debate really hard to eval and leads to intervention

no new weighing in 2ff. new 1ff weighing will make me upset but idt its the end of the world.

also, time yourselves. if u go too overtime in a speech/start new sentences i will straight up stop flowing

in general, i would rather have a slower round with more warrants than a faster paced round where everything is blippy and messy. make my job easy. do not make me sigh when i am making a decision bc i have to choose between a bunch of unwarranted weighing mechanisms extended through ink. most of you all are trying to be too techy because you think that gives you clout. in order to be techy, you need to know how to debate, otherwise a fast and unwarranted round just leaves me unimpressed, frustrated, and you will not get much out of the round. if u are techy and u do it well thats fine - there is most certainly a difference between a messy good tech round and a messy bad one.

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Hi! My name is Alyssa Infante! I currently am a freshman at the University of Florida. In high school I did Public Forum debate and sprinkled in a couple of other areas. I attended Pembroke Pines Charter High school. As a judge I would say that I am very open minded and understanding as long as I am treated with the same respect. I would prefer if you make eye contact, hand gestures, just seem natural and comfortable and get your point across.

• Don't be disrespectful in any way shape or form, that will immediately throw me off, argue for your case but do not attack another person

• Be comfortable! This is supposed to be a fun learning experience so have fun with it! I may ask you to add in extra things or ask questions for points to see whether I can throw you off but just be confident in your case and yourself

• I don’t mind if you talk fast as long as I am able to understand what you are saying

• All arguments are acceptable as long as they relate to the specific question being asked (do not go off topic to push your own agenda)

• I know the definitions! Unless it is a specific word that no one knows, do not waste valuable time defining words that I can

• I will be taking into account cross examination but do not be anything but respectful

• If you can email me your speech documents beforehand that would be great, my email is alyssainfante101@gmail.com

I am judging based off of policy and whoever is able to prove why their side has more benefits than harms. Which needs proof above all else, I am not going to judge on theory. If its a debate on policy vs theory, policy will win every time. Also please do not spread, I will vote for an argument I can hear and understand versus one I cannot listen to closely.

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

1. I weigh arguments and style equally.
2. Citing evidence is extremely important.
3. The arguments and contentions should be clear.
4. I prefer clear speeches over fast-paced.

Pine View KP; NSD Instructor; Lake Highland Prep Coach

Tabula Rasa

The funnier you make the round, the better it will go for you

TLDR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and DO NOT SPREAD(honestly i prefer if you heir on the side of slower; if your opponents can’t understand you I probably cannot either). Defense is sticky but I only grant you marginal defense(if the ; first FF may read some type of new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well.

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can make new implications on weighing but not brand new weighing or new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

Add me to email chain Rafehk21@gmail.com; I prefer if you send a speech doc beforehand with all evidence unless it's analytics

Speed:

Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (250+ wpm) there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast or not clear and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Time:

You are not a baby, time yourself

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

––––––PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

Theory:

I enjoy theory debate (ONLY IF NOT ABUSIVE). Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells. I think abuse in rounds is bad but if you read other shells it may not go well for you. I EVALUATE THEORY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN OTHER TECH JUDGES (model of debate > than a small random squirrlley turn)

Kritiks: I read a couple K's in my time but I am extremely bad at evaluating them SO if you run one, please WIN the argument sufficiently. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY WITH A MEGAMIND BRAIN.

Tricks: These genuinely create a stupid model of debate but go for them if you want to.

TKO:If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks, if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

Did PF in high school and will flow round.

I probably don't know much about the topic. I default neg.

Not well versed in progressive arguments like theory or Ks, so you probably shouldn't run this in front of me unless you explain it REALLYYY well. If by the end of the round I look confused, you will probably not be happy with my decision.

In second rebuttal all offensive arguments like turns MUST be frontlined or I will consider it dropped. I like when weighing is set up in rebuttals as well.

Since yall have a 3 minute summary nothing is sticky. If you want to go for terminal defense, it MUST be in summary. I won't extend anything for you. Please also extend more than just the tagline, I want to hear the specific warrants and linkchain again.

Keep your own prep.

I don't flow cross so if anything important happens during cross put it in one of the speeches.

One of my pet peeves is giving a 30 sec off time road map. This is PF like as long as you signpost, we know where you are. Tell me where you're starting and thats it. In rebuttal I don't need you to tell me you're "going down the opponent's case", common sense says that's probably what you're going to do.

Please weigh weigh weigh. As early as possible and as much as possible. Much too often I've noticed weighing that i non comparative. If you're not comparing impacts and weighing them interactively, then that's not real weighing. I want you to tell me what is the most important impact in the round and why. Throwing around buzzwords like magnitude isn't going to win you the round. Tell me where I should sign my ballot.

If any more specific questions email me at: priyapkhatri@gmail.com add me to the email chain too.

I am a parent judge with little judging experience for youth tournaments. I vote based on the strength of both your argument and speech delivery. It is important that you speak clearly and slowly and present a persuasive, coherent argument. Please devote your time in the round explaining ideas clearly and responding directly to your opponents' arguments.

Please say your name, topic and pro or con. Please send your evidence and speech doc to ajaynigam@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Prior to your round, please send your cases to me at: wesleykuskin@gmail.com, so that I can become familiar with your topic. I typically look for classic argument.

Some tips for success:

1) Speak clearly. If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.

2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.

3) If you are spreading, be sure that I can understand you.

3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.

4) Remember to keep your own time.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I will generally prioritize flowing the round, and the least number of arguments dropped wins on balance. However, I will always take weighing into account, especially if the net number of arguments still holding water weigh less than the opposing side, for instance.

Speaking is also important, but insolvent arguments usually cannot be hidden by a great speech in my view. If the flow and respective argument weights become so ambiguous such that there is no clear winner, I will rely on lay appeal as my final contingency to break the tie. Meaning, if one team spoke with more polish and fluency, they can win.

I am a parent judge. Please speak at normal speed. However, try not to use highly embellished rhetoric. It backfires.

• First of all, respect your opponents and your teammate.
• My decision is based solely on the debate process itself.
• Value well constructed arguments with concrete evidence.
• Proper weighing wins more point. Convincing arguments on highly impactful issues is critical.
• No spreading. Debate is a process to reveal a balanced view of the world rather than a simple game.
• Improper use of fallacy templates loses points.
• email: fushanliu@hotmail.com

Hello, my name is Ryan Livingstone I'm a business Admin major minoring in statistics at the University of Florida. I competed In PF for 4 years. I am a traditional-style debator I prefer quality and compressive evidence over quantity explain your points thoroughly and extend through ink. New Evidence or arguments presented after the first summary will most likely not affect my decision of the round. If you're going to rely heavily on a piece of evidence ensure you're using this evidence correctly as I will call for evidence after the round. Overall have fun, be nice, and give me a great round of debate.

email: turnerloesel@gmail.com

wassup

i did pf for 4 years in high school.

on that note tho i haven't really debated in about 3-4 years so pretty please take it easy on me.

with that being said, speed is not my strong suit. while i will try my best to keep up, it's in both of our interests if you slow down (it will be evident if it is too fast for me).

things that I make me smile:

1. signposting. like i said before, i'm a lil rusty. help me help you and tell me exactly where you want me to write otherwise i might flow an argument in the wrong spot and it will make the round more difficult to follow and inevitably judge.
2. weighing at both the link and impact level. i need to have some probability of your link to even start to evaluate your impact, so i think a majority of your time should be spent at the link level explaining why I truly believe that your link is possible, the importance of your impact should be clear.
3. frontlining in second rebuttal. this makes the round clearer and more interesting to debate. at minimum, I think that turns/ DAs should be responded to in second rebuttal.

things that make me not smile:

1. "overviews" that are basically new contentions (especially in second rebuttal). i'll consider them as arguments but the threshold for responses to these types of arguments will be significantly lower so i suggest putting your time elsewhere.
2. theory, K, etc. tbh, i don't know enough about them/ how to evaluate them so you're wasting air time. If someone is genuinely being abusive and unfair, put it to me in simple terms.
3. being rude. whether it's crossfire, in round behavior, or any direct/ indirect way of belittling your opponents is just not cool. while it won't affect the outcome of my decision plz don't it makes the event and tournament environment toxic and weeds people out of debate.
4. flex prep. I get the purpose of this, but tbh if someone is spreading to the point you can't hear it, I probably didn't either. if they're not spreading, this is on you for not flowing well enough. I won't stop it if ya'll do it but feel free to not answer if you don't want to.

TLDR: debate is a game. tech> truth but don't get too crazy w it. a warranted logical response will beat an unwarranted carded response every day of the week. weigh, implicate defense, and explain the offense left in the round and why i care.

debate like yourself, not someone you idolize

I have judged LD and PF debates for three years and probably have done close to 10 tournaments.

I will decide winner based on person/team that persuaded me more on their positions.

The rate of delivery does not have a positive or negative impact on my decisions.

I will rely heavily on facts and evidence given throughout the debate.

Jason Lucas

I am a parent judge. Do not spread, use jargon, or run progressive debate. Please be respectful in round, and good luck!

If you do not like my judging style, strike me.

Good luck in today's debate! I am a veteran Lincoln-Douglas debater from Saint James School in Montgomery, where I debated locally and nationally in high school. I was excited about debate then and still am now! After I graduated college and law school I worked for a long time as an attorney and now serve as a federal judge. Free speech and advocacy are a big part of what makes our country special, and I am thrilled that you have chosen to invest your time and talents in civil discourse.

I'm a pretty traditional judge. You can trust that I'm completely unbiased (I maintain my impartiality as part of my everyday work life), and you should not expect to win my ballot if you're not a persuasive advocate. You'll have to speak clearly and make sure that I understand your argument before you can have any expectation that I'll accept it. Spread at your own risk. If your opponent spreads, think big thoughts about how you can slow the round down and still win. In this kind of debate, the gutsy debater with a few good arguments (or even only one) is often more effective than the fastest speaker with loads of weaker things to say. Proper decorum is a must - I'm completely confident that you can be effective without being rude. Stand up straight, make eye contact, and be your best self. Good luck!

Im a lay judge speak slow and give good argumentation.

I need docs to understand and articulate arguments send them to shail21_21@yahoo.com

Thanks and I hope for a good debate!

Speech and Debate Background

I have little debate experience in terms of participation, but I've taken speech courses in the University of Florida and have participated in events that required public speaking skills such as emceeing in large-scale student organization events and coordinating/teaching various subjects to groups of over 50 people at a time on a regular basis during my undergraduate career.

So far, I am volunteering as an assistant coach for a speech and debate team in the high school I work for (I was pushed to do so under the recommendation of the students in the team due to my constructive input during their meetings in my classroom). I am analyzing the performance of my public forum and congressional debate students, and they are constantly providing me greater clarity around the nature of speech and debate competitions.

How Do You judge?

I am a lay judge. I am currently studying the structure of speech and debate competitions as well as the jargon used in such settings. With that said, I find myself valuing the presentation/delivery of the students' arguments more than the arguments themselves. If I know enough about the subject the students are speaking/debating, then I will value the arguments equally with their delivery and style.

I value delivery more than the content of the students' arguments mainly because of my educational background. But, I also value presentation and delivery because of my personal experience as an audience member during speech and debate competitions; I have also conversed with/surveyed other audience members to gauge public reactions regarding the participants' performances (this was for a class assignment).

The individuals I spoke with cared more about How these students talk about the subject at hand rather than What they were specifically saying about that subject. Students who were the winners of each round were perceived as confident and eloquent according to the audience members; audience members believed that they were harder to question since those students "made sense". On top of the laypeople's perspectives, not all judges may be entirely knowledgeable of the topics debated, so delivery becomes even more important to factor into their evaluations since they would have little to say in terms of arguments and positions.

Extra Things

• If you spread, then you will get a ZERO in most if not all categories since I simply cannot understand you.
• Signposting is acceptable since compelling delivery and argument will be on the forefront of my mind rather than signposting. If anything, it will help me understand that we will switch gears.
• Please do not rehash an arguments, especially for consecutive speakers in congressional debate. Unique arguments are harder to disregard since they include NEW material to work with.

cosby '21 fsu '24

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 2 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats 2x - Octos 2024)

important stuff

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.

please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.

NFA-LD

Case-Yes topical plan affs. I am probably the best at judging this style, with that being said non-t/k affs are fine, just a higher threshold to win my ballot.

T-Came from PF so never debated T before NFA, as a result not as good of a T judge compared to more established LD/Policy judges. Prob lean aff in most cases on T but will obv vote on it if the neg provides good warranting and definitions as to why its not T. Overall tho found T pretty boring and probably went for it less than 10% of the time so take that as you will.

DA-Yes please, I love a good disad that is creative in its link from the aff and has good weighing against the aff scenarios. Probably the most fun kind of debate to judge.

CP-Never really read or went for these, that being said I love a good/strategic cp that can solve the aff and has unique net benefits. Just explain how the cp solves the aff and why its competitive.

K-Read a lot more of these my last year debating, mainly read security but have experience running Cap and Psycho (Lacan/Matheson). I struggle a bit on higher phil like Baudy but I can prob still evaluate it. In addition performance/identity Ks are fine, obv dont have much experience running these but can still evaluate them. Idc if your alt isn't a material action, just describe what the alt world looks like whether its a mindset shift, rejection ect. On framing prove why your rotb matters and why I shouldn't weigh the aff, interact with your opponents fairness/education/predictability claims and prove why I should prefer your interpretations, weigh pre vs post fiat implications ect. "Perm do both" isn't a response, explain why the aff and alt are not mutually exclusive and explain how the aff and alt can function together and why that solves better.

Theory-I honestly like theory, obv as stated above didn't come from a LD/Policy background so don't have as much experience debating/evaluating procedural theory but have debated theory enough that its still fine to run. I love disclosure theory and just think its prob a true argument on both aff and neg so feel free to run this.

Misc- Speed is fine, I personally never really spread but I can evaluate it. Speaks are stupid and I think judging speaking ability is the most pointless thing in the activity, read 30 speaks theory and Ill give both debaters highest speaks allowed, regardless you will both prob get high speaks.

PF Stuff

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

see NFA-LD section, tldr open to most prog stuff except trix which im just never voting for. if you have more specific questions just ask before the round

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

Sully Mrkva

“There is a house. One enters it blind and comes out seeing. What is it?” --- Tell me the answer.

add me to the email chain: Manlybros11@gmail.com

Brentwood High '22 / VT '26: Debated for Four Years - Won TOC, Auto-Qualed to TOC 2x and Nats 1x. I'm now the assistant director for the Debate Drills Club Team and NSD PF camps.

TLDR: Tech>Truth that will vote on anything that is not _ist.

I love debate. Take a deep breath, don’t be aggressive, and have some fun dawgs - I invested thousands of hours into this activity and know how important it is to some people - I GET YOU - leave it all on the flow and don’t be a chungus.

|Sign Post | Extend Warrants | Collapse meaningfully | Weigh Comparatively | BE NICE|

_____________________________________________________________________________________

-General-

• It’s MY job to adapt to you - if there’s anything you need before round to help make it more accessible or have any questions - email me or ask me before round.

• Don’t be a jerk - Debate Rounds can get very heated - try to maintain your composure and “pretend to be sincere.” ALSO - if you are absolutely COOKING a team - don’t add fuel to the fire - treat a novice team with the same respect that you would give the #1 team ranked in the nation, if you don’t, you’re in for a low speaks win.

• Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD.

• Feel free to postround (time permitting ofc). For newer debaters and anyone who wants help - ask me if there’s something better you could have done on argument x during the round to win my ballot - I will give my best critiques as possible to improve your skill into the future (I always loved judges who did this for me).

• Second Rebuttal must frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined - i.e. if you are going for a contention with 3 pieces of defense and a turn on it - you must frontline all of that in one way or another for me to evaluate it in the back half. (during tech rounds I used to frontline entire case and then go vroom vroom on their case - I think this is very strategic and if you do it well - I’ll give a speaks boost)

• No Sticky Defense. Even if it is conceded, extend it.

-Substance-

• Extend Warrants. For offense you are going for - whether that be a turn, DA, case argument, etc. I need a warranted extension that isn’t some blippy 5 second extension - if it's FULLY conceded, my threshold for this is a bit lower.

• Summary -> FF mirror. Anything in FF has to be in summary. Case arguments, defense, offense, weighing all need to be explained and extended in summary for me to evaluate it at the end of the round. Exception to this rule is if a team reads new weighing in 2nd summary, you can respond to that in 1st FF. Structure of speeches can be different between summ and ff - just no different content. 2nd FF cheese will not work on me.

• Frontlining. I love when teams frontline entire case in 2nd rebuttal - that is, if they do it well, if you can’t reach the efficiency level and blip storm supreme through the first 1:30 of rebuttal, it’s not gonna bode well for you on the flow. More broadly, frontlines need to be directly interactive with the argument you are responding to, give me reasons why to break the clash, postdates, warrant comparison, etc - or it’s gonna make the debate wayyyyyyyyy closer than it needs to be. Lastly, cross-applying conceded frontlines from different parts of the flow to another in back-half speeches is perfectly fine, the flow is a toolbox, not a map.

• Rebuttal Responses. You can go as fast as you want, as long as there is a warrant that I can pinpoint and explain back to myself during my decision. Do not spam DA’s that are masked as turns that aren’t actually responsive to the link, you can give an all offense rebuttal - but make sure you are interacting with your opponent on the link level. Respond to impacts - one of weakest parts of current circuit tech debate is teams focusing too hard on link-level responses and flat out dropping their opps’ impact scenarios in even the most high-level rounds. Do this in rounds I judge you and adopt this in future ones - trust me, it’ll make a world of difference.

-Weighing-

Carded weighing is GASSSS.

• Make your weighing comparative. Just asserting that your argument is empirically proven or has a higher magnitude is the bare minimum and is the most basic way to grab a ballot. To be confident that you won mine, prove why your opponents don’t meet the weighing threshold, but you do - I.E your argument happened empirically, but their link was historically disproven. Most importantly, compare link-ins - just explaining why your argument link-ins to their impact doesn’t give you offense, it at best non-uniques their scenario - explain why you have a better link into their impact to generate round-winning weighing. META WEIGH - if two teams are giving different weighing mechanisms without any comparison, it’s gonna force me to intervene, prob over mag, visa versa, etc. makes the round ez for me to evaluate and by extension ez-ier for you to W.

• Frontline yours and Respond to theirs. Don’t shuffle deck chairs on the titanic. If your opponents respond to your weighing, you need to frontline it in the proceeding speech and extend that frontline or otherwise you won’t have access to that weighing. This goes both ways - respond to your opponents weighing, or theirs is conceded. A really good “weigh” to win my ballot is to handle weighing at the top of your speech - it’s the most important aspect of the flow and crystalizes the round for tech judges.

• Have Fun with it. Don’t be afraid to give strategic and smart link-ins, don’t stick to magnitude, probability, scope, etc. Link-ins and short circuits at both the impact and link level are by far the most effective forms of weighing. I like extinction outweighs or extinction comes first weighing - speaker boost incoming if you do this.

• Fake Weighing. Strength of link weighing, Clarity of impact, Clarity of link is BS and not actual weighing - just analysis of the level of ink on your case that’ll be obvious when I look down on my flow. This weighing isn’t convincing - don’t waste your time reading it.

-Theory / Prog-

• I’ll vote on theory - Default RVIS and reasonability. I didn’t read a single progressive argument in my debate career but had my fair share of rounds hitting Ks, theory, tricks, etc. So I know how to evaluate. BUTTTTT - if you are clearly reading theory to get an easy W against a new team expect your speaks tanked and if you are reading some friv stuff that is obviously just a 7-eleven quality shell I will have an extremely high bar for you throughout the round.

• I’ll vote on Ks. I can evaluate Pf level K debate and vote correctly. I’ll evaluate everything directly off the flow and be completely tabula rosa - which I believe is of utmost importance ESPECIALLY in prog/K rounds.

• I Like substance more. I’ve always been a substance guy - so don’t read prog just because you have a tech judge. If this is your topic strat, there is an actual violation, etc. RUN IT and I’m all ears.

-Speaks-

• Be Chill, Be fluent, easy to follow, and strategically smart - that’s my recipe for good speaks.

• Some of my favorite debaters are Sri Chilukuri, Anoosh Kumar, Anuraag Routray, and Max Wu - I vibe with these debaters’ style - this is meant to give you a gauge on what I like.

• Be assertive in cross - don’t let your opponents walk over you and don’t be afraid to call them out if they are ranting and giving a mini rebuttal.

-Fun Stuff-

If you made it all the way down here - thank you!

Add sebasndebate@gmail.com to all docs/chains please

tl;dr- a flay former pf debater who prefers truth>tech, but if done correctly will not vote against you for prog; be careful.

Did 4 years of PF at Newsome (‘23)

Attended Bluekey, Sunvite, NCFL and Harvard.

If you don’t know some of the terms I use in the paradigm, don’t be afraid to ask

If both teams agree, you can change most things (except truth over tech) in my paradigm for the round

Speeches

2nd Rebuttal should always frontline & I won’t accept new frontlines in 2nd summary. This threshold is low, though- as long as you can briefly mention your response you can expand upon it in

Summary Stuff: Its ok with me if you don’t want to read out all if the cards word for word you use in case that you want to extend. Just say “Extend our C2, specifically Depetries 21 and Velasco 13.” I only prefer this for the sake of spending more time on the clash of responses rather than just restating them. I strongly recommend weighing in summary, as this makes it easier to sign my ballot. Weighing in 1st summary should be responded to in 2nd summary. Meta-weigh when deemed necessary, as if you don’t that invites judge intervention and I am not a fan. Any arg not extended in summary can’t be used in FF.

FF I expect the same from both teams, simply tell me why you won and they lost. Heavily lean into weighing. If no meta weighing happens, I'll default to clarity of link, probability, followed by magnitude. As long as you give even a little meta weighing I’ll buy into it until the other team responds.

Prog Stuff

Kritiks: You might need to explain them to me like I am 5 depending on the complexity. I’ll be able to follow the more common stuff (cap, sec, neocol, etc) but anything beyond that I likely won’t know much about. As long as you explain the literature clearly you should be ok with me.

Theory: I'm familiar with how to evaluate it, but I am not a big fan of it personally. If there is a legitimate violation, read it the speech after the violation has occured and I’ll evaluate it. I default to competing interps but can be told otherwise.

Don’t run Counterplans in PF, thats just not fair for the AFF.

LARP/Trix: Don't know anything about it, try it if you want but I have 0 experience

Other

Mavericks get 6 mins prep

Speaker Points: I'll make the round 29-28 in most cases. If I feel the round is messy it will be 28-27, super close will be 30-29, and a mismatch 30-28. To show that you have read this far, before your constructive, say “my time will begin on my second word” and I will give you bonus speaks.

Add me to any docs/chains that you do set up.

Speed risks me missing your arguments, up to 200wpm is good.

I probably won’t flow cross but I’ll pay attention to what is said. If the round is an absolute toss up to me I will vote based on who I thought looked stronger in cross. Treat cross more for the performance aspect of debate rather than the argumentation. If you feel you won a point in cross, tell me in a speech.

Time: I will keep track of time, debaters may keep a personal timer as well. I will not flow anything said over time, so keep this in mind.

If you run some funny case/theory, you will likely lose the round, but will receiver 30 speaks and be entered in the paradigm Hall of Fame along with a signed copy of my flow.

Hall of Fame

x Trinity Prep LR (love the santa case that was awesome)

x

x

x

x

2024 Note:::: I broke my wrist and im not 100% yet so i CANNOT type consistently for 4 minutes straight. GO SLOWER for me so i can get everything

I did 4 years of PF at Cypress Bay in Weston, Florida (2016-2020). I'm currently a senior at duke.

My paradigm is just random notes and bullets because I'm a pretty boring and receptive judge. Generally flow, emphasis on weighing, implicating, offense. I'll evaluate anything, just explain it. Feel free to ask me anything before the round.

-Extend offense pls, I wont do it for you

-Weigh like the W depends on it, because it does. Respond to your opps weighing if you're cool.

-Cross is for you, does not impact I evaluate a round (unless it comes up in speech ofc)

-Don't read responses you won't implicate/explain/understand, makes the whole debate better

-please don’t shake my hand. I'm sick rn

-3 min summary is cool and all but collapse

-Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

-Please have fun. Like actual fun and not like fun in pursuit of a W.

-I normally vote for the best singular piece of offense in the round. (collapse please)

-not paradigmatically/morally against them at all, but reading a K (or theory) in front of me is probably not the best idea unless you REALLY take the time to explain everything. I’m out of practice and never totally learned it all to begin with

• If you have any other questions feel free to email me matthewnorman2002@gmail.com or ask me before the round. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sepul.fabiola@gmail.com

At the end of the day, debate is up to the debaters. Do what you enjoy/are best at and I'll do my best to be receptive and evaluate it all fairly.

TLDR:

Wired: Collapse, weigh, signpost, tom brady slander, being nice, talking slow

Tired: being mean, friv theory, partial quads (i dont know what partial quads are), tom brady, being mean.

******If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill, I will not intervene. Only valid if both teams are definitely breaking or definitely not.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Personal Background:

I have a foundation in Policy (Baylor Institute) and LD, with more experience in LD. Helped start the speech and debate program at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania. For context, that was 25 years ago.

Judging Philosophy:

• Tabula rasa. Tech>truth. I enjoy originality, but it is up to you to persuade that your argument should be a voter.
  

• I still strongly believe that the framework debate is integral in Lincoln-Douglas debate, and that every word of the resolution has meaning and is fair game for debate. That being said, I'm fine if framework is essentially punted by both sides, and will then go where the flow sheet takes me.
• I should be comfortable/familiar with most philosophical arguments in LD. There was much more of a focus on the same when I was debating, while now LARP/Policy seems the norm. I like to call it LDINO (LD in Name Only), but I digress. I do enjoy a vigorous debate on philosophy, but am good if it is merely utility.

• I used to say spreading was fine, but I have observed a clear deficit in debaters actually using persuasive skills, as well as critical analysis of the evidence presented in the case. I would prefer you consider me "lay" or "flay", if it will result in debating at a reasonable pace, favoring persuasion and analysis over quantity.
• Enjoy yourselves. This is supposed to be fun. Make it fun for me as well by not being obnoxious to each other in cross.
• I highly enjoy theory and K's when done well, but highly dislike them when not done properly and reasonably. Do not assume that I know the current customs of the debate world when making these arguments. I probably don't.
• In debate and life, the quality and reliability of your evidence matters. This is particularly true in this world of utility LD, and in PF/Policy. I prefer debaters that take the time to truly understand the evidence/studies that they are espousing, and avoid misuse and/or miscategorization of a the actual content of a study/article.
• The flow sheet means very little to me unless you effectively crystallize and weigh.

I am a first-year undergraduate student at the University of Florida and a member of UF’s Speech and Debate Team.

Some helpful notes:

-Please don’t spread, or speak too fast, as I likely won’t be able to keep up since I’m still relatively new to being a judge.

-Providing a roadmap at the beginning of your constructive speech is encouraged if you have the time, but definitely not required.

-It may be helpful to keep your own time throughout the debate, so that you can make changes (to content, pace, etc.) on the fly if necessary.

-While I judge your debate, I will remain as objective as possible, and I will only consider the points that you have presented to me.

-Most importantly, please respect your opponent. Your objective is to attack their arguments, not them or their character.

short sumamry:

I’ve been doing debate for about 4 years during high school at west broward! plz dont read progressive debate. plz weigh and extend! I don’t really judge cross, so if there’s something that happened during cross u need to extend into ur next speech. email me with any questions: riarajpal13@gmail.com

also be a decent person!

also! i fucking hate like timers the sound actually gives me a headache so don't use it like suck it up use ur phone lol.

longer version:

EXTENSIONS:
warrant and impacts must be extended. anything not extended will not be evaluated. reading the taglines of the arguments are not sufficient enough.

WEIGHING:
u have to weigh. saying poverty and like throwing buzz words does nit count you should be comparatively weighing. weighing should be started at the latest 2nd rebbutal / 1st summary.

SPEED:
i can handle you talking a little fast, but i'd rather you not. if you know ur gonna talk super fast please give me paper to flow on bc i cant type as fast as i can write

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS:
i have never ever ran or hit any sort of progressive argumentation, so I am not the best person to be evaluating it. if you chose to read progressive argumentation like i will be most likely evaluating it terribly

Other:

I'll call for evidence if its like a super big topic of debate lol or if i feel like its critical to my decision. if you have bad evi ethics and i catch it i will prob drop u. put me on email chains, use a trigger warning if needed

please make sure you collapse, frontline, and extend properly otherwise evaluation gets diffucult.

30 speaks for any taylor swift referencess!

Keywords below:

Slow: I prefer debaters who speak slowly and deliberately. This allows me to better understand their arguments and follow their logic

Methodical: I appreciate debaters who are organized and methodical in their presentations. This makes it easier for me to follow their arguments and evaluate their evidence

Persuasive: I am looking for debaters who can persuade me to agree with their arguments. This requires them to present their arguments in a clear and concise manner, and to support them with strong evidence

Clarity: I value debaters who can articulate their arguments clearly and concisely. This means avoiding jargon and technical language, and using examples to illustrate their points

Demeanor: I appreciate debaters who are respectful and professional in their demeanor. This means avoiding personal attacks and inflammatory language

Rebuttals: I believe that rebuttals are an important part of any debate. They allow debaters to respond to their opponents' arguments and to further develop their own arguments. I am looking for debaters who can effectively rebut their opponents' arguments and who can use rebuttals to strengthen their own case

Effective Use of Time: I appreciate debaters who can manage their time effectively. This means knowing how much time they have for each section of their speech and using that time wisely. It also means being able to adjust their speech as needed if they are running out of time

Smile: I appreciate debaters who smile and project a positive attitude throughout the round. This makes the debate more enjoyable for everyone involved.

Email:Benjaminredler@gmail.com

Ask for preferences before round starts

My name is Ms. Reyes, I work at Bronx Science and I am first-time traditional judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not run any progressive arguments. I appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. Have a good round!

I graduated from the University of Texas in 2023 with a bachelors in Political Science and English. I'm currently taking a year to teach at my alma mater where I teach AP Spanish Literature. I plan to apply to law school this year and begin my 1L year next year. While I didn't debate in HS and haven't judged much, I'm a bright guy that keeps up with the politics and economics in the news and should be able to render a fair decision in any round. Give me clear explanations of why I should voter for you. Go slow and explain things clearly and you will be fine.

Hi, everyone, my name is Camila Ruiz and I'm a third year at UF! I've debated in Public Forum since the beginning of my Freshman year in high school. My judging style is fairly relaxed, but I highly suggest that you do not spread throughout the round. Quality over quantity is appreciated. I will keep a vigorous flow, but if the speech is incoherent, then I cannot flow! That being said, please provide clarity and be as articulate as possible throughout your speech. Extreme speed, excessive use of jargon, and lack of civility could possibly cost you the round - so please be mindful.

During Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent - be courteous and respectful throughout the round. Discourtesy will result in a reduction of speaker points. I do not generally flow during crossfires, so if you make an additional argument or your opponent concedes an argument during the time allotted, you must say it in your speech in order for me to count it.

Body language, eye contact, and enunciation make a huge difference to your argument when presenting, so please be mindful of that during your round.

If there is anything you would like me to know about you, or anything I should accommodate, feel free to let me know before the round!

Good luck everyone, I'm super proud of you:)

**ALL TOURNAMENTS: I learned of the topic the morning of the tournament. PLEASE assume I know nothing. Except Sunvite 2024, half my masters degree was section 230 so I know a decent bit.***

Background:

Competed in Public Forum @ Cypress Bay HS (2013-2017)

BA in Political Science @ University of Central Florida (2017-2021)

MA in Bioethics, Tech Ethics and Science Policy @ Duke University (2021-2022)

PF (If you have me for another event go lay) Paradigm

- Look, I know NSU is a tech school and all, but they hire me to coach lay debate i havent cut a card in maybe 6 years (but like ive been around the circuit so i sometimes know what's going on) . if you're spreading or speaking too fast i probably wont catch a lot of it and will probably look confused

- if possible, number your responses so i know if I missed anything

- Set up email chains/preflow during tech check. I am a big believer in sending case docs to make it easier for everyone but I won't force yall to do so. You'll get a bump in speaks if you do. sharansawlani@gmail.com and uschoolpf@gmail.com

- Please don’t shake my hand.

- You can ask to look at ev during your partner or opponent's speech/cross. Idk why or when people started considering this as "stealing prep time".

- Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

- Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged.

- Not a fan of super squirrelly arguments or theory (the next 2 bullets might answer your next questions). Idk too much about K's and im not the best at evaluating them, but if that's what you wanna read just make sure you explain it well. If I'm confused at the end of the debate I promise you won't be happy with my decision.

- READ and SEND cut cards. paraphrasing is whack. i wont penalize you for it but if the other team reads theory or tells me to evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics and not real evidence, and you dont respond, it's going to be a really uphill battle.

- Disclosure in PF is a good thing. Same thing as paraphrasing; If someone discloses and either a) you do not and they read disclosure theory OR b) you LIE about what you've disclosed, I consider this a TKO. This means if disclosure theory is read in the round (reasonably) and it is conceded then it is basically over.

- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot. If i don’t have to spend time thinking about how im voting after the round, you and i will both be happy (half of you at least).

- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the round I will presume neg.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me sharansawlani@gmail.com or ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sophialam@uchicago.edu and hold nothing back.

TLDR:

Bold: Collapse, weigh, signpost, don’t make me think, galaxy hoodie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3UfW-dFi8&ab_channel=HeXyaCe

Fold: being mean, friv theory, no email chain/disclosure, partial quads lmao.

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

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

Congress:

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

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

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

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

What I like to see in the round:

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

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

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

What isn't necessary in the round:

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

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

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

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

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

Background:

Iv'e been participating in speech and debate since the 7th grade, so I have experience in several categories. However, in high school I mainly participated in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. I have a lot of judging experience on the local level, so I am excited to see what the national circuit has to offer. Currently, I am a proud member of the gator nation! GO GATORS

Rule #1 -- Be Respectful

In round disrespect of any kind towards your opponent will not be tolerated. The debate community is supposed to uplift each other, tearing your opponent down for a trophy is not worth it. Years down the line, you will remembers the experiences that you made not the awards you won.

Rule #2 -- DO NOT SPREAD

I hated spreading as a competitor... I hate it even more as a judge. If your case calls for it I can handle you talking fast but please do not talk 1,000 miles an hour. If you do this I WILL doc your speaker points. I prefer a few well developed arguments, over six condensed arguments that you have to rush to get out.

Judging

In round I will be flowing and keeping time alongside time. This will play heavily into how I evaluate the round. To keep the round organized please ensure that you sign-post. Also, make sure that you extend all of your arguments effectively! Although your argument might be great it will not do much for you in round if you are unable to elaborate on its implications. For instance, if you impact is poverty explain to me why poverty is an issue because it is cyclical and thus perpetuates an extreme amount of death. Impact weighing is key too, as the judge I should not have to do much work because everything should be spelled out for me. Tell me why your argument outweighs on time-frame, scope, magnitude, etc.

Lincoln Douglass

I prefer traditional LD rounds, with a few well developed contentions and little of the theatrics that LD is riddled with on the circuit. However, I am comfortable with you running almost anything. Just make sure that if you are running an argument that is nuanced ie a complex K or theory shell that you elaborate and weight effectively in order for me to give you the win. Finally, I really enjoy FW debate. This is something that most debaters just skip over but engaging in this could really benefit you in round as winning the FW debate allows you to control how the judge evaluates the round. Obviously, only do this when it applies ie Rawls v Util.

World Schools

It's so exciting that WS is beginning to be implemented at more tournaments this year! something that will play a large part into how I evaluate the round is the framing that is done before hand. As a judge this tell me the lens through which I should view the round so if you have different framing than your opponent I should be seeing clash. Overall I prefer a few, well developed arguments over a lot of underdeveloped arguments. Since WS is more about style than other debate categories please ensure that you are passionate and engaging!

Bonus Points

If you make me laugh/ are able to entertain me then I will bump your speaks.

Neutrality: I will not let my personal beliefs, opinions, or biases influence my decisions. I will base my evaluation solely on the quality of the arguments, evidence, and speaking skills displayed by the debaters.

Clarity and Communication: I believeeffectivecommunication is essential in speech and debate. I will evaluate participants' proficiency at articulating their points and convey their ideas including assessing clarity, diction, pace, and overallpresentation.

Organization: I hold that organization is foundational to a persuasiveargument. I will assess how well participants structure their speeches or debates. This includes the coherence of their arguments, use of clear signposting, and the ability to coherently respond to their opponents' arguments.

Content and Evidence: Debaters should present strong, relevant, and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will evaluate the quality of their content, including the depth of researchand the appropriateness of their evidence. Arguments should be fact-based, logical, and well-reasoned.

Rebuttal and Cross-Examination: Effective rebuttals and cross-examinations are essential in debate events. I will consider participants proficiencyatengaging with opposing arguments and questions, as well as their ability to adapt and respond to new information in a debate.

Delivery and Style: Debaters should connect with their audience and maintain their interesting through engaging delivery and style. I will assess their ability to use rhetoric, humor, and other connective, persuasive techniques appropriately.

Time Management: Participants should respect and comport with time limits as set forth for their speeches or debates. I will consider whether they effectively manage their time, avoiding overruns or hurrying through material.

Respect and Sportsmanship: I expect all participants to treat each other with respect and maintain the values of fairness and sportsmanlike conduct. Any disrespectful behavior, including personal attacks or inappropriate language, will be noted and weighed in my evaluations.

I am an undergraduate at the University of Florida, and a member of UF's Speech and Debate Team (public sector). So I have some experience in debate in general, but not in a specific style (PF/LD/etc). It would probably be best if you consider me to be a lay-judge.

A few thoughts/reminders:

- A moderate pace of speaking is acceptable/recommended. Please no spreading, as it is unlikely that I will be able to keep up.

- The fun of debate is engaging in passionate and energetic arguments. That being said, as a formality: absolutely no slander of an opponent's personal character will be tolerated; respect is paramount in order to have a good and fair debate.

- Do not forget that the judge is the only person in the room that you must convince of your position. In debate, I believe that it is far more effective to focus on the actual refutation of an opponent's argument, rather than the critique of minor technicalities/mishaps/etc (unless the latter were to serve as a major point of invalidity/refutation of the opposing team's contention, of course).

- I would recommend keeping your own time. I am also keeping time, however, Tabroom's timers can be glitchy.

- When acting as a judge, I put forth my best effort to leave any bias, opinions, and prior knowledge at the door. I only consider the information and conclusions presented by speakers within the boundaries of the actual round, and objectivity is my goal.

- Added point on 10/28/23: If you are going to use "my opponent dropped my x contention" as your winning argument, you had better be prepared to explain in detail exactly why this drop proves your case. Simply stating that the drop occured, with no other elaboration, will do little to benefit you unless you are literally neck-and-neck with the opponent already.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I prefer speaking slow to understand the arguments better. I would like you to collapse on one argument.

Hello! I am a parent who is new to judging so please don't talk too fast and please do not use technical lingo. I will not give oral comments. Have fun!

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian. I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate. Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Weigh your impacts, tell me why your evidence is better, and tell me why your argument should win. Avoid spreading. AND PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.

Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.

I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.

Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.

I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.

Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.

I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.

Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.

I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.

Thanks.

Although I have judged many debates and speeches, I would say I'm a lay judge.  I look at both substance and style in scoring performances. I attach a lot of importance to the internal coherence of your arguments as well as how they are delivered. Good luck!