Background : I have experience in debating and judging since school.

Advice for speakers:

1. I appreciate Off time road maps and good structure

2. Debating should be done in the politest manner. I am strict against Stereotypes, rude comments, Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone.

3. I appreciate good and valid evidence and clear statements from them.

General Contention Advise:

1. Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis.

2. Clear flagging of main argumentation is necessary.

3. Good rebuttals and good responses with comparatives are always good.

4. Try not to knife your partner.

5. Summary speeches should have great focus on clashes.

Marking scheme:

1. Analysis and comparative engagement would enhance marks.

2.Quality of speeches even if you win or lose

3. Bad and unsolicited behavior would tank your scores and even make you lose.

Hello, I am a parent judge. I only have a couple preferences when it comes to speaking.

• Please speak slowly while speaking
• Please stand while speaking
• Please define jargon before using it
• I will allow the time to run 10-15 seconds before cutting you off for all round.
• Please introduce yourself and let me know which speaker you are before the round starts.

Background: Judging online from Indonesia GMT+7 (12 hours ahead of EST/CDT). I judged several varsity level British/Asian/Australs parliamentary debating tournaments around Southeast Asia from 2016 till 2021. As of Nov 2023, I judged a total of 13 Public Forum, 1 Lincoln-Douglas, and 1 WSDC competitions in the U.S. circuit.

Technicalities: Some people may put a heavy emphasis on the presence of evidence and the presentation of examples, but for me, warrant: coherent logical explanation and step-by-step analysis of your argument is more valuable. Spewing out too many facts and trivia before you explain your assertions confuses me. Use those data to back up your arguments, not to lengthen your speech. Also, don't forget to connect the extensions. Do put elaborations on why any impact you give is significant and unique to your side.

Strategy: Don't ever forget to weigh in your arguments against your opponent's. I also expect the two-worlds scenario when you're painting your case. Rather than saying "To give you an off-time roadmap..." in the beginning, better if you do signpost as you go because it will surely help me do the flow during the speech. I love the "even ifs" and the clear-cut comparison between your model and your rival's model.

Manner: No spreading. Please speak clearly and don't rap out your speech. You may turn off cameras if you (or I happen to) experience lags or internet problems. Please time your own speech and when you start, just speak. There's no need to say "time starts now/on my first word" because some scientists argued that time began shortly after The Big Bang.

Correspondence: albert-yang@mail.com. Yes, without the G.

Speak slowly and clearly.

Stay respectful.

I encourage direct refutation.

Quality > quantity.

The number of arguments you make is less important than how well you are able to convey them.

I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

I am judging debate from last few years. Please be sure to speak slowly and clearly so that I am able to take appropriate notes. Clarity over speed. If you use debate jargon, you will need to explain it to me.

I hope to see good use of evidence and delivery. Evidence should be timely, relevant, and trustworthy. Debaters should call for evidence and refute it when possible. Delivery is critical. Debaters should be clear and
concise. I want to see that you are defending your arguments well, not just negating your opponents points.

If you can keep track of speech times, that would be helpful.

It's important that debaters be courteous to each other during the round.

Have a great debate!

A coach for 40 years, my background is primarily in speech, but I have coached LD and PF debaters. I judge debate a few times a year.

I look for well-constructed arguments and good analysis, supported by solid evidence. The analysis is important; I want to hear the students' evaluation of the evidence, not just a series of citations. I like to see students engage with the resolution and with opposing arguments, clearly addressing assertions and analysis. I will flow the debate and expect to see contentions extended throughout, even if they have been dropped by the opponents. Final focus should provide a concise list of the highlights from the debater's perspective.

I prefer a pace that allows me to easily follow the argument. Speaking skills matter!

***For all of the lifetime of this page, this page will be a work in progress (W.I.P)***

**Up to date for Plano West TFA (09/09/2023) still subject to change through the event**

Hiii Everyone!!!

--email: measama380@gmail.com--

Some background about me:

I am Hebron Alumni, currently 21 years old, and a Senior at UNT, studying computer science. Some things I like are video games, watching k-dramas, listening to k-pop, and most of all spending time with friends. I have officially debated in NCX, NPF, and VPF. But I have learned and practiced all forms of speech and debate. I never got a chance to go to state or TOC, due to unfortunate circumstances. I have always enjoyed debating, because of the freedom it gave me, to talk about the real world, without any censorship from adults. With that being said, I appreciate those who truly give their best to their event.

If you can tell me who my bias is, then I will give you the win ;)*its a joke, but I will up ur speaks If u get it right

Context to Debate:

Debate is not mathematics. The round does not exist as a confined 3-dimensional space with certain laws of conservation. Debate is a form of conversation where members of the discussion are presenting their point of view and trying to persuade the listener to agree or join their side. With that being said, I expect that everyone in the round understands, that I am also a human being like everyone, and am prone to making a mistake. I will try my 110% to be objective in the round, so don't dismiss what I have said. You might not like it, and think I am wrong, but understand that all decisions made are still subjective to what made sense in my brain. I have been in your shoes, so please be patient and understanding with me, and we will have a great time.

*****Disregard of the rules of ethics and mannerism in a round is an immediate loss, I Do Not Care!*****

IE:

I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA, which differ between each event, if there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.

Congress:

I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA. I uphold congress to the same integrity as CX, LD, and PF. If there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.

CX, LD, PF:

(*For Online Tournaments*)

Pre-round expectations:

I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the call. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.

-->see the rest of the paradigms under the in-person section<--

(*For in-person tournaments*)

Pre-round expectations:

I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the room. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.

During the round:

All of Crossfire will not be noted down on the flow, I will probably listen to the crossfire to make sure that it is still civil, and noted down any points that might affect speaker points. A reminder: Crossfire is for you to ask questions and clarify anything in the round with opponents. Anything that is brought up and you want me to vote off it, you must bring it up in your following speech.

Progressive Arguments (aka disad, theory, k):

I am fine with any progressive argument except Disclosure Theory. PF is not CX, there is no reason to run such an argument. If you still feel like running it, I will not even consider it part of the round when voting, if I didn't buy the reasoning or analysis. Further, if you run a progressive argument without changing it to be at the VPF level, and I don't understand, I simply won't vote off of it

Overview and Under view:

I encourage having it, so I can have some parameters to vote off of, but I will not take it under consideration if it has not been carried throughout the entire round, in each speech (except rebuttal, ask before the round for more details).

Contention:

I expect that the contention is readable in 4 minutes without having to spread. So here is your fair warning, DO NOT SPREAD, if I can't follow you at your speed, I will either stop flowing or only write what I hear. This will probably hurt you. So be careful. IF you want to read really fast, send me the speech doc before the round, and make sure that it is the one you are reading. If you fail to do so, I cannot be held responsible for what I missed. I want clear signposting when you transition from Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, and Impact.

Rebuttal:

For the first speaking team, I expect to hear a full frontal attack on the opponent's case. You can preemptively defend your case, but I will On the other hand, I expect the second-speaking team to attack and defend their case in the 4 min. Be sure to warrant analysis. I love to hear about turns on links and impacts, which creates ground for the clash needed in a debate round.

Summary:

NO NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE SECOND-SPEAKING TEAM! I expect to hear a summary of the round, with collapsing. Be sure to have Impact calculus or weighing.

Final Focus:

Give me voters. Why should I vote for you? NO NEW EVIDENCE!

Speaker Points:

I am not progressive in speaking. Don't spread, speak with emphasis on tags, speak clearly and loudly, and if you can make me laugh, you get higher speaks.

After the Round:

I plan to disclose if I can come up with RFD within 5 minutes. If the round is muddled then, It will take more time, be patient.

The Use of Evidence:

I will ask you to show me evidence if I find it unclear, couldn't hear, or suspicious. I might ask you to pull up the original article, so be ready to find it; the only excuse I will take if the wifi is poor or lacking. I will try to search it up on my computer too, but if I cant find it either, we have problems.

S&D president in high school (PF, variety of speech events), coach+judge in undergrad and now grad school. TOCs/Nats/CA States qualifier sophomore, junior & senior years. Finalist @ Stanford, Harker, Cal / Berkeley RR, Apple Valley, ASU, UCLA invitationals, etc. Still use my S&D skills today in my role as a consultant (Bain) and in product management (Netflix).

Add me to the chain and/or reach out with any questions: lindsayallen@ucla.edu

tech > truth, so long as your arguments are not offensive/discriminatory. I'm pretty tabula rasa, I'll weigh / evaluate the round however you persuade me to, and I enjoy being spoon-fed at the end of the round (in terms of weighing arguments and overall round evaluation). No need to boil the ocean... keep the end of the round focused on the most important arguments and tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

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

Arguments you want weighed must be extended through summary and final focus - with their respective warrants.

I don't flow cross but your cross performance can influence your speaker points.

Above all, be respectful to each other!

Hey everyone, I'm Ely.

In high school, I primarily competed in traditional LD and championed NCFL. Now I debate parli for Yale.

Please include me on the email chain: elyaltman@gmail.com

I agree with pretty much everything Anthony Berryhill says.

GENERAL:

Run what you want. I'll do my best to evaluate it. Communication comes first though. If I can't understand your arguments and warrants, that's on you, and I have no problem making that my RFD.

I like it when debaters collapse effectively on arguments. Crystallizing the round goes a long way with me. I also like to see debaters cede the true parts of their opponent's case but give nuanced analysis on why they outweigh.

Humor is always appreciated and will boost speaks.

Short Prefs:

traditional debate - 1

Ks and phil - 2 if explained well but 4 if it's incomprehensible. always better to err on the side of explaining.

LARP- 2

T/theory- 3 this is generally boring to me, but I'll certainly vote on well-warranted/egregious violations. Also fair warning: I'm inexperienced with T. Run it if you need to, but make it easy for me to understand/vote for you.

Tricks - 4/strike.

Traditional LD:

Here's how I will vote: I decide debates through layers. Framework, observations, burdens, etc are all crucial to structuring the debate. I look to what operates at the highest ground, decide who won that point, and move to the next layer. Thus, it would benefit you to try to structure the debate in such a way that you have a win condition.

Here are some things that’ll make voting for you easier for me.

1. ENGAGE WITH FRAMEWORK. Weigh frameworks against each other. Even better if y’all haven’t agreed on a FW yet, tell me how you win under both your FW and your opponents (if you do this, I’ll boost your speaks).

2. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. If you don’t weigh offense, I have to guess at the end of the round whose impacts are more important. You don’t want that because it makes the round very subjective on my end. Instead, go the extra mile, avoid that, and tell me explicitly why your offense is more important than your opponents.

3. Please do extensions correctly. Do not just say "extend my second contention" or "extend Warren 13" and then move on. Extend the ev or arg, rebut any arguments they made, explain the impact of the extension, and THEN move on. If you don't do them correctly, I won't feel comfortable voting on them. The only exception is that because the 1AR is more time-pressured, I'll be a bit more lenient there.

4. I like numbered responses and overviews. They make the debate easier for me to flow/understand.

5. Round narrative is very important. Don’t lose sight of what this debate is really about because you’re too busy focusing on an irrelevant tangent that won’t factor into my decision. Tell me overall why your world is better than your opponents. Tell me who you help, why they need help, why you’re the person that best helps them, and why that matters. That’s how to win in front of me.

6. Voter issues. Do them. It makes evaluating the debate much easier. A bit of advice. Negative, if you correctly predict what the Aff voters will be in NR and tell me why I shouldn’t vote for it, that’s a great strategic move, and I’ll boost speaks. Affirmative, in the 2ar, interact with the Neg voters, and I’ll boost speaks. They literally just handed you on a silver platter the arguments they’re hoping to win. So attack or (better yet) turn their voters! Outweigh their voters with yours!

Progressive LD:

I can evaluate circuit debate but don't enjoy it.

Things I like: warranted out link chains & probability>magnitude weighing. Also, I will always prefer logical analytics over poorly contextualized evidence. Lastly, please weigh.

Things I dislike: when debaters read literature they don't understand and can't make comprehensible in round, shady disclosure, friv theory, etc.

Speed: I probably wouldn't be able to flow finals TOC, but with that said, I can handle decent levels of speed. We should be good if there's a doc.

PF:

Tech > Truth. Speed is fine. Don't drop links. Run whatever you what--if it's done well you'll win. All my thoughts on traditional LD apply to PF.

Been a debater for close to 3 years now, what I expect out of debaters:

1. Being Respectful
2. Structured Speeches
3. Flagging out constructives
4. Brevity
5. Weighing

Email Chain

Kekeli6504@gmail.com

Quick notes (Credit to Chelsea Hodgeson for this)

I’m only going to flow what you read, not what is sent on the email chain. The purpose of this is to provide an avenue in the event of contested evidence.

I do not flow cross ex/crossfire, it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding but the only way to execute this is to include it in a speech.

Background:

Hi, my name is Kekeli (She/Her) and I am currently studying Environmental Science and International Studies at Emory University. I've done policy debate for three years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Congressional rounds before. I've run antiblackness, cap k, policy args, and a decent amount of theory. I’m fine with spreading but it is to your benefit that you are clear and slow down on tags and analytical arguments.

If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me it's bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

TLDR:

I will vote for most things. This includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory.

I generally believe that you should do what you do best, just make sure that you guide the judge through your strategy.

(However, for PF do not run disclosure that requires more than the constructives.)

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe I haven't judged that many rounds on this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise (see above)
3) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

4) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
5) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though my own experience was as a K debater (I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate my biases.

I've been involved with debate since 2010.

When I was in high school I debated three years in policy, (2010-2013) I attended DDW and DDI, I qualified to nationals, won tournaments etc.

I coached policy from 2013-2020 and now have coached PF from 2020-to now,

there hasn't been a time in my adult life that I wasn't actively coaching or judging

Because of my debate experience I am fine with speed, unless its being used to just outspread your opponent , that is just bad debating and will cost you speaks. On the same note if you aren't clear and I can't flow you then I wont evaluate it.

I'm fine with almost any kind of arguments, theory, k's etc. Explain your link clearly and impact it out to get my ballot.

I am a flow judge, they are what I vote off of, if its not on the flow chances are I didn't evaluate it, this is why I high recommend being good at signposting and doing a clear line by line to win my ballot.

Good impact debates with impact comparison and turn case analysis will also get you ahead

I'm tech over truth and tabula rasa

If you have any questions ask before round

Email: Canderson@revereschools.org if you need to reach out with any further questions after the round

In Public Forum Debate, I will priotize for those who have better explanation and justification (why or how) in their case. It means that not only I credit the evidence, but also the explanation of what debaters can or want to do with that evidence. It would be nice if debaters could explain the likelyhood of their case in term of utilizing the evidence. Debaters might want to explain the exclusivity of their value and how it would happen in your side of the house.You might need to be clear about the clashes in your side of the house so it would be easier for me to see the holes you poke in your opponent's case and how you rebuild your own case. Note that I will only judge and take notes based on your speech (I won't step out of your case) so it would be cool if you could choose your wording wisely and give the step by step of your value to be justified to make sure that we have mutual understanding so I could give proper credit to your case.

As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

Hello debaters, I am a parent judge

Try and speak clearly for someone who doesn’t do debate and make it obvious what the most important arguments are. Thank you!

I'm a parent judge in my third year of judging debate. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener of the topic.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made by your opponents), and why your side should prevail.

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

I look forward to hearing you.

I am a Professor of Medicine and a first year parent judge.

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Hi! I’m really excited to be your judge today!

A few notes:

1. Sign posting is an absolute must. If I cannot follow you, that’s a problem.

2. No spreading, this isn’t policy debate.

3. I will reward you for being clear and impacting all of your claims. Tell me why this argument matters!

4. Be civil! I will give you low speaks if you are rude and talk over the top of one another.

5. Be clear on why you believe you have won the round. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence!

Hello,

I’m partial to good public speaking skills. Concision, clarity, and specificity will shine the best light on the content of your argument. While I am open to progressive arguments, (i.e., introducing political jargon that is tangential to the subject), I’m not particularly familiar with them, so your best bet is to stick to the basics.

A winning team will address the strongest counterargument to their position, representing it comprehensively, accurately, and compellingly, and refute it nonetheless. Refuting this counterargument should involve demonstrating some kind of internal contradiction: (the argument is deficient by its own standards, or contains conflicting priorities) or a critical oversight: (an argument’s evidence warrants doubt, or it overlooks a relevant aspect of its subject).

In essence: be clear and specific, and demonstrate an understanding of your opponent’s position.

Looking forward to it!

Hello. I am a parent judge. When judging a debate, to me a good case is one where arguments are presented logically and succinctly, supported by strong evidence, critical analysis, and good structure. I find that longer sentences and paragraphs dilute your points and lead to loss of focus, so oftentimes "less is more". Good presentations skills are also important for the overall strength of your case, so talking too fast to fit in within the allotted time is more of a drawback. I really care that competitors are respectful to each other and I don't like to see[subtle] comments, gestures or facial expressions as a reaction to arguments that the opposing team is presenting. Good luck!

King Update:

Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech

I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

I am the parent of a (former) Hunter College High School debater and a current Horace Mann debater. I am also a litigator. Most of my experience is with public forum debate. My preferences are: No "theory" and no excessive spreading. Thanks!

Updated 9/24

Hello! I'm a sophomore at Yale that competes in ADPA and BP formats. I also did four years of high school debate, competing in PF and LD for two years each. If you want to contact me with questions or if there is an email chain, add me at william.berry@yale.edu

General:

1 - I am generally ok with speed, but I do think an important part of this activity is effective communication. As long as there is clarity to your speech, I can deal with it to an extent. I flow your speech, not your speech doc.

2 - Make sure you give voters. Your last speech needs to be a clear summarization on the key points of clash, and you need to tell me why you won them. Don't try to make new responses (please). If you make my job easier as a judge with some key voting issues, that will be reflected in my evaluation.

3 - WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! As early as possible! I value engagement more than rebuttals piling on top of each other endlessly. Additionally, it's incredibly annoying to hear "my opponent dropped subpoint c of contention 4 so I win the round." No you haven't. You need to do the weighing and show me how you are winning on the remaining arguments.

4 - I don't flow cross. I'll watch but if you want something on the flow and in the RFD make sure you bring it up in a speech. Also if you say a funny and clever one liner in cross (you must make me laugh), then I'll give you one extra speaker point as a treat.

5 - If you are rude or mean to your opponents, get ready for this fat L. Be respectful---debate is just not that deep.

Public Forum:

I shouldn't really need a paradigm for PF given the spirit of the event but just to be thorough.

1 - I don't really like atopical arguments in PF, so please do not run them if at all possible

2 - tech > truth I guess... I'll flow everything, but I am really uninterested in arguments that are just factually untrue or gimicky. I probably won't intervene but I won't be happy about it. Arguments that clearly avoid clash will always be much worse than smart analytics that can point out the silliness of these kinds of arguments.

3 - Defense isn't sticky and all speeches should answer everything in the previous one (ex: 2nd rebuttal must answer 1st). Also, conceding defense to kick out turns must be done in the speech directly after when the turns are read)

4 - Make sure you extend more than "last name, year." When you reference evidence, refer to it so that I remember what it says and why it is relevant at that point in the debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

1 - Style: I only competed on a lay circuit, so while I am familiar with progressive styles of argumentation (Theory, Ks, etc.), I don't have tons of experience running them myself. I don't think LD should be one person policy, so I don't love most of these types of arguments, but I'll listen to them if you're at a TOC bid tournament or something since it's like a community norm or whatever.

2- Framework: The framework debate is key. I love to hear some good clash on the value and criterion. Definitionally, LD is a moral debate, so values like "morality" strike me as uncreative. Other than that, I'll listen to just about any framework that makes sense. This means your framework needs warrants, just like any other argument. Finally, framework is not a voting issue. It's a lens through which I evaluate voting issues. If you tell me that framework is a voting issue, I will say "womp womp" to you in my RFD.

3 - Techy Stuff: If you're not at a TOC bid tournament this doesn't apply to you. Below are my opinions on a few specific types of arguments but beyond those just make sure whatever you run is accessible enough.

a - Theory: Theory is thrown around way to much in LD these days, and often not done great. So if you could not have a bad theory debate, that would be really cool. Don't run three frivolous shells just for the sake of it---my threshold for voting on theory is VERY high. Only use it to check legitimate abuse. I think paraphrasing is probably ok unless you can cite a wild example from the round.

b - Ks: Basically, make sure you explain your arguments well. I actually think a lot of the commonly used critical authors have some not great views. But that being said, I do like to learn things, so if you're able to make it interesting and not yell some obscure philosophy at me then your likelihood of winning will go up.

c - Tricks: I really don't like tricks. They're a cheap way of trying to win while avoiding substance. Even if you're running some truth-testing off, I'm still not voting on a trick. Learn how to debate.

Looking forward to the event where debaters are making good arguments. Try not to talk at 1,000 miles an hour without having a line by line clash or engagement. Please do not spread, it will result in an automatic L.

Hi! I am a parent judge and this is my 3d year of judging.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, Summit NJ

Preferences: No spreading! Also, I am unfamiliar with debate jargon so make sure to explain the meanings of the terms you are using. Make sure to sign post and stay organized so I can keep up with the round. I expect you to self time, but I will also keep a timer just in case. Make sure to time all prep taken. Be respectful and have fun!

I am a parent lay judge. Things to note to win vote and speaker points:

1. Don’t spread, and speak with clarity / conversational speed
2. Be respectful especially in crossfires
3. Follow NSDA PF technical rules e.g. “no new arguments after Summary”
4. Try not to use technical terms (delink etc) so I can follow

PF Coach at Delbarton

Tech > truth

speed is cool but i wont flow off doc (if u make me i will be sad)

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) brookekb1@gmail.comto the email chain.

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

prog is cool (but i prefer substance unless something egregious happens)

what i have run + teach students to run (extremely comfortable)

- disclo, paraphrasing, cut card theory

- identity kritiks (topical and non topical)

- language kritiks/ivis

- securitization/other topical ks

what i know **but dont have enough knowledge over to comfortably run myself

- baudrillard, afro pes

dont read

- triks

I graduated from Montville Township High School in 2018 and from Wesleyan University in 2022. I did PF for 4 years and I now work for the New York City Urban Debate League.

I can keep up with PF speed and a bit beyond that, but please don't go crazy. I probably won't flow from a speech doc. I'm fine with game-like things like kicking case and going for turns. I'm okay with some level of tech/progressive argumentation, but I don't want that to be a game-like thing--I probably won't vote for a shell/K that I think is read solely because the other team doesn't know how to handle it.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline. Feel free to, but don't feel like you have to.

First summary does not need to cover defense unless second rebuttal frontlined. First summary should include turns if you want them as offense, but they can go rebuttal to FF as defense (unless they were frontlined in second rebuttal).

I really, really appreciate collapsing in both summaries. And, of course, weighing.

I thank you for your bravery in public speaking. The variety of speech and debates is quite enjoyable for me. In my opinion speech and debate are about communicating clearly, effectively and efficiently through the use of words, verbal tones and body language.

In debates and extemporaneous speeches, I appreciate it when speakers begin by stating the question and by listing their main points before going in depth. I feel this helps the speaker keep a focus as well as prepares the audience to listen. I expect the main points to make logical sense as they are tied back to the original question and I expect them be supported by evidence.

In all speaking I expect clear, concise communication which is most likely to happen when the speaking speed does not exceed the listening speed. If a participant chooses to spread, then my listening skills are greatly diminished which results in me not being able to follow your reasoning and you will not be communicating your point.

Last, but not least, I expect all participants to treat each other with respect through both their words and actions. Disagreement is a big part of debates, but that is no reason to be denigrating to one another.

Delivery: smooth, confident, limit your stumbles.

Citations/Evidence: these are very important to me.

Dramatic delivery: a plus.

Logical flow to your speech or your argument: from beginning to end, did you sell me on your points, did you sell me on your solutions.

In debate: be civil, make your point, let them make theirs. This is speech and debate, not speech and bullying.
Talking faster does not gain you points with me - be clear, be concise…be persuasive!

debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld

few must-know notes:

1. add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

1. I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
2. extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
3. I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
4. default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
5. uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
6. im fluent in progressive argumentation. update 08/17/2024: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.

things that get you really good speaks

1. analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
2. keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
3. judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
4. keeping the round running on time.

if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

I have been judging PF for four years and am now judging LD. I flow to capture and compare both arguments I appreciate the need for speed, but also ask that competitors don't speak so quickly, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic.

When I judge I always keep in mind Aristotle's model of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos.

I can hardy understand auctioneers, please no spreading, I beg you, please.

I am a parent judge with some experience judging debate. I prefer that teams keep their own time. Evidence can be submitted to scampos+debate@gmail.com. Best of luck to you all!

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms from the WSD mandatory judge training.

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with good organization to their presentation.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

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

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

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

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

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

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

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

---

PF

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

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

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

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

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

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

ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN ---> sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com and miguelcarvajaldc@msn.com

context: As a new parent judge, I'm still learning multiple aspects of Speech and Debate. Consider me extremelylay.

YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the wrong things

Speed- I'm not too fond of speed. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most. A conversational pace is preferred.

Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, soDON'Tmake them.

How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Please don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from primary content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently and do your best.

Cross Fire-Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.

Speaker Points-I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.

If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!

Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past seven years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated (I will judge spreading but will not flow what I can't understand, I will "clear" twice then stop flowing). If you are going fast- be prepared to share your speech doc.
2. I will vote by looking at both flow first THEN considering technical skills and delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins but have done so. Road maps are preferred. I expect arguments to be clear and reasonable.
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice!!!
4. I am a judge who loves trad debate at reasonable speed. I will certainly discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round and really do hate a slippery slope but do not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts. The flow means a lot to me but it is not the only thing. I am watching cross closely but of course, will not flow the cross or vote off of cross. It only matters if it is mentioned in the next speech.
5. Impacts must be clear as in tell me literally "The impact is.." and I want to see voters in the final speech
6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting. Make sure you are not misconstruing evidence in any way. I may call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
7. Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE MAIN IDEAS OF THE CASE. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth-finding. LISTEN and analyze. If you are not responding, you are not winning the round. What I mean is that I want to hear responses but they don't need to be line by line to win. You can chunk arguments together and attack logic which will mean just as much, or more, to me as finding a more recent card that has a bigger number.
8. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is a hard sell for my ballot. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF and LD debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it, of course.
9. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosophical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so! Show me that you have done the HW and know what you are talking about when you claim that Liberty is important. Definitions will be important.
10. I am a sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points. The story is a big deal for me. What is the theme of your case. Is there a through line that ties all your contention level arguments together.
11. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
12. As I grow as a coach and judge I have grown to respect cases that demonstrate creative, out-of-the-box argumentation. I am bored by stock cases and arguments that are overused and underdeveloped.
13. Disclosure Theory in round- I think disclosing helps grow education and makes for interesting debates but I don't want to hear disclosure theory as your argument for why you win. Work with what is presented.
14. Use evidence challenges CAREFULLY and SPARINGLY- at the end of the day, it is usually a waste of time for us all. The judges are savvy enough to know when we are hearing evidence that sounds sketchy. If you don't buy evidence you can ask for cards but let's not do this repeatedly throughout the round. It breaks up the flow of the debate and becomes more frustrating than anything else. Don't hang your win on calling out one bad card but definitely call out untruths if you hear them and can prove them.
15. Decision disclosure- I will disclose if allowed by the tournament.

Side notes: I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like an ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Be kind, be authentic, have fun, and let's debate! :)

P.S.S. for any of my former debaters who read this: I think you are all incredible humans. I was a speech coach who got drawn into debate coaching and it has created the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you than I have taught any of you. Thanks for making me a better teacher and person. To Dylan, Kayleigh, "DaniEllie", Hannah, Maddy--- thanks for being my day ones. I am here for you always.

Ask questions before round

As a judge, I find logical analysis of arguments more compelling than facts or studies. Thus I would prefer if facts are used to add on to logical argumentations, not to replace them. Eloquence does not matter to me as such, I judge mostly based on content. I prefer heavy and direct engagement between teams, ie teams trying to actually reckon with and taking down their opponents ideas by pointing out logical fallacies within them rather than repeatedly putting their own arguments forward.

I am a lay judge and will vote based on who explains their argument most clearly and weighs the best. I don't like when contestants spread. Being respectful and clear are my main priorities.

Put simply, weighing will win you my ballot. I want to see very clear comparative weighing, tell me exactly what to vote off of and why. If your claims and impacts are well-extended and weighed against your opponent's, I will give you the round.

Don't spread. It doesn't help anyone in the round if we can't understand you. I will value articulation and clarity in my decision if the round is technically messy. Especially online, slowing it down will definitely help you.

Be nice to each other. Not much more to say in this regard, kind of a no-brainer. Snark and rudeness will not win you the debate; you'll be dropped pretty quickly if you are mean.

I am tech over truth to an extent. I value how well you explain your link chains; if your opponent doesn't interact with your arguments at all and you extend them through round, they leave me little choice but to give you those impacts. However I personally dislike crazy link chains. Probably won't affect my decision but good for you to know anyway.

I will call for cards if it sounds like you are misconstruing or not telling the truth about your evidence. Please use evidence; warrantless impacts just won't be granted.

Safwaan Chaudhry

Participated in PF Debate and LD through my 4 years at Richardson High School.

Now attending The University of Texas at Dallas.

General Paradigms -

I'm very straight forward with my judging and will focus on the information that YOU provide. I will not come to any of my own conclusions based on my knowledge about the case. It is YOURjob to provide me with the information, its impact, and why it should be a reason I vote in your favor. This means that you provide clear warrants and links. I will flow the entirety of the round and will answer any questions you may have at the end. Your summary and final focus should consist of the arguments you have fleshed out and deemed impactful throughout the debate. Please do not bring up dropped/dead arguments at the very end of the round, I will not weigh them heavily. If it is important, bring it up earlier.

The Debate -

Continue to bring up your key points and address your opponents arguments thoroughly. This doesn't mean to keep repeating your argument. When extending arguments, include warrants, links, and impacts. There is no excuse to not do so.

During cross examination, try to fully understand your opponents argument and dissect it. Do not keep running in circles around each other it wastes the limited time you have to make your argument.

Speed -

I can tolerate spreading and fast speaking, however make sure with your opponents that they can handle spreading. It kills the point of the debate if no one can understand you. Make sure to slow down on taglines and warrants that are important for your case. Also please make sure you can actually spread before attempting to do so, if I cannot understand you I will put my pen down and stop flowing.

Speaks -

I'm very lenient with speaker points and will give 28-30s. However, if you are rude or disrespectful I will lower your score (I will first provide a verbal warning, after that I will begin to lower your score).

General -

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well. I am not strict about going over time and will allow you to finish your thought but if you go too long over time I will stop you.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round, but only in close rounds and special circumstances.

Be respectful to each other in cross examination. As courtesy allow the first speaker to have the first question

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay judge and have been judging PF debate since 2022

I value clear and concise points that are well presented with the right balance of evidence and are not overly data-driven.

Best of luck to you!!

Sid

i am lay judge

more yapping

As a parent PF judge, I understand the unique dynamics and challenges of adjudicating Public Forum (PF) debate rounds involving young debaters. My role is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all participants while prioritizing respectful discourse and critical thinking skills development. Below are the guidelines I follow and the expectations I have for debaters in my rounds.

Guidelines:

1. Fairness: Fairness is paramount. I expect debaters to engage in honest argumentation and to refrain from any form of cheating or unfair practices, such as misrepresentation of evidence or spreading misinformation.

2. Respect: Respect for opponents, judges, and the debate space is non-negotiable. I expect debaters to maintain a civil tone throughout the round, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful language.

3. Clarity: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically and concisely, making it easy for judges to follow their line of reasoning.

4. Evidence: Debaters should provide credible evidence to support their claims. I encourage debaters to cite reputable sources and to analyze the evidence effectively within the context of the debate.

5. Time Management: Debaters must manage their time effectively, ensuring that they use their allotted speaking time efficiently and allowing their opponents equal opportunity to present their arguments.

6. Adaptability: I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies and arguments based on their opponents' responses and the flow of the debate round.

7. Engagement: Active engagement with the substance of the resolution is key. Debaters should address the central issues of the debate and respond directly to their opponents' arguments.

8. Sportsmanship: Debaters should display good sportsmanship at all times, accepting defeat gracefully and congratulating their opponents on a well-debated round.

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

I won't flow cross, but I am listening

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

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

Hi everyone! I am a parent judge and description below reflects my background and thoughts in debate.

For Yale, this will be my first time ever judging, so please be patient with me throughout the round. I have no experience in debate outside of what my son has described. I have done some background research on the Arctic topic so will be familiar with the common arguments on this topic and the judging process. That being said, please use little to no debate jargon and speak slowly and clearly. I won't be flowing (most likely taking notes), so clearly summarize arguments in the back-half. Time yourself and explain your arguments well. I well cote for the team with the most persuasive arguments and professional presence.

After watching some PF rounds, I really enjoyed watching the 2022 GTOC Finals between Strake DG and Brentwood HM. A round similar to it would be ideal.

Most importantly, have fun!

Some Specifics:

Truth >> Tech

NO MORE THAN 750 WORDS IN A CONSTRUCTIVE. Ideal cases would be around 675-725. (~175 WPM)

Average 28 Speaks, Most Commonly on a 27-29 Scale.

Let me know if you have questions after the round, but please do not aggressively post round.

May or may not be disclosing. Just ask in round!

Hi! I'm Jonathan. I debated PF for Taipei American and Worlds for Team Taiwan. Formerly an assistant coach for Taipei and currently a head coach for Team Taiwan WSDC.

chenjonathan717@gmail.com is the best email for an email chain.

I would say I evaluate debates similar to Zayne El-Kaissi Chase Williams and Katheryne Dwyer

Be nice (If I think you're nice your bottom speaks are going to be ~28, if not, your ceiling is also at an ~28)

I have a pretty low tolerance for progressive arguments. Personally, I believe they are only needed to check back in-round abuse. That being said, I won't stop you from running arguments you believe in and I guarantee you that I will flow/try to understand them but no guarantees that I will buy them.

Speed is not preferred but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do (if you're going to spread though I'd appreciate a doc)

I love listening to cross-fire and your speaker points will probably rocket if you make some logical/witty statements -- BUT if you want me to evaluate it please bring it up in speeches.

Tech > Truth (IMPORTANT: Tech > Truth > Lies) -- If you are going to debate against conventional wisdom, be sure to back it up with sufficient evidence + warranting! Also, while this is not required, I love a good narrative debate -- run as many arguments as you want but still have a cohesive story/message that I can enjoy and write about on my RFD. Also for the sake of clash and the sanity of your first speaker, please frontline in second rebuttal!

Defense is not sticky, but you only need to extend dropped arguments through ink. Everything in FF must be in summary unless you're responding to what is new in the first FF (do call them out if done so).

I really like warrant comparisons and indicts. Weighing is cool too but very often teams don't win their warrants and wonder why the judge didn't buy their weighing.

I really really really really like even-if responses, tell me why even if they win their argument I should still vote for you.

Also, don't shy from collapsing on one argument. Final focus is two minutes for a reason, pick your best path to victory, explain it well, and tell me why it is more important than anything else!

Like any other judge, I'm not a big fan of post-rounding but I am more than happy to explain my decision or answer any questions you have about the debate (right after the round or email/text is both fine)! Most importantly, I am very invested in making sure every debate round is a safe space (any -isms will get you an immediate L + the lowest speaks possible), if there is anything I can do as a judge to make sure you feel safe in the round, please let me know anytime!

Good luck have fun!

Speak slowly and clearly. Assume I have no prior knowledge about the discussed topic because that’s likely true. I will choose whichever team is most convincing.

Son writing for dad.

What he said: He's a lay judge. He doesn't like when you lie. He is pretty rational and logical. He loves truth.

What I'll say: Go slow, be logical, he values morals, and has knowledge on the economy and finance.

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

Ks

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

T

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

I am a parent judge and new to PF judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.

Hello,

I'm a lay judge.

Speak slowly and clearly. Do not spread and make sure to articulate your words

I'm not completely familiar with all debate terminology. Please explain them briefly when you use them

NO THEORY OR KS!

I will vote off of argumentation and the warranting for each of your contentions. To win you need to respond to every point brought up and Frontline your own contentions.

Do comparitive weighing in summary and final focus and do not use buzzwords

Good luck!

Hey, I'm Raiyan! I debated for 2 years (2021-2023) in PF for BASIS Chandler, qualled to both nats and gtoc 2x. I now am a PF coach at Durham Academy and a freshman at Duke.

Email: raiyanc2005@gmail.com

TDLR: regular flow judge, down to evaluate anything but I do prefer substance rounds.

General Stuff:

tech>truth. This means I will evaluate responses purely off the flow and how contested they are in the round. However, you still need to give me clear warranting and internal links for me to vote off an argument. I will be hesitant to vote on squirrely arguments if you blippily extend them.

My job as a judge is not to impose my views on debate to you, but rather adapt to your style of debate. As a debater, I didn't like having to adapt to weird quirks each judge had, so I don't want to replicate that experience for any of y'all.

I'll disclose and try to keep my feedback as constructive as possible. I know how stressful debate can be, so let's keep the round chill and lighthearted.

I can handle speed (just like lmk before your speech if its gonna be 250+ wpm so I can prepare myself) but I unfortunately can't comprehend policy level spreading.

Let's try to keep the round moving at a decent speed, please come to the round pre-flowed and ready to start

How I evaluate arguments:

I look to who wins the weighing, then I look to that argument and see who is winning that argument. However, if there is a scenario where team A is winning the weighing but has a really muddled link to the point where it go either way if they still have access to their link and Team B has a much cleaner link but is losing the weighing I'll vote for Team B.

Procedural things I assume about the round:

Frontline in second rebuttal, otherwise it's conceded

Make sure to extend in summary and final, otherwise I can't vote for your argument, this applies for defense and offense

You can't read new offense/defense in summary

However, If a team makes a new implication in summary (i.e. cross applying a conceded response on c2 to c1) I grant the opposing team the chance to make a new frontline

Make sure to weigh, you can only make new weighing in first final if it's responding to weighing from second summary, 2nd final is too late

If a team reads a turn on c1, it goes conceded and they want to cross-apply/re-implicate the turn to another contention, they must do so in summary, not for the first time in final focus.

Speaker Scores:

I start at 28, itll go up or down based on stuff like strategy, fluency, good implications, not extending thru ink, etc.

I’ll give boosts for quick evidence delivery. I have a lot of respect for teams that put in the work, have good cards cut, and are ready to send them over quickly while keeping their docs organized. I’ll also doc points for showing up late (1 point for every minute) without notice (if you have a legitimate reason for being late please email me). This is just so we can keep the rounds going as fast as possible, and prevent delays.

Cross can get heated, just don't say stuff like "shut up" or "what are you yapping about" in cross, it's not nice, I might have to drop you

Progressive Debate:

I prefer substance debates, but am open to evaluating any arguments. During high school, I never really read theory/k's but I do understand the basics of both.I believe no RVI's applies only if there is no offense won off the shell. That is too say, even if you read no RVI's the opposing team can still win the round on the theory layer if they read a turn to the shell (e.g. paraphrasing is good against a paraphrasing shell) or win that their competing interp is better.

If you are running a K please run it properly, have good alts, solvency, links, etc. If you are running theory please make sure it is not frivolous. I don't like paraphrasing, and I like disclosure, but again run what at you want, I'm just informing you of any biases I have since it will be fully impossible for me to completely remove those notions.

The two exceptions to my policy of "do whatever you want" is tricks, friv theory, and panel rounds. Unless it's a round robin, please don't consider running them, just so we can have an educational round. To reiterate, I highly encourage teams to not run frivolous theory if this is not a round robin. I think its pretty dumb and a waste of everyone's time. Let's try to actually take something away from this round. If we're in a panel round, and there is a lay judge please don't read any progressive arguments (or at least present them in a lay friendly manner). That said, I'll still evaluate the arguments as if I'm a flow judge.

Miscellaneous:

If this helps, I really liked having Bryce Piotrowski, Pinak Panda, Eli Glickman, Nate Kruger, Anisha Musti, Elliot Beamer, and Wyatt Alpert as a judge when I was debating. I also learned debate from the goat, Lars Deutz, so I’d say my views and perception of debate is very similar to his.

Just have some fun, I know it's cliche but debate can get pretty heated at times. At the end of the day, this is an activity for y'all to learn from. As such, I'll do my best to be as helpful and considerate before and after the round.

I am not experienced in debate or judging. Please talk at a conversational level. I vote off of logic and reasoning. I value clarity in a debate round over most things, if I cannot understand or hear your argument because you are talking too fast or using terms I'm not familiar with, I will not evaluate it. Clarity is most important in later speeches, give me voters and lots of weighing. Don't use buzz words, instead contextualize why things matter, and what they have to do with the world and the round.

I am a parent judge, so I cannot give technical points of advice. Whoever can persuades me will earn my ballot.

I am a retired law enforcement, so I have seen of these subjects in real life.

Speed - You don't have to be slow, but you must be clear and precise.

Timing - Please keep your own timings, but I will try to keep track as well.

Do's - Be well mannered, speak clearly and concisely.

Dont's - Don't use unnecessary debate jargon, I am a beginner and most likely will not understand. If you have a claim, you must warrant it completely.

Have fun and enjoy the round!

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Jenny Crouch

School: Brentwood High School

I AM DEFINITELY A LAY JUDGE.

I have never participated in, or judged, any Forensic activities other than PF debate.

When judging tournaments, I am most generally following the earliest guidance I received, which is to think in terms of which team is most persuasive with their aff/neg argument. Crucial to this is whether I can effectively understand the speaker. Many students are so focused on time & getting in maximum words, that they are very difficult to understand & they undermine their own research. Do they back up statements with factual references? Do they immediately offer cards with resources cited? Do they respond to the opposing team's arguments with thoughtful, relevant data, or do they revert to an unrelated item in their own "script"? Do they stay focused on the resolution, or follow tangential topics that muddy the question at hand?

I do take notes as I am listening to each round. These are often truncated due to the speed of the speaker. I include as much information as possible in my ballot comments.

PF: I am a former policy debater who just started judging and coaching public forum. That being said, my philosophy is that you should run whatever you feel fit in a round. Run any Kritik, theory, disadvantage, etc. that you think would benefit your side in a round. Let it be known though that I am not a big fan of theory arguments. I think that theory is a wonderful toolset to check microaggressions, and racism, and create a leveled playing field in rounds, but this is a double-edged sword. Unless something absolutely egregious happens, I have a high burden of proof. However, a well-run theory argument is an argument nonetheless. I leave that to your best judgment.

FOR EVERYONE: BE CAREFUL WHEN USING HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS AROUND ME. I AM GETTING MY PHD IN HISTORY...I WILL FACT CHECK YOU INTO OBLIVION

Policy: I am still getting back into spreading, while you can spread try to say the taglines clearly so I can flow them.For Negs I hold Ks to a higher standard, if you run a K you have to show adequate knowledge that you understand what the K is, so don't run a psychoanalysis K without first understanding its implications since otherwise you're just saying gibberish without fully explaining its consequences. Critical Affs are okay, but know that the K standard for the Neg also applies to the Aff.

LD: I have experience in LD judging and debating, I'm a flow judge who pays attention to the ultra technical and specifics of the debate. While your speaking style matters incredibly to your speaker points and persuasiveness, I pay attention more to the flow and arguments.

Have fun, be nice, be a good sport win or lose.

Sherry Cui

I am a parent judge and this will be the second tournament I will be judging.

Please speak clearly and not quickly and please fully explain your arguments until the end of the round. Please weigh and make direct comparisons to make my decision more clear-cut. Please refrain from technical jargon without explaining it first. I will vote for the team that persuades me the most and makes good responses to the opponent’s arguments. Go slow.

Thank you for understanding and don’t forget to have fun!

I'm a parent judge who values confidence, well-built contentions, and professionalism in a round. I look forward to judging you and good luck!
I prefer to hear the sentence clearly and not rush. Speak slowly and legibly.

I like arguments based on logic as opposed to only numbers. Use numbers to substantiate your logic

Use cards to substantiate your research. Submit your cards please

Explicitly mention number of major cases and minor cases that you are making

This is my second year judging speech and debate and I mostly judge Public Forum Debate.

I can flow pretty well at conversation speed and am fine if you speed up a little. If you speed up a lot my comprehension of your speech will decline.

I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging public forum debate, online and in-person.

Please treat everyone with respect. Use conversational tone and speed. In your final focus, I would appreciate clear analysis of why your team should win. Thanks.

Trust the right words will come through you if you are brave and clear. Back your ideas with current events but also the past- history.

• Lay judge. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus. Quality over quantity and truth over tech are very important to make my decision. I also appreciate debaters that are able to present their cases not reading at them; a real presentation style with prompts if necessary.

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

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

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

Few highpoints:

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

Cross:

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

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

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

Speaks:

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

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

27- below avg

28- avg

29- you were good

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

Speak clearly and please do not spread. I value well reasoned arguments supported by strong evidence. I ensure that debaters follow established rules and time limits. I take note of any violation and factor that into my assessment. I assess the lasting impression the debater leaves. This includes the strength of their final speech and the persuasiveness of their overall performance.

Updated: 12/9/2023

Hello! I'm a sophomore at college. I debated for four years in Minnesota and now do APDA in college. I mainly did LD, but know a bit about PF and Congress. I've only done traditional debate, but I have some baseline knowledge of some circuit-level arguments like kritiks and theory (more on that later). I qualified and competed in the State tournament three times in LD, so I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable about Debate. Glad you are reading this since most don't.

TL;DR:

Be nice; don't run stupid and random circuit arguments unless you can explain them well; weigh your arguments; don't lie in the last speech; don't use problematic arguments; I prefer cameras on but I won't really care; don't expect me to know exactly where Fuentes, 2018 is without telling me where it is; and please signpost.

General:

Don't purposely be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, ableist, classist, or any other thing. Just. Don't. If you are, don't expect to win. Expect an L20 :)

Don't be passive-aggressive or belittle your opponent. This is all for fun and you shouldn't bully people because you know more about China than them. If you do, expect very low speaks. Maybe even a loss.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:

You should be aware of who you are in the Debate space. Sure, in a round, you truly have no identity (you are just a debater who is trying to convince me you're right), but there's something strange about a white man using eco-fem or Black Anger. While I believe that you should be allowed to use arguments that don't pertain to you (for example, me, an Asian guy, talking about how something might perpetuate misogyny), I ask that you first try to reevaluate why you are using those arguments. Are you using them because you believe it or because it will grant you more bodies on the flow? If it's the latter, maybe rethink it.

I won't drop you because you used an argument that doesn't pertain to you at all, but it's something to recognize. A good question to ask yourself is if you would be comfortable making these arguments in a room where a person from that group is in. For example, if you are using an argument about Asian-Americans, would you still say it if an Asian-American was in the room? If not, you probably shouldn't make it at all.

Again, I won't ever hold it against you. I think that would be silly if I'm allowed to gatekeep arguments from you just because of who you are. But this is just a PSA for life in general.

Allowable arguments:

I'll vote on almost anything (except bigotry): even extinction and "death good" arguments. Be warned that certain arguments are much harder to prove. This means that I'm generally tech over truth.

Please please please have a trigger warning for anything that may trigger people (things like sexual assault, suicide, etc.). Especially if you use arguments that are descriptive of those triggering arguments. If you are using descriptive mentions of something that can be triggering, ask yourself if that is really necessary. There's no reason why you can't just mention their existence and still use them. Trust me, your argument doesn't become weaker because it's a non-descriptive mention of them.

Regarding Kritiks: as I said, I only did Trad debate, but I know what a K is and how it works. So do explain things to me very clearly if you use some weird literature for your K. If you hate that, sorry not sorry.

In terms of Theory: I am going to have a pretty high bar for a "drop the debater" voter. I'm also not going to weigh any frivolous T that is just... stupid. Sorry for the judge intervention but idc if you argue very well that I should vote for the shorter debater to stop height discrimination. Or something like first, last three words or whatever. Please stop.

Speeches and Rebuttals:

Please signpost. I'm not a mind reader; I can't magically tell where you are on the flow. If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it. If I can't flow it, I can't give you that argument. If I can't give you that argument, I can't give you the win. If you use multiple arguments against something, number them. So don't get mad if you see a ballot that isn't in your favor because I didn't catch your third response to their fifth response in your first subpoint in your second contention that was about somelastnameyouspedthroughandididnotcatch, 2014.

Please address the fact that your opponent dropped your argument. If you drop the dropped argument, you don't get the point. Mention your opponent dropped something and extend it and say why that drop is important. For example, if the AFF dropped the NEG's contention two, then in the next speech say they did and explain why it's important.

Please weigh your arguments. I shouldn't (and won't) have to weigh them myself. Weighing them for me gives a clear reason to vote for you since you explain why your arguments are more important. If you forgot, the main weighing metrics are magnitude, probability, timeframe, and scope.

Don't lie in the very last speech. I get that if you're losing you have to say something like "I outweigh on this" even though you didn't. Who knows, maybe your last speech will persuade me to vote for you. What I mean by lying is saying something like, "My opponent dropped this" when they did not drop that. It's frustrating when something like this happens especially in front of a parent judge since you can't correct them. You'll lose speaks if you lie on purpose.

If you run out of time during a speech, finish your last thought. If you keep going, I will stop you.

Cross:

If time runs out during cross, I'll allow the person to answer the last question that was just asked.

This isn't a shouting competition: don't try to one-up your opponent.

Please answer the questions that are being asked to you. Being shady isn't a good strategy. Please stop if they ask you to stop.

Cross is binding, y'all.

I don't necessarily flow cross, but I am listening.

Specifically about crossfire in PF: I am really hating the using cross as a time to badger each other. PLEASE stick to asking questions. This isn't another rebuttal. Calm down. I have (and will) dock speaks because of the absolutely rude and terrible behavior I've seen during crossfires.

Speaking:

If you're gonna talk fast, only talk fast through your evidence. Please slow down while signposting or reading any tags or card names. Maybe even take a break after you say a tag, so I can flow it.

What really annoys me is when people just address something by card name especially if that card is the only one under a contention. Just mention the contention at that point. I get that you have to address it by card name sometimes but please tell me where it is. Sometimes I don't catch the author. Instead of saying "Johnson 20," say "Johnson 20: second card under my contention one." Remember, if you are just saying something and I have no idea where it is on the flow, don't be surprised you lost even though you extended that one magic card when I have no clue where it is or what it says.

I start my speaks at 27 and go up or down based on how well you are speaking and articulating your arguments.

In general for how I evaluate speaks, I consider how poised you are in your speaking (are you speaking with clarity, precision, being efficient with your sentences), how good you are at articulating your arguments, and how you are able to navigate and link between arguments. There's no formula for this.

Online Etiquette:

I prefer cameras on but I don't really care. I understand sometimes cameras just aren't feasible for a lot of reasons. Online debate makes it so much harder to hear so if you're talking fast, speak very clearly and slow down for tags. Covid really did a number on Debate etiquette and it surprises me so much. Just don't be eating or something. It's more important than in-person debates that you ask if everyone is ready.

Pet Peeves:

Don't say, "I win because..." or "you have to vote neg because..." No, I don't have to vote for you. That is my decision.

If you are using Kant, you should not care about consequences. If you care about consequences, you are using it wrong. I'll still consider your framework as is, but I will not be happy.

Please ask if everyone is ready.

.

Sorry that this is long. Have any questions? Ask me before the round, and I will answer them.

For circuits that use email chains: phuong.doan7114@gmail.com. I probs won't look at it unless someone points out something sketchy or something. I just expect y'all to speak in a way that I can flow without me reading it. Otherwise, what's the point in speaking? I also think Debaters have the burden to tell me why a piece of evidence is good or bad. I'm not doing that for y'all.

Hello! I am a parent judge with 4 years' experience in local Public Forum judging. I can handle speed during the debate, just make sure you're clear. Do not run progressive arguments because I am not skilled in evaluating them. Please weigh and make key voting issues clear. I will flow crossfires because I think they demonstrate your knowledge of your case and ability to think on your feet. Be respectful always and you'll get high speaker points.

Please add me on email chains - mandydoney@yahoo.com

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

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

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

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

I view debate as a uniquely valuable intellectual game that centers communication, research, and critical thinking. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge 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, 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 conduct 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 parsing clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

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.

The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are probably counter-plan adjacent.

I like to reward creativity and hard work.

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

Err on the side of over explanation. Impact stuff out, like fully impact stuff out.

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 mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

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.

Judging Experience.

I am a parent volunteer who has judged Speech events for the last two school years. This is my first time judging Public Forum.

Topic Knowledge/Bias.

I've spoken about this topic with friends. I’m biased toward the environment and toward protecting our country – ultimately, I’d like for both to happen.

How to Keep My Attention.

Keep my attention by delivering authentic arguments with meaningful evidence and substance.

Make sure your connections between your statements and the arguments are impeccably easy to follow to avoid my having to connect them on my own – particularly if you are going to speak quickly. Also use speech elements such as first, second, third or starting with, next, or lastly to help me follow.

If you plan to win the debate on an argument, maintain the argument along with other relevant content in rebuttals, summary speeches, and even when raising new arguments in crossfires.

.

Basics: I competed in LD from 2016-2020 with experience locally and nationally. Now, I am the head coach of Dublin Jerome HS in Ohio where I coach all events. I have experience with all types of arguments and the remainder of this paradigm just goes over my preferences.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Dublin Jerome HS (OH), Alliance HS (OH).

LD:

Framework: You must run a V/VC. I use the framework to weigh the round but I do not vote on it alone. Do NOT make it a KVI because it carries no weight on its own.

Contention Level: I keep a rigorous flow. This means I will ask you to follow a line by line and will record all dropped arguments. This does not mean I will vote on who covers the most ground. You need to extend dropped arguments and weigh them against your opponents. If you kick a contention(s) that's fine, I don't care, just let me know in speech.

Evidence: You need to provide evidence in a timely fashion. I will use your prep time if you abuse this grace period. I will (likely) not review the evidence. It is not the judge's responsibility to do the evidence analysis. If there is a breach of rules then I will intervene. Otherwise, it is both debaters' duty to show why their analysis of the evidence is better.

PF:

*************Frontline. Frontline. Frontline.*****************

Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive or I will drone you out.

Line by line: I don't buy the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you.

Evidence: *SEE LD* If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep.

Congress (Nats):

Top 5 Things I care about (generally in order)

• Clash
• Fluent Delivery
• Unique Material/Args
• Good "Congressional" Behavior (respectfulness/legislating/etc.)
• Active Participation in Round

Please Please Please ask me questions if you have them. I take no offense at all if you question any one of these comments. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!!

Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Head Speech and Debate Coach, Dublin Jerome HS

Columbus District DEIB Chair

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a junior at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school + lead coach at NDC. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, will evaluate whatever if you justify it is a good model of debate. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! mid to bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.comand k.rose.dwyer@gmail.com to the chain.

2024-25 season update:

1. i am finding that my tolerance for poorly signposted and bad clarity speed is getting lower. i find it especially hard to flow 6 spammed one line cards when frontlining that aren't signposted or implicated, which i am hearing more and more of. be clear and slow down on tags or just slow down all together because i will 100% miss a warrant or two if you're not, and won't take extra time to fill stuff in from your doc (meaning i'll use whatever your opponents use to prep after your speech if i need it, but not more).
2. important: from october to january i will be in china, meaning i am flowing your online round in the middle of the night. please slow down/otherwise adjust accordingly
3. current pet peeve: structural violence refers to aninstitution or social structure perpetuating some form of harm or violence, it is a specific term that does not just mean "something bad happens to someone marginalized," and i am always gonna be down to hear "they don't link into SV bc their link is about disparate criminal orgs and not a structural problem" as a response to framing
4. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination etc, not like disclosure) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. if you want me to do something differently/evaluate an argument i say i don't usually evaluate/whatever, give me a warrant why i should.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances.

no tricks - you will have a hard time convincing me this is a good model - but if that's the hill you wanna die on go ahead

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

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

Email: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

I think that conditionality should be a last resort; I am not sure why it has become so popular as the plan B strategy.

Reasonability should not be argued as an alternative frame to competing interpretations because I must endorse an interpretation at the end of the debate. Instead, I think reasonability is best used as a framing argument to raise the bar for the abuse or potential abuse Negative teams must prove.

Counterplans that result in the plan are problematic; I have a preference for theoretical objections over perm do the cp in the 2AR.

I generally think that fairness is good and the only impact a ballot can 'solve.' Impact turns to clash, fairness, predictability, etc. are difficult to win in front of me absent technical concessions.

I prefer to vote for arguments with concrete, material strategies. An alternative or 1AC that advocates and defends a movement instead of USFG-based action is much more appealing to me than a strategy based on criticism without contestable action.

Critical teams should spend time explaining arguments in front of me in practical terms without jargon. I think the pedantry in academia can easily permeate debaters' blocks and strategies. Big words or concepts that are familiar to people well read in the literature but not the general public will hurt your application of the theory and may lead to a frustrating decision.

I do not approach debate "tabula rasa" so you can assume I know something about the topic. However, you should explain your logic clearly and effectively - elucidating your reasoning.

I prefer clear communication over speed.

The type of evidence is important - I give greater weight to academic sources over media - and it should be used judiciously to support your line of reasoning. More evidence isn't always better. Pay attention to how it is used.

I weigh heavily on your logic and impact calculus.

I favor those with strong arguments who can rebut their opponents arguments with clear reasoning over simply repeating their evidence. Can you find weaknesses in your opponents logic without trying to reject it in its entirety?

Bonus points for those who can find and state what is of value in the opposing side's arguments (while still persuading me that their own position is more favorable).

I allow roadmaps of 5 seconds max.

Most importantly, have fun!

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

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

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

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

Blake '21, UChicago '25

I did PF on the national circuit for 3 years, and now am an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minneapolis.

Tl;dr

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- Please read paraphrasing theory in rounds where the opponents are paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is an awful practice, evidence is VERY important to me, and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs before each speech in which cards will be read.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, Ellie Singer, and Shane Stafford.

- Please add both jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the email chain.

- Feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General Paradigm

Rules

I will time speeches and prep, though you are encouraged to do the same. I will enforce excessive and flagrant intentional violations of speech time rules with the ballot, if necessary. In most cases, this is not needed recourse, and I will simply stop flowing once the time has elapsed.

Speeches

Roadmaps: In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are more than 2 sheets, then I will ask for a roadmap.

The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense. Any arguments dropped by the second rebuttal are considered dropped in the round.

The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or in any way going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me. See below for a caveat.

Sticky Defense: In almost all scenarios, defense is not sticky. It is completely incoherent to me that the first summary does not need to extend defense on contentions that the second summary might go for. However, the sole exception to this will be if a team does not frontline to any arguments on a contention in the second rebuttal. The first summary can consider that contention kicked. This is already pretty solidified as a norm, and allows second speaking teams to kick arguments without literally saying “there is no offense on Contention X.” An extension of this contention, that was clearly kicked in second rebuttal, by the second summary will allow the first final to extend defense from the first rebuttal on that contention specifically.

Speed: I am comfortable with all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak at 400+ WPM, and I can understand every word. Likewise, I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear. I will say clear if I can’t follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). If you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

Speech docs: Please send speech docs with cut cards. This vastly decreases the amount of wasted time in rounds sending various individual cards at different times.

Weighing: The team that wins the weighing debate is nearly always winning the round. I start every RFD with an evaluation of the weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions without making the round a total mess. I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

Collapse: Please collapse. I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

Abusive Delinks: I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself to get out of turn offense. This does not mean you cannot bite defense read, or make new frontline responses to turns, rather it means you cannot overtly contradict your initial arguments with a piece of defense your opponents did not read to get out of offense they read. This applies in situations as clear cut as the aff saying X, the neg responding with X is actually bad, and the aff responds with “not X.” This almost never happens, but is astonishingly abusive when it is attempted.

Framework: If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it, or make arguments as to why they get responses later in the round. I don't know where I stand on this technically yet, but this is where I am leaning now. In general, if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, I think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

Advocacies/T: In general, I will evaluate the flow without prejudice on what ground the aff or neg claims to have. Because the neg doesn't get a counter plan in PF, the aff advocacy does not block the neg out of ground. Both the aff and neg can make arguments about what the aff would most likely look at, and should garner advantages and disadvantages based off of those interpretations. I will evaluate whose is more likely to be correct and go from there. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages unless it is argued that troop deployment is not a feasible implementation of the aff. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works.

Safety issues: I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

Housekeeping: I take the important parts of the debate incredibly seriously, but there are aspects that I find frivolously pretentious. Be nice and respectful, but keep it somewhat light and casual if you can! Debate is supposed to be at least somewhat fun, so lets treat it as such. I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence

Disclaimer: I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. This section is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Evidence is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an argument as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point.

Bottom line: Evidence is the backbone of the activity. I do not fancy fast paced lying as a debate format. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will certainly call for cards if docs are not already sent. Evidence quality is exceedingly important, and I will have no qualms dropping teams for awful evidence. This applies regardless of if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it.

Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Luckily, it seems on the decline! Regardless, it is bad for the quality of debate, it is bad for all of its educational benefits, and it ruins fairness. Please cut cards, it is not difficult to learn. If you insist on making me upset and paraphrasing, keep the following in mind:

1. You must have a cut card that you paraphrased from. It is an NSDA rule now.

2. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you can’t quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

3. Paraphrasing does not let you off the hook for not reading a warrant. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank.

4. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you can’t find it when asked and you make the argument to "just evaluate as an analytic," I will also give an L25. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

5. Don’t be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 28.5 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

Producing evidence: If reading the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence. If you can’t produce a card upon being asked for it within reasonable time frame given the network or technical context, your speaks will tank.

Evidence Preference: Even if not a full shell, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me.

Author Cites: This is yet another thing I should not need to put in my paradigm. You need to cite the author you are reading in speech for it to be counted as evidence as opposed to an analytic. If you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of evidence, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. It is blatant plagiarism and extremely unethical. In an educational activity, this should be exceedingly obvious.

Progressive Paradigm

Debate is good: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative in the best possible way. Arguments that say debate is bad and should be destroyed entirely (often this is the conclusion of non-topical pessimistic arguments, killjoy, etc) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. This does not make them unwinnable, but probably not strategic to read.

Disclaimer: I'm receptive to all arguments, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting very low quality recently. I worry about the long-term impact about some of these in the activity. I beg of you, think about the model you are advocating for, and think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it. The impact you can leave on the activity could be positive or negative and will outlast your time as a debater.

Theory

CI/Reasonability: I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this section. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate the flow normally.

RVIs: I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this is an RVI on an IVI.

IVIs: These are really bad for debate. If there is a rules claim to be made, make it a theory shell. If there is a safety issue, then stop the round. Almost all of the time, IVIs are vague whines spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop. My threshold for responses to these is near zero.

Frivolity: I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. This does include spikes and tricks. I don't like them, please don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round. I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments.

Introduction: Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as there’s some offense on the shell. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a paraphrasing bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

Disclosure is good: Disclosure is good, but how you disclose matters. These days I prefer open source disclosure, where tags, cites, and highlights are all included. My predisposition towards disclosure is slightly less severe than mine towards paraphrasing, but my decisions cannot help but to be impacted by them. It is not impossible, but probably not easy, to win disclosure bad in front of me. Ideally, you would just disclose.

Trigger warnings: I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that don’t need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You’ll find Elizabeth Terveen’s paradigm has a good section on this that I generally agree on. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically. Obviously, egregiously graphic descriptions are an exception to this general belief, but they are almost never run in PF. The mention of something is not a good enough reason for a trigger warning.

Kritiks

General disposition: I am somewhat comfortable evaluating most kritikal arguments, although I’m not as experienced with them as I am with others. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well. I am quite comfortable with capitalism, security, and fem IR.

Disclaimer: Blake 2021 made me think about this part of my paradigm a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. The proliferation of identity, pomo inspired kritiks that vaguely ask the judge to vote for a team based on an identity and nothing else is not good. Moreover, methods that advocate collapsing the activity are unlikely to be well received. In any case, please articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing to improve the activity. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

“Pre-fiat”: No one thinks fiat is real, so let’s be more specific about how we label arguments and discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument.’

Discourse: I am pretty skeptical that discourse shapes reality. If you go for this, you best have excellent evidence and good explanations.

Speaks

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy because I never give speaks that high almost ever. I will not give a 30, there are no perfect debaters.

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

a. cogent logic first and then data

b. clear speech first and then speech speed

c. prove your case and make the comparison

Good luck!

I have done Public Forum for three years in Highschool with no experience/exposure with Lincoln Douglas, so please keep that in mind.

I'm not comfortable judging theory/K's, and would prefer the debate to remain topic based, with util framing

here are my preferences for Public Forum below.

I won't evaluate the cross, however, if you do want me to pay attention to something said during crossfire, you must bring it up during your next speech (referring to what was said in crossfire). Try to keep track of your own timing during crossfire.

In general, I can handle a little bit of speed, but make sure to clearly articulate what you are saying, otherwise, I will not evaluate it. Please try to not spread, and speak at a normal pace preferably.

As for timings, keep track of your own prep time, and during specific speeches, if you run out of time, I'll let you finish your sentence, but not much more.

If you want me to evaluate anything, you must extend through Summary and FF for me to evaluate it. Make sure to weigh, and explain why I should vote for you clearly throughout the summary and Final Focus.

Please, no insulting/rude behavior/disrespect. Debate is an educational activity, and we want to create an open environment for learning and growth. I will lower the speaker's points for rude behavior.

For theory, I will not evaluate it if you decide to run it.

For speaker points, I will start with a basis of 28 points, and depending on how good or bad you perform, speaker points will be adjusted accordingly.

Feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round for preferences and clarifications.

Hey guys, Tim. (He/Him) I like debaters who speak confidently and are sure of their stance, who are willing to be assertive (but formal) in all speeches. During crossfires especially, I do not mind a more aggressive team so long as they are not emotional. I prefer fast speaking as long as it is fluent and can be easily understood. I recommend debaters use more innovative points, using the same few points everyone else does makes it more likely for your opponent to have a counterargument, and I enjoy the creativity and innovation (within reason). I will be a part of tournament's email chain and please send me your cases 4-6 hours before the tournament or immediately after the constructive is delivered. Please send the cases or key documents you use to: charlie_fk@outlook.com

Here's the TL;DR version of the paradigm

I am as old-school and traditional as they come when it comes to judging.

Debate is about persuading me (as a proxy for an audience) that your position is the one I should support. I view my role as that of an undecided audience member attending this debate to learn about both sides of the topic. I use the information, arguments and clash in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Philosophically, as mentioned, I am a very traditional judge. I am from the policymaker school of thought with some appearance judging added in to ensure competitors remember this is a speaking competition.

To do this, I rigorously compare the strengths and weaknesses of the definitions and arguments (or, in LD, the value, value criterion, and contentions) presented and rebutted to determine which side has persuaded me to support their position. I will especially compare the arguments that generate the greatest clash. Since I approach debate as an undecided audience member, I judge strictly on what you say (I mean, this is a competition where you speak your arguments, right?) and WILL NOT read your speeches or your cards, except as noted below.

Come at the debate from any perspective or approach you want to--and I do welcome out-of-the-box frameworks provided they provide a reasonable space for clash and argument and can demonstrate direct relevance to the topic for an undecided audience member seeking to be persuaded to one side or the other. I try to offer each round as blank a slate as I am capable of doing as it relates to the resolution.

Risk-taking is fine if you know what you are doing when you take the risk. I like humor. I am generally skeptical of disclosure theory and other "debating about debate" approaches. The game is the game. If everyone is in compliance with the tournament rules and the affirmative's definitions allow for clash, I am generally a very hard sell on arguments concerning fairness and disclosure--although you are welcome to try, and I will give it as fair a hearing as I can.

To maximize the strength, effectiveness, and persuasiveness of your arguments, they need to be delivered clearly (NO SPREADING), with solid evidence, data, and citations (placed in context for a judge who may not be familiar with them) in a well-organized speech that is delivered TO me, not read like a drone AT me. In other words, you should seek to win on logic and argumentation, but in doing so, you cannot neglect the communications skills necessary to sell your position and ensure that your audience understands your logic and argumentation--just like you would if you were doing this to a real audience in the real world. Again, I should be able to judge the debate solely on the words spoken without having to refer to documentation beyond my own notes when writing my ballot.

Some quick, event-specific notes:

--Policy: I am not going to be on the email chain because this is not an essay contest, this is an oral persuasion event. I will judge it based ONLY on what I hear and understand. If you spread, I am not going to be able to follow you. You will likely lose the round unless your opponent is foolish enough to do the same forcing me to determine who lost by less. You can try and debate your K, or your T, or any other letter of the alphabet, but if you do, it better clearly relate to the basic premise of the resolution, because that is the show I bought a ticket to see. Not saying you can't run them, just they need to be relevant to the spirit of the resolution.

--LD. This isn't policy. DO NOT SPREAD. Be clear on your value and value criterion and explicitly tie your contentions back to them or you will hurt yourself. Otherwise the notes for policy apply.

PF: This is an event intended for a lay judge to be able to adjudicate. Even though I am not a lay judge, I will judge this as though I walked in off the street and never judged before to stay true to the spirit of the event. Make sure you engage accordingly. In other words if you treat this like a mini-policy round, it will go poorly.

If you have any questions about this, ASK!

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

Now for those who want to get into the weeds on my approach to judging and my thinking about debate:

First and foremost, have fun

Debate should not be a slog for you or me. This paradigm, although long, is really about getting the slogging and ticky-tack nonsense out of this process. We are both giving up our weekends to participate in this. Let's enjoy it. Keep it loose.

My philosophy

I am generally a VERY traditional old-school judge with a VERY clear set of expectations and standards. If I had to pick a judging theory that I fit, I tend to fall into the policymaker/legislative model of judging with some purposeful appearance-style judging thrown in.

My "role" or "persona" is of an average, undecided listener looking to form an opinion on the topic

In ALL debate events, I view my role as judge to be an undecided audience member attending your debate to learn about both sides so I can form my own opinion on the topic. As that audience member, I will use what is presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.” Accordingly, I believe debate is about persuasion--winning the minds AND hearts of the audience, which is, in this case, the judge(s). That means this activity is about all the skills of debate: research, argumentation, speech, persuasion, and rhetoric.

--Your arguments must be strong, with sound logic, solid research, and real analysis;
--Your presentation must be well-organized so the audience can follow it effortlessly without roadmaps and signposts;
--You must overcome the reasonable objections put forward by the other side while attacking their contentions, case, and/or values, especially on arguments with significant clash;
--You must show why your side has the better idea (or the other side's ideas are worse than the status quo if you are the negative and not running a counterplan);
--And you must sell all this with a persuasive delivery that seeks to connect with the audience, which means gesturing and movement, making eye contact, varying your vocal tone, showing passion, and speaking clearly and at a normal pace.

Wait! Aren't experienced judges just into technical stuff and do not consider speaking style?

Here is why I incorporate some "appearance-style" judging into my paradigm. As a competition that includes speaking, I firmly believe that debate requires you to both make strong arguments AND communicate them persuasively through your delivery. You should be connecting with your audience at all levels. In the "real world" a dry, lifeless speaker has a tough time winning over an audience no matter how good their arguments are. I hold you to the same standard.

I HATE spreading

SLOW DOWN!!! If you speak significantly faster than a normal rate of speed or if you "spread," it will show up in your comments and impact your speaks negatively. This is a debate, not a speedreading competition to crowbar 10 minutes of content into a 6-minute constructive. You cannot persuade anyone if the listener cannot follow your argument because you are flying through your speech at 250+ words per minute. "Spreading" has really damaged debate as a discipline. If this is an issue for you, please "strike" me as a judge. I will totally understand. I will say CLEAR once and only once if it is too fast.

I make every effort to come into the round agnostic as it relates to the resolution

I am agnostic about both the topic of the debate and how you build your case--it simply has to be both comprehensible enough and persuasive enough to win. You can approach the case from any fair direction that is directly relevant to the resolution and allows for reasonable clash and interaction from the other side. Just remember that I need to clearly understand your argument and that you have to be more persuasive than your opponent. Also note the next item.

Agnosticism ≠ idiocy, therefore Truth > Tech

I will not accept an argument that the average person would immediately know is simply not true. Being agnostic about the resolution does not mean I am an idiot. The sun doesn't come up in the west. 1+1≠3. Telling me things that would obviously be false to someone with an average understanding of the world is not an argument that can flow through, even if your opponent doesn't address it. By the same token, if an argument like this IS offered and the opponent does not attack it, that will be noted as well--negatively.

Assume I know nothing about the topic beyond what an average person would know

The risk of insult is the price of clarity. As a judge, I am not as deep in the weeds on the subject matter as you are. Avoid undefined jargon, assumptions about what I already know, or assuming that I am familiar with your citations. Better to make fewer points that I do understand than to make more points that I do not. This is CRITICAL if this is a public forum round.

I only judge what I HEAR you say and how you say it

This is a debate--a competition rooted in a tradition of speech and rhetoric--not a competitive speed-reading recital of your persuasive essay writing. That means I want to HEAR your speech and citations, which is really hard for me to do if you spread. Let me be clear. I will not read your speech or look at your cards (unless there is some question about the validity of the source). That means if you insist on spreading and I can't follow it, you are going to run into a HUGE problem on my ballot.

Part of being an effective and successful debater is to ensure that your audience understands your arguments based on what you say without the audience having to look at a document--think about how you would address an audience in a darkened auditorium, and you will get the idea. I will make an exception about requesting cards if I have reason to question your evidence.

I reward risk-taking and humor

Don't be afraid to take some risks. Be interesting. Be funny. Maybe even a little snark, A well-chosen risk can result in big rewards in your score. Just remember they call it a risk for a reason. You will also never hurt yourself by making me laugh. Debate does not have to be somber, and it does not always have to be serious. If you are funny, be funny--provided you remain persuasive.

I pay close attention to definitions/values/value criterion

Define the terms of the resolution (and, in L-D state a value and value criterion), and then explicitly link your arguments, contentions, and rebuttals back to your definitions and values. I want to clearly understand how your arguments relate to how the debate has been framed and/or how it supports your definition and value. What is the point of taking the time to lay this out and then never mentioning them again when you get into your speech?

How I weigh your arguments

The overall strength of your case and arguments--especially where there is clash--relative to your opponent's case is paramount in earning my vote. This means the quality and development of your arguments, contentions, evidence, citations, and rebuttals are far more important to me than quantity.

--Focus on your strongest arguments rather than throwing in the kitchen sink.
--Make sure they link back to your definition and/or your value and value criterion
--Go deep with your analysis before going broad;
--Use examples and metaphors to illustrate your points;
--Tell the story coherently in a speech that is logically organized to lead me to side with your position.

Ties ALWAYS go to the negative/con

The affirmative/pro always has the burden to convince me to change the status quo and in a tie, the affirmative has failed to meet that standard. In any instance where I truly believe both sides fought the round to an absolute draw, I will cast my ballot for the negative/con. For the history nerds out there, this is based on what is known as Speaker Denison's rule, which is a convention in the British House of Commons that when the Speaker votes to break a tie, they never vote for the side that will change the status quo.

Dropped arguments do not always matter to me

Just because your opponent drops a weak argument does not mean I will flow it through. If you jam ten contentions in and the opponent only responds to 9, that does not mean the 10th argument carries, and you should win the debate because it was dropped and therefore flowed through. The quality of the dropped argument matters a lot. As long as your opponent addresses and rebuts your main arguments and effectively responds to your case overall, I will not be concerned that they dropped some weak, secondary contention, especially if they have filled their time. Obviously, not addressing a major argument will hurt any opposing case.

I never allow off-time roadmaps unless the tournament rules require me to

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I will not grant ANY off-time road maps. Off-time road maps are a crutch lazy debaters use to avoid getting their speech into a clear, well-organized form. Worse, being off-time, it allows the speaker to preview their arguments without the clock running--essentially giving them free time to communicate without pressure. Nonsense.

Your speech should be properly organized so that a listener can follow it without you having to spoon-feed them what you are going to do up front. If you need to do a roadmap during your allotted running time, you are welcome to burn your clock time to do so, and I will not penalize it. That said, you would be better served simply organizing your speech and, perhaps, doing some signposting.

Give your citations context so I can give them credibility

Assume I know nothing about your citation nor will I read your card unless I have reason to question the validity of your evidence. While I recognize that a citation of "Smith, 2019" is the minimum the rules often require, it has little real credibility if you don't give me some context about why the citation matters. I don't know who Smith is, where you found his material, or what he wrote in 2019. It is SO much better to say something like: "In a 2019 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Julian Smith, an expert on vaccines, wrote...." Now I know where you read it, who Smith is, and when it was written.

I pay very close attention to CX, crossfire, and POIs

While I generally don't "flow" CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli), it does matter to me. There should be engagement and clash. Debates I have judged are occasionally won or lost in CX when one debater put the other in a logic box or otherwise made the debate impossible for their opponent to win. Use CX/crossfire (or POIs in Parli) to undermine your opponent's arguments and to expose weaknesses and logic problems in their case, rather than rehear parts of the opponent's speeches you missed the first time. Additionally:

--If you are rude during crossfire/CX by aggressively interrupting or cutting off respondents who are not filibustering, it will impact your speaks;
--If you insist on yes/no answers in crossfire/CX when more information is obviously needed to make a response, it will impact your speaks;
--If you keep asking questions in crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask some too, it will impact your speaks;
--If you filibuster and are dilatory to try and run out the clock in crossfire/CX (or refuse to answer at least one POI per opposing participant that asks for a POI in Parli), it will impact your speaks and;
--If you are passive and ask no questions in crossfire/CX (or make no POIs in Parli) or sit back and watch during grand crossfire without participating, it will impact your speaks.

Your public speaking and presentation skills matter to me

Your speaking skills and delivery can impact the outcome of the round. Our greatest persuasive communicators are all excellent and compelling speakers. This idea that debate is some monotone recitation with your eyes glued to a piece of paper or a screen while you stand there like a wax statue is absurd. Yes, your arguments and rebuttal of the opposition matter most, but your job does NOT stop there. You must hold the audience's interest too. It is part of the game. That means:

--Speak TO me, do not read AT me;
--Gesture and move to help communicate your arguments;
--Make eye contact;
--Vary your tone and vocal emphasis;
--Show some passion to demonstrate you really believe what you are saying.

I am the official timer of the round unless the rules say otherwise

Unless the tournament rules state otherwise, I am the official timer of the debate. You may use your timer to monitor your speaking time (but you MUST turn off any sounds or alarms or you will be penalized in your speaker points after one warning), but my time governs.

Before each speech or crossfire, I will ask, "is (are) the speaker (participants) ready? Are the opponents ready? Time begins now." At that point, speaking may start. I will announce "time has expired" when the clock runs out. You may finish your sentence if I make that announcement mid-sentence. No more speaking after that unless the tournament rules allow for a grace period or otherwise limit my discretion to end the speech. I will also update both sides about the remaining prep time during the round.

The game is the game

If something is required by the rules of the tournament, do it--if not, game on. If the tournament rules do not require it, then it is up to you if you want to disclose, etc. Arguments about disclosure, debate fairness (other than debatability of the resolution as framed by the affirmatives' definitions), etc., will meet heavy skepticism if the other team is acting within the rules of the tournament and civil behavior. I am agnostic about arguments for and against the actual resolution. I have limited interest in debates about debating--unless that is the topic. You can certainly argue it in front of me if you want, and I will do my best to take it seriously, but in almost every case you would be better served simply debating the topic and then taking up your disclosure/fairness issues with the coaches, tournament directors, and league administrators.

I will not tolerate racism, rudeness, or nonsense

If you make faces, gestures, or otherwise show disdain for the person speaking, know it will negatively impact your score. Also, anything you say or do that demeans the race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., of ANYONE (unless you are directly quoting a relevant source or citation), it WILL ruin your score. It WILL be reported to the tournament authorities.You can (and should) compete both aggressively competitively AND respectfully. It is not a binary.

Stephen Fitzpatrick

Director of Debate, Hackley School

I am primarily a Parli debate coach - that said, over the years I have coached and judged virtually every debate format.

As a former trial attorney, I am looking for clear, persuasive, and intelligible speakers - speed-reading from your computer screen will not impress me. If I can't understand what you are saying, either because of the speed with which you are saying it or due to a lack of explanation, reliance on jargon, and no explicit connection to the resolution, it will be far less likely to impact the round. Beware of reading cases you either did not prepare or do not understand. In Public forum, that will be especially evident during cross-fire. I will flow, but only to the extent I can follow what you are saying. Same goes for any Points of Information or other forms of interrupted speech in other types of format. Be polite, be direct, and be persuasive.

As for evidence, spitting cards at me without tying them explicitly to your arguments and the overall resolution will also have a limited effect. I pay close attention to cross-fire - ask good questions, be generous, listen to your opponent's responses, and respond accordingly. I reward debaters who have a solid understanding of the factual underpinnings of the case as well as basic knowledge of current events, historical precedents, and specific details directly related to your arguments. If one of your contentions requires specialized scientific, legal, or economic principles, make sure you can explain them to clear up misunderstandings and clarify factual disputes.

In a Parli round based predominantly on argumentation rather than concrete factual evidence, make sure you explain your logical connections clearly. None prepped rounds does not mean NO evidence - good examples from history, general summaries of common knowledge, and comparisons ore references to basic factual information all have a place in debate. Tethering your arguments to some sense of how the world actually works is preferably to entirely theoretical arguments that have little grounding in reality.

I will be open to persuasive, integrated cases, and critical impacts. In Public Forum rounds, make sure to summarize the round during final focus. I am not an overly technical judge, so I will take every speech into consideration and even consider arguments in cross-fire to be part the round when making my decision. Speaker scores will range based on a variety of factors, but speaking style, demeanor, and argumentation will all factor in.

Overall, I would be considered a FLAY judge - I abhor the phrase "tech over truth" - debaters who like to earn wins on technical conventions not actually in the rules or use arcane jargon that no one outside the debate world understands will be disappointed with my rulings if their arguments aren't clear and easy to follow.

Background: I've been involved in every area of debate for around 8 years now. I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS, WV) and three semesters of collegiate debate (Marshall University). I am currently a masters student in chemistry at Marshall University. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I coached high school debate for four years during my undergraduate years in Huntington, WV (PF, LD, and Congress). Also broke LD at NSDA (senior, HS), NCFL (Junior, HS), and NFA nationals (Freshman, College).

NFA-LD

I'm fine with speechdrop or an email chain (brndn3379@gmail.com).

High level things for you to know about me: I'm out of the loop on the topic, so don't assume that I know topic specifics (except for the chemistry/physics behind nuclear weapons..). I can keep up with whatever pace you want to go at, but I don't flow off the doc (especially important for T shells and long analytics; if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it). Default competing interps on T/theory, default util, default layering for me is Theory/T > K > plan/CP. Conditionality is good (you can still run condo bad), multi-condo is probably less good. I find myself to be very tech > truth, but also find myself increasingly skeptical of bad arguments that are executed well (this hasn't changed my decisions as of yet). NFA-LD rules is a bad voter generally, but if you are going to use it, then please justify why I should care about the rules. I am probably going to be more tolerant of less serious arguments than most judges, but I'm not going to be happy if those arguments aren't at least executed well.

Disclosure is good, I ran disclosure theory, I will vote on disclosure theory, but a note from me is that I prefer disclosure shells to include in-round resolvability. Basically, if you include something like "if they agree to start posting starting with this round, I'll drop the shell" is what I like to see because I tend to think that 1 - it is the best way to get people on board with disclosure and 2 - there are small school debaters that genuinely may not have known about the norm or how to do it (I was one of them at the start of my collegiate career). It isn't a must (if you make arguments that the lack of disclosure skewed this particular round, that's sufficient for me to vote on disclosure anyways), but it is my general preference.

On T, I typically err on the side that potential abuse is sufficient to vote on T. Proven abuse is always more compelling, but I view T broadly as a test of what the topic should look like, not what it does look like. TVAs are also not essential, but can help for particular AFFs (ones that very much seem to be in the realm of the topic, but your interp seemingly excludes).

Most of the stuff in the below section for HS LD applies to NFA-LD for me, but feel free to ask any specific questions before the round.

LD (HS, Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: If you read anything in my paradigm during the age of online debate, let it be the section on speed please. Extend tags and authors, but if you only want one then do tags. Collapse collapse collapse. Probably don't go for skep or permissibility unless you intend on explaining it (same goes for metaethics in general).

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Deep Phil > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update Debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best. Feel free to top speed cards in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed). Calling speed and clear is not really feasible when you are reading through analytics because I have to tab over and unmute myself, call clear, and then tab back to my flow. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop, email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round in comparison to your opponent's framework. Also, please link arguments to both frameworks when possible, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument in the event you lose framework (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never debated skep/permissibility, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020/21/and 22 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. If you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x, then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it. Conditional Ks often feel like perfcons, but I'm not going to say anything if the AFF doesn't.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only respond to one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and permissibility are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments and the warrants are sensible.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: Much more likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, maybe not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (HS, Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All speeches must respond to the previous speech (except for the 2nd constructive, duh). Defense is not sticky, so respond to it. I'm fine with smaller responses and then blowing them up if your opponents go for that defense in summary/FF. Most specifically, FF should only extend from summary. If it wasn't in summary, it is not going to be on my FF flow. With all this being said, it should be obvious that it is best to collapse early in front of me (you realistically should be doing this in front of any judge, but whatever).

Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.

Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use. Weighing is also important on T/theory, so if you choose to run those, I need a clear idea of why I should care about predictability/limits/ground/etc.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF (but not preferred at all, I am willing to vote on paraphrasing bad). Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me (by this, I mean being hostile about your questioning of my RFD. I am totally fine having a discussion about the round because that can be incredibly valuable, but I don't want an aggressive environment). I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

I am a lay judge who has not done this before.

Truth>>>tech.

Speak slowly. I will be flowing what i can, but it is up to you to make sure I can understand everything.

Signpost as much as possible.

Weigh well. I should know exactly who I am voting for because of what you guys are saying, not because of what I think.

Just be clear, and I will evaluate what I can.

Time yourself.

What I like to hear: when it comes down to it, pacing, and emphasis on important points are key to great speech delivery, and direct refutations are a must

Total old school debater, just prove how you win each stock issue, and be convincing. Speech roadmaps and organization is much appreciated!

Normally, T and Spec arguments mean that the neg doesn't have much to run, but if it is blatantly untopical, ect., go for it.

Spreading/Champ Reading- awesome, as long as you're good at it. don't try spreading if you haven't practiced, ect.

Public Forum- Clarity is important, why your reasoning is most logical, impact/advantage magnitude, weighing

Ks and CPs- Yes. Kritiks are great as long as you make the three parts clear, and I'm a sucker for philosophy Ks. Counterplans are cool, just again compare stock issues, show how you solve better.

Congress- clash is obviously super important judging aspect, speech organization with a brief overview/roadmap is always great

LD-well developed value&criterion, demonstrate steps of refutation

I am a lay judge, I will take notes on the round but I will only flow what I can hear and understand so please slow down. I encourage clear articulation and arguments.

tl;dr i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended, frontline and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at danielgarepisholland@gmail.com.

i debated pf on the circuit my senior year as palo alto gs and am now a freshman at the university of washington.

i will vote on any argument that is warranted and extended through the round. i'm most comfortable with substance debate (including any kind of framing) and basic theory shells. i also am somewhat comfortable evaluating t, cap, sec, setcol, etc. and some k-affs, mainly fem — but not 100% so take that as you wish. i have a pretty low threshold for disclo and paraphrase, higher for round reports etc.

nothing is sticky

speak as fast as you want (if you send a doc). please, please, please just send the doc regardless, it makes the round like 20% faster and is just a good thing to do. you can speak from wherever you want and wear whatever is comfortable.

i would recommend slowing down in summary or whenever you start to read a lot of analytics

don't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it. please give a cw/anonymous opt-out form for triggering arguments

ideally you should disclose on the wiki before round, your speaks may be boosted if you do so, email me before round if you don't know how

please extend all offense in every back-half speech. this includes uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. for turns remember to also extend the rest of the argument if they kick it. no need to extend cards just warrants is fine, don't spend too long on extensions. ideally signpost you're extending the argument so i can just check it off.

you should be collapsing on one or two key pieces of offense in the round, this dramatically increases the chance that you are actually winning the links on these arguments.

the weighing debate is very important to me. i want to see framing, pre-reqs, link ins, and good clash that is resolved through metaweighing. please reserve enough time for weighing and don't just say we win on magnitude and probability weighing. i generally evaluate the link-level and impact debates somewhat separately, so winning your link is a significant advantage.

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.

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) Try to set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 3rd year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu.

TLDR: tech > truth. I will evaluate anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and weighed.

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that case/argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debate washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot. I would also like to preface that this is in the context of a case argument, but I have also happily voted on any type of offense that has followed this structure.

Some overall specifics:

Speed: I am good with PF speed, but it's more important that your opponent is okay with it rather than me. Also, if you are going to be speaking fast please don't sacrifice the quality of the argument for quantity. blippy = bad.

Framework: I am cool with pretty much any framework read in PF, just nothing phil oriented like Kant. If a framework is read, and a counter framework is not read, I will default the framework read. Otherwise, if two opposing frameworks are read, I prioritize pre-fiat offense then post-fiat.I often find teams under prioritizing pre-fiat offense, you should go for these arguments instead of engaging with the post-fiat offense of the framework.

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: I am not insanely versed in the norms of PF, but I think disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I rather not judge a friv debate, if you wanna read one, i probably will not flow it. Otherwise, I have voted for disclosure, paraphrasing, and vague alts. As long as you win some kind of in round abuse, I will probably vote for it.

K’s: This is where I am more comfortable evaluating. I think K teams in PF don’t utilize the alternative to its full potential, please spend time explaining how the alternative resolves the impacts of the K and how it could solve the case. Otherwise I have read into: capitalism, settler colonialism, psycho (lacan), virilio, and security.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution. Also a great way to respond to the K!

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that.

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.

Message me on facebook if you have any questions!

Somethings I really enjoy:
- House music
- Tay-K
- Warrant comparison.

Somethings I dont really enjoy:
- Offensive overviews while speaking 2nd.
- Saying you outweigh on scope when you dont.

Hello, My name is Krista, I am a parent judge from Iowa. This is my first time judging so please speak slowly and clearly. I do not know much about debate but I am excited to see everyone's hard work. Please try to avoid jargon and be kind and respectful with one another.

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

Lay + parent judge

You don’t need to speak super slowly, but do not spread and if you need to speak fast, please articulate well

DO NOT run Ks or theory; I do not know how to evaluate them

I will not flow but I will take some notes

Weighing is necessary to win the round

Be respectful towards your opponents at all times

In cross examination, the goal should be to (politely) seek clarification or to highlight what you believe are analytic or factual weaknesses in their argument; the goal should NOT be to to intimidate, shout down, or otherwise prevent your opponents from actually responding

If you interrupt or otherwise prevent them from responding, I will score the cross in their favor; if they do not meaningfully respond to the substance of your question, I will score it in yours

Well substantiated arguments with explicit or even implicit links to the motion, along with rebuttals that are directly able to attack the core of the other team's case is when I score a debater or team the highest I can. Extra credit given for speech clarity, good speech structure, and (to a lesser degree) proper labelling.

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

Varsity PF (JV/Novice/Middle School is Below):

TL;DR: Standard flow judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- LOCAL CIRCUIT: Disclo and parahrasing theory are not norms, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since local circuits tend to have much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. It is much easier to make rule changes in the local circuit. Thus, I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). I don't think second case ever needs to interact with first case, even in progressive debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. That said, prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

- Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Weighing should be done early. Don't wait until final focus. Metaweigh, too.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No sticky defense.

- I don't flow author names.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- If I have no offense on the flow, I default to the team that would win if I were a lay judge.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..." or "Douthat says..."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as 'rooters' or "nuclear" as 'nook-you-ler' I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant debate partner.

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

I am a parent PF judge and am an attorney and legal consultant.

Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail. When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.

Please do not spread (or talk too quickly). Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive. Please do not use debate jargon.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause. I encourage tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in cross fire.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. The final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (including why I should vote for your side by explaining why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.)

Brentwood ‘23, G in the variations of Brentwood GS. Vandy '27

Add me to the chain: eligripenstraw@gmail.com

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

TL;DR Flow, tech over truth.

*Do well warranted comparative weighing or I will be forced to basically intervene-If there is no weighing I will have to intervene for the team who I think won the most case offense and speaks will go down.

Warrant all your responses it will help you so much

Frontline in second rebuttal

Final mirror Summary

I've noticed that I am much less inclined to vote for a team if they skip extensions or just give an unwarranted blip. Please read extensions in summary and final

Read innovative and fun arguments I’ll vote on almost anything

I’ll evaluate Ks if needed but not the greatest experience with them and no promises for evaluating them correctly

Theory is fine, I literally have no preferences for specific shells but generally friv theory leads to boring rounds

Default to reasonability and yes RVIs(so read warrants)

I do enjoy reasonability but this shouldn’t scare away theory teams as long as you warrant competing interps

Speed is fine if you can actually enunciate and send a doc. However, if you spread unwarranted or paraphrased evidence I will drop your speaks heavily

I will give my RFD basically no matter what

I time every speech and stop flowing when the time elapses but you can keep speaking for another five minutes I don't really care.

***Impact turns are my favorite argument so read them. 30s if you win Quebec secession

Crossfire is generally boring, a moral dilemma can make it not boring.

Please have fun and try to enjoy the round

If both teams agree, we can have a full lay round and speaks will start at 29.5. See this paradigm for how I will evaluate the round

If you want more info here are some people I generally agree with or you can just ask me before the round

Nihar Sanku

Sully Mrkva

William Hong

Random Specific Stuff

I really do not enjoy the phrase "intervening actors solve"

-Who are these intervening actors? If you explain that then this response will be effective

A great way to improve your speaks and make your opponent's lives more difficult is to add your own highlights to your opponent's evidence to prove an argument

Making strategic concessions in the back half and collapsing well is the best way to win my ballot

Please chill in cross, it is not going to impact the round that much and getting angry will only hurt your speaks.

I am a parent judge in Public Forum. I am uninterested in technicalities. I don't want you to talk too fast. I care that everyone speak respectfully to each other and to me. I will award the win to the side that presents the case I find most convincing.

I am also a professional historian who keeps up with current events. Your claims need to be supported with evidence from reputable sources.

Read Keith Macias's paradigm - I agree with him

I would generally consider myself tech over truth, but I will be at least somewhat upset if you say crazy stuff

Will call for sources even if they were not disputed, but dw its more out of interest than any attempt at intervention

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

I am a parent judge, this is my first time judging.

Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener. Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made), and why your side should prevail.

Truth over tech.

Don't speak excessively fast.

Frameworks must be warranted.

Keep things respectful!

Logical articulation.

Hi, my name is Naga, and I'll be your judge today!

As a judge, I will be impartial and be objective in my decision. Please note that I am a parent judge and therefore do not know most debate or topic terminologies. You can use certain obvious debate jargon like turn, probability, or non-unique, but do not use terms that non-debaters will not be able understand. Please explain the points you are making, such as why it is a non-unique or why it is a turn, so I can understand the point you are trying to make. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision.

The way I will judge will be thoughtful and analytical. I value tech over truth and follow the sky is red theory, meaning if an argument may be inherently flawed, but it is warranted and front-lined well and has a clear and quantifiable impact, I will buy it. The way I judge a round is first looking at who won the main arguments or clashes of the round, and I "award" these contentions or arguments to each of the teams based on who wins them. Then, I vote the contentions based on the quantified impacts and the relevance towards the round (aka the weighing debate). I expect you to do the heavy lifting for me, meaning you need to weigh these impacts and explain why you win the clashes of the round yourself.

In summary, to win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis. Most likely, I will not vote for a contention that does not quantify the impact because I need to see the impact put into perspective.There are exceptions, but majority of the time, I expect clear link chains, evidence, and a quantifiable impact.

In crossfire, I expect to see that you allow your opponents air time to express their points and answer your questions. I will penalize you for being abusive towards your opponents, so remember to be respectful towards your opponents and towards me as a judge. I will not tolerate any statement that is extremely racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.

In this debate, I hope not only to be a fair judge, but also learn a lot about these topics. Good luck!

I formerly debated and coached LD (high school level) and Parliamentary (college level).

I judge traditionally. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the resolution topic. I look for compelling arguments and responses. I will be inclined against tricks, theory, etc.

I listen and take notes during cross.

If you tell me that you win the round on some point in the final speech, I expect the point to have been well developed throughout the round.

You may want to explain or simply avoid debate lingo. I prefer intuitive explanations over excessive reliance on shorthand like "framework," "claim," "warrant," "impact," and other terms not commonly used outside debate. You should assume I won't know them. Good explanations accomplish each of those things without specialized, confusing jargon.

Speed is a negative. I prefer a speed comfortable for a non-trained person to understand your point.

Treat your opponents with respect.

Most of all, have fun!

please don’t spread! i can keep up alright but you’re likely to lose me if you talk too fast.

Hello. I am a relatively new parent judge. I am hoping for a constructive, positive, respectful debate. Please speak slowly. I also appreciate an "off-time road map" detailing how your speech will be laid out before you begin. Good luck! Looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I have just finished debating APDA at Brown. After graduating, I will be coaching PF and Policy debate in Taiwan on a Fulbright. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable, have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

I have some judging experiences in Public Forum debate. I am a university faculty member and have been teaching and researching for over twenty years. My education, teaching, and research background is primarily in business operations management.

My way of judging public forum debate focuses on the logics of the arguments.
· prefer slower pace than faster pace – it is not about how much information you send out, it will be how much information your audience or judges receive
· extend on no more than two points please
· being professional and calm is one important factor
· respecting your opponents and be considerate on time is important to me, especially during the crossfire
· weighs equally on both evidence and analytics, when presenting the analytics, please be cautious on the context or assumption of the data, using extreme case to argue is not recommended

Hey I’m Daniel! I did debate for all 4 years of highschool, specializing in WSD with significant experience in PF, LD, and Congress.

I'm pretty blank slate, just don’t run some stupid theory. Above all just don’t be stupid and don’t be rude.

My email for email chains is dhearne04cb@gmail.com

PF: No abusive theory, be careful abt Ks. Weighing matters most

LD: Anything goes. More aggression works in LD, just again be careful not to be rude. The better your opponent, the more aggressive you can be.

WSD: Jokes are good, just don't be unkind. I'm of the strong opinion that a motion's exigency should be explicitly discussed in most rounds, it's extremely useful for providing fair and objective framing. Comparative analysis matters most in any given round unless it's just a truth testing motion. Also, taking a brief moment to clarify the mechanics of a model/countermodel goes a long way.

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

I'm an electrical engineer and currently am Global Director of Safety Services at Schneider Electric

Email: sfarshadh@gmail.com

General:

1. I'm a lay judge (considering the evidence in each debate in a reasonable and common sense manner to reach a decision )

2. Don't be offensive. Respect your opponent.

3. Signpost & be clear.

4. No spreading - If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge.

Remember - Speech & Debate is about having fun!

Good luck!

I am a parent judge with no prior experience in debate.

Because I am not very experienced, please do not use a lot of debate jargon.

Things I Don't Like:

• Spreading (please do not speak fast. If I can't hear your argument, I won't flow it.)
• Do NOT bring up new points in final focus. If new points are brought up then, I won't flow that and the arguments will just fall short.
• Please be sure to extend your links and explain them CLEARLY. If I can't understand your logic, you won't be winning the round. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Things I Like:

• Weighing (weighing is very important for me to base my decision on. Please weigh starting as early as rebuttal throughout final focus to win my ballot. A team with no weighing will be difficult for me to vote for.
• Clear speech (as stated, if I don't hear what you said, I won't vote off of it.)
• Off-time road maps are very useful
• Frontlining

Having said that, obviously, be civil to each other. Good luck debaters!

I debated in high school.

I primarily debated PF for three years in the Wisconsin state circuit.

Spread at your own risk, I only flow what I can hear/get down.

I prefer a solidly framed traditional debate, do give a framework and weigh. Tell me why you are winning and how it impacts the framework.

Theories and Kritiks: also run at your own risk. I never ran them in high school and don't really know how to evaluate them.

Speaker points: please be kind and respectful to your opponents! If you are out of pocket or mean it will be reflected in your speaks and potentially in the ballot.

Hello! I am your typical lay judge, but a few things:

• Speak slowly; It is more important that I understand your arguments and points than having more coverage of the flow
• Quality > quantity - don't go for every single argument that you read in case, because it makes summary and final focus crowded and confusing
• Be nice and respectful to your opponents. Don't speak over your opponents in cross and be polite. Rudeness will not be tolerated and will result in low speaker points and an automatic loss.
• truth > tech - arguments should not be super unrealistic and should have some logical reasoning.
• Weighing is important! Every argument is relative and nothing is absolute, so comparing the different points in the round will be very helpful in my ballot.
• If you are disrespectful, rude, or generally just way too aggressive, no questions asked, I will drop you.

I have a hard time following cases and clarity is often times sacrificed in a debate round, so send me as many speech documents as possible (most importantly case and rebuttal). The email is hutianle@gmail.com

I am not a formally trained debater. Please do not spread, and explain your logic clearly. Refrain from using fancy debate terms, I will not understand them.

important: please do not read arguments pertaining to child porn/anything that terminalize to sexual violence in front of me. human trafficking with a non sv ! is okay. 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:

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

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.

asking qs for clarification/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

dont be a jerk. 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

generally please dont yell that much, calm down it aint that deep ???? just be calm and normal please

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

dont be sexist.

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.

try to fr tag your cards. "specifically," is not a tag. tags are full sentences

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

24 = 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. no warrant isnt a warrant

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.

ld:

i have very limited knowledge about this event. explain what jargon is because chances are its different from cx or pf. please please please signpost

if u have any qs ask me before the round and i will try to answer accordingly

phil: prob not

nibs: ?? no

tricks: no

speed: fine

larp: fine

k: fine

theory: fine

BE CLEAR. I WILL YELL CLEAR TWICE BEFORE I STOP FLOWING.

I am a parent judge with no direct debate experience. Please speak at a normal pace and I will take notes along the way. During the debate round, I pay special attention to the dynamics of the interactions among debate teams and how well the partners collaborate as a team.  

Hi,

Please speak clearly and slow enough for me to understand you, as if I can't understand what you are saying your arguments will not be heard. Constant interrupting also will not go over well with me-- let your opponent finish their thought. Good luck!

Hi- I'm a fourth time parent judge and I'm very excited to see all of your hard work and preparation! A few preferences:

• Don't talk too fast
• Keep your own time (but hold yourselves and each other accountable)
• I like clear, quantifiable impacts that easily give me a place to vote
• Please signpost- if I don't know what you're responding to, it's hard to vote off of your points
• Weigh your impacts!!
• Be polite
• I do NOT judge on cross

Remember that I have very little knowledge about this topic, your arguments should be well explained and evidenced enough that I can fully understand them.

I competed in public forum debate and congress at Shrewsbury High School for four years and competed on the national circuit during my senior year.

How I Vote: I vote by resolving the weighing debate and then looking at who best links into the weighing. If both teams weigh, please use meta-weighing to help me resolve the round. I presume for the neg/squo.

Preferences:

1. Well-warranted, analytical arguments are better than unwarranted, blippy card dumps. Well-warranted carded arguments still trumps all.
2. Start weighing early.
3. Most speeds are fine as long as you are clear. Do not use it as a tool to exclude.
4. Theory should only be used to check back egregious abuse in the round. If you plan on reading theory, please read standards.
5. Paraphrasing is fine but do not misconstrue evidence.
6. I usually only call for evidence if it is really important by the end of the round and the interpretation is contested in the round OR if an indict is extended all the way through the round.
7. Just tell me where to start before speeches from rebuttal onward. Roadmaps are fine but not too long.
8. Overviews are fine in either rebuttal but don’t make them too long (<30 sec), especially in second rebuttal. The exception is weighing overviews, those rock!
9. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all turns- I would be happy to see teams frontline defense as well but it is not required.
10. All summaries need to extend full link chain and impact, just frontlining an argument is not extending.
11. 1st summary only needs to extend offense but not defense, as long as it is not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal
12. 2nd summary is required to weigh, no new weighing in 2nd FF
13. Consistency between summary and final focus is important
14. Clarity of impact weighing doesn't exist
15. Yelling a bunch of buzzwords like scope and magnitude is not weighing

Speaks: I give speaks on how strategic a team is during the round. Make good decisions and you will get good speaks. If you are overly aggressive or rude during the round your speaks will take a significant hit. If you have completely lied about evidence, your speaks will tank as well. Expect a L0 if you make any ___ist arguments

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now do collegiate BP and coach/judge PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com.

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ).

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Embrace the human element of speaking and don't turn into a robot in speech.

My paradigm is disgustingly long, so, if you are just doing a trad round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

Debate is a game- play to win and have some fun.

WEIGHING❤️-

• Weigh early and intentionally. Just saying I outweigh on scope so you should vote for me is barely anything. Name dropping STIMP is boring and usually promotes non comparative weighing. Think harder and deeper in your weighing if you can. Obviously these things are the building blocks of weighing and will be involved but don't expect saying "ours happens first so we outweigh on timeframe" to convince me to vote for you.

• I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args or shorthand impacts- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom. If I hear another "miscalc leads to nuclear war which leads to extinction" in case I'm going cry. I need proper scenarios rather than fearmongering. Do the work on your impacts in case and I'll be very forgiving on late round extensions.
• Good Analytics> mid cards any day

SPEED ❤️-

I will not flow spreading nor will I flow off a doc (I like it when you send a doc but I won’t flow exclusively from it). I don't mind you talking fast and can flow faster than your average judge, but I don't enjoy flowing the absurd. The only time you should be using speed is for depth, not spamming arguments. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

• Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
• I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.

THEORY-

Theory is usually boring. I think it is only reasonable as a defensive mechanism against unreasonable Ks or framing. I don't mind paraphrasing and I think that too few teams think critically about the values of disclosure. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much.

It is my expectation that any debater in varsity on the nat circuit can defend against theory. This does not mean beating up on first time nat circuit debaters is a good idea for me, I will tank your speaks for it. It just means "I don't know how to respond" will never be any form of defense.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am becoming increasingly open to these arguments when they are run well.

The Non Topical K

If we can link everything in debate (even organic agriculture) to nuke war then you can link every topic to feminism, the patriarchy, cap, etc. I think the ability to link these in are an important skill for a K debater. You can try to change my mind, I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I am just trying to be honest about how much I will demand from them.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are super complicated. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is going to be really hard for me to vote.

If you do run a K with me then just remember -- You don't get to drop all efforts at persuasion because you are running a K. You don't have policy time so don't make policy arguments. Get depth not breadth. Also, please do some scenario building with your alt. Political theory and critical lit is great but I need some level of situation specific analysis (otherwise this isn't really debate, just an endless synopsis of your authors)

A well run, persuasive K with a based alt makes for a very fun round. If you believe this is what you have come to the round with, fire away.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUNDING

I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been).

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

I need two pieces of paper to flow on.

Hey, I’m Ethan. I debated at Myers Park BJ on the nat circuit for 4 years. I am now a sophomore at Emory and coach for Canyon Crest Academy.

Add me to the chain- ethan.jacobs@emory.edu

TL;DR- Run anything you think will win. I adapt to you but have some quality-of-life preferences.

Speed- I don’t flow with docs but you can read as fast as you want. Any PF speed should be fine. The burden is on you to enunciate. I will only say clear twice.

Evidence Exchange- Please send speech docs with evidence before speeches to keep ev exchange timely.

Trad Stuff

Weighing- Having a good argument is not enough, it needs to be better than your opponents. Saying “We have the biggest number” is not enough. Why is having the biggest number important in the context of the round? I think teams should be creative about link-ins, prereqs etc to avoid being “nuked” out of the round by large impacts. I think framework debates are underutilized in PF and appreciate teams that use them (this does not mean you should frantically add a framework to your case before the round).

Presentation- Be persuasive. That means use persuasive examples, slow down on important points, and use rhetoric to your advantage. This doesn't mean I'm a fake tech I just want you to be really good at explaining your warrants. You will lose a lot of speaks if you doc bot the whole round. Read your good prep but you should be using your head in the backhalf to make strategic choices. Good analytics>bad cards every time.

Prog Stuff

Theory- Feel free to run theory. Please keep these debates organized. I want the shell extended but idc if its word for word. I am most familiar with disclosure and paraphrasing shells, but am fine evaluating anything as long as its not clearly frivolous. I strongly believe that teams should read a CI against shells, RVI's should only be reserved for extremely friv theory. Try to keep your shells below 250 WPM.

Biases: I don’t think disclosure is necessary but think most disclo rounds I judge go to the team that initiated the theory. Paraphrasing is bad, but I think debates about the norm are fun and I will not hack for it. Anything else I do not have strong feelings.

Topical K’s- Feel free to run these arguments. The most important thing for me is that you make the argument accessible to everyone in the round. If you are reading complicated cards with a lot of jargon, please spend the time to clarify arguments for me and your opponents. I do not like when teams use policy cards that don’t form coherent sentences. Do not skimp on extensions, every part of the K should be extended with proper warrants to win. Any ROTB is fine with me, but I appreciate it when debaters engage with each other on this issue. I am most familiar with Security, if you are reading anything else assume I know nothing. I will listen closely in cross but do not flow (if you ask me to I will). Try to not speak too fast, keep in mind that K literature is not my expertise.

Non-Topical K- See most of the “topical K section”, almost all of it applies here. Please justify why you are non-topical in the first speech. I don't like unrealistic alts- I think non-topical arguments are most valid when they remind us that things need to be changed in our world and would like to hear your best ideas on how to achieve that change. I am very receptive to vague alts bad arguments. Tbh the more I judge the less I worry about the norms that these arguments break. Have fun and do your thing.

Post round me if you want- I submit before I give my RFD though.

I have been a coach for over 10 years , but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not address your opponents contentions and extend and show the impacts of your own.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents, I will dock your speaks and drop you if you act like a bully. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

Hi! I'm a sophomore at Yale. I was a 4-year high school PFer who also judged novice and JV frequently (probably more than I debated).

I flow thoroughly, and what I've got down for summary and FF almost exclusively determines the content of my ballot. So, please, extend your claims, warrants, IMPACTS, and most crucial cards if you want them counted, and don't drop your opponent's responses.

Also, if you're going to spread, just make sure that your opponents can handle the speed you're going at.

I will read evidence if it is crucial to the round, incredibly dubious, or if a team asks me to.

Nothing peeves me more than condescension and rudeness. Other than this, I have no esoteric preferences, but feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Thanks!

Hi - my paradigm is a work in progress.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I will be looking for cohesive reasoning. I prefer expanding on a few ideas over many ideas delivered quickly.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Good luck !

I'm a parent of a PF debater and have taken the role of judge in PF debate for two years.

Some preference below:

1. Analytical, logical and evidence.
2. Clear presentation, structure and signpost.
3. Engage with the arguments presented by your opponent.
4. Logical argumentation with good clash on the topic. Not constantly reading material.
5. Speak at moderate speed, but not top speed.

Experience: Two years of policy in high school, just finished fourth year of APDA/BP in college at UChicago.

Theory: It's annoying, I will vote on it if necessary but will be looking for other places to vote, so be convincing if you do run it.

I am tech > truth, but please still substantiate and warrant your arguments, if they are not warranted then it will reflect in speaks and decision and will impact how the round is weighed. Dropped arguments are absolutely conceded, but make them good arguments to begin with. Crazy arguments are fine if you give warrants (e.g. you must convince me that the U.S. has one billion nukes, instead of simply asserting it). I will not vote on good arguments for which warrants were not given if I can help it.

Evidence: I am of the mind that evidence should support your arguments, they should not be your arguments. That is, you can say "X will happen because Y source says Z occurs, and Z causes X." This is a fully fleshed out argument, and then you can weigh X against other impacts. Obviously the way your arguments and evidence is constructed will probably vary a lot, and that's fine. Being convincing is the most important part so this is not a hard and fast rule.

Framework: Give one if you want, otherwise I just use cost-benefit analysis. Conceded frameworks are taken as true and I will use them to vote on the round; if you're giving a counter framework then you must prove why yours is better.

Generally: Collapse strategically and on what you win on; my ballot is decided by what are in the final speeches. If you talk about something in those speeches, I take that as a sign that you want me to vote on that issue. Some speed is ok if you're clear, if I can't hear then the things I didn't hear just won't be on my flow.Do not spread. I prefer live docs with speech docs/evidence pasted before each speech, including rebuttals and summary. On crossfire, I am not flowing but I am listening, and if you want to use a crossfire response in your speech then by all means please do.

Don't just say the name of a card. Have a very brief summary of what the card says because that is how I remember it.

And weigh, weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

Be nice and respectful, use the proper pronouns, give content warnings where needed. Just be a decent person please; not being a decent person will be reflected in speaks and/or in decision. And of course, have fun :)

Email: samuel.johnson.fop@gmail.com

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

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

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

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

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

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

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

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

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

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

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

PF

I am a relatively new parent judge with little previous experience in debate.

Truth >> Tech

Please use little debate jargon and speak slowly. I won’t be flowing, so clearly summarize arguments in the back-half. Time yourself and warrant arguments well. I will vote for the team with the most persuasive arguments and professional presence.

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

1) Slow and steady speed

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

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

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

Hey, I am relatively new to judging.
Please speak at a normal pace, I cannot keep up with people who speak too fast.
Good luck :)

I am a lay judge, I have limited experience as judge. I am a Dentist by profession.

Though I might have my personal opinions about any given topic, I will make sure my personal bias will not influence my decisions in the tournament. I will make sure my decisions will totally depend on the contestants knowledge, ability, competency and technical details of the topic given. I expect mutual expect between participants. Please speak clear and do not speak too fast, I want to make sure I follow what you are saying. Please be polite when you speak and do not interrupt the other speaker. I like the participants share their case to my email ravikanth23@gmail.com so that i can go over and will make sure i am not missing anything.

For Speaker Points:

1. Please be loud and clear.
2. Conversational speed talking.
3. Eye contact.

I’m a parent judge.

Some things to consider during the round:

1. Please don’t spread. I won’t know what you're saying and if I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.

2. Ask useful questions during crossfire, I think the ability to respond on the fly is important. However, I won’t consider anything said during crossfire unless it is said during a subsequent speech.

3. Please don’t introduce new arguments during final focus. It is especially not fair for the 1st speaking team if they don't have a chance to response.

4. Read an arguments backed with warrants and cards from credible resources and authors, and tell me why you prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence.

5. Collapsing is important. Quality>Quantity. It is much better if you have one really good one that you focus the round on. Make your argument simple yet powerful.

6. Weighing is very important. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s do.

7. If any false, fake, or misconstrued evidence is run on purpose, I WILL drop you. Debate should be educational, and fake evidence hurts the purpose of this activity. If you believe that your opponents have run misconstrued or fake evidence, please call for the card.

8. As I’ve mentioned, I’m a lay judge, so I don’t understand most pf jargons. I think debate is about persuading normal people with a decent education, so try to make it so even “normal” parents can understand and vote for you.

With everything said, debate should be a fun, educational, extracurricular activity. Try to have fun and please be respectful to your opponents. But most of all, have fun!

Hello everyone,

I am a parent of a sophomore attending TJHSST. I prefer debaters to explain their arguments slower and more clearly. I will be taking notes on the debate.

Wish you the best!

Mrs.Kanjarla

I am a relatively new parent judge.

I would prefer that you speak slowly and understandably.

Please weigh and use good evidence ethics throughout the round.

I will judge based on how well each team argued and defended their point.

Hello,

My name is Atul Kapoor. I am a lay judge with a solid amount of judging experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace with emphasis on quality of your argument rather than quantity. Do not spread and do not overload your speech with debate jargon. I will do my best to judge only off what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Please add me to the email chain at kapoor.atul@gmail.com.

I don't base my judgment on your crossfire, so please don't use it to persuade me. Crossfire is for you to understand your opponent's case and address it in your next speeches. Pretend I'm not listening during crossfire. Make your case in the next speech.

If you're presenting an extinction argument, make sure it's believable. For instance, arguing that affirming or negating healthcare for all could lead to nuclear war and extinction seems far-fetched. If your opponents present an extension argument that seems implausible, address it. It shouldn't only be me thinking it's not plausible.

I assess your speaker points based on clarity, articulation, appropriate speed, and eye contact.

I will do my best to disclose my decision when I am allowed to, and will leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, remember to have fun and be respectful to your opponents!

Best of luck!

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 have 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!

My Background

I coached for about 10 years at Diablo Valley College, where I coached Paliamentary debate (NPDA), IPDA, and NFA-LD. I've coached High School Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress for about 6 years now. I co-run a Youtube channel called Proteus Debate Academy, where I talk about debate.

I try to write as much feedback on ballots as I can, both in terms of advice and explaining how and why I made the decision I made.

Let's have a fun round with good vibes and great arguments.

What I Like Most to See in Rounds

Good link refutation and good weighing. In most rounds (that don't involve theory and so on) I'm left believing that some of the aff's arguments flow through and some of the neg's arguments flow through. Your impact weighing will guide how I make my decision at that point.

What I don't mind seeing

I'm comfortable with theory debate. I don't live and die for it, but sure, go for those arguments if they're called for.

If you're not familiar with the exact structure and jargon of a theory argument, all you need to know is that if you think your opponent did something unfair are bad for education, I would need to know (a) what you think debaters ought to do in those situations, (b) what your opponent did wrong that violates that expectation, (c) why your model for how debate should be is better than theirs, and (d) why you think that's a serious enough issue that your opponent should lose the whole round for it.

What You Should be Somewhat Wary of Running

I understand Kritiks. I've voted on many Ks, I'll probably vote on many more. But with that said, it's worth mentioning that I have a high propensity to doubt the solvency of most kritiks' alternatives. If you're running the Kritik, it might be really important to really clearly explain: who does the alt? What does doing the alt actually entail in literal terms? How does doing the alternative solve the harms outlined in the K?

If your K claims to have an impact on the real world, I should have a say in whether I want to cause that real world effect. I'm not gonna make decisions in the "real world" based on someone happening to drop an argument and now I have to murder the state or something.

How am I on speed?

I can keep up with speed. If you're going too fast, I'll call slow. With that said, it's important to me that your debating be inclusive: both of your opponent and your other judges. I encourage you to please call verbally say "slow" if your opponent is speaking too quicklyfor you to understand.Please slow down if that happens.If your opponent does not accommodate your request to slow down, please tell me in your next speech if you feel their use of speed harmed your ability to engage with the debate enough that they should be voted down for it. It's very likely that I'll be receptive to that argument.

Other Debate Pet Peaves

Evidence sharing in evidenciary debate formats. Have your evidence ready to share. If someone calls for a card, it's not acceptable for you to not have it or for it to take a lifetime to track the card down.

Please feel free to ask me more in-person about anything I've written here or about anything I didn't cover!

My name is Angelica and I am a third year university student! I competed in both JV Public Forum and Varsity Public Forum in high school and served as the President of the team. I am very excited to be judging! I thoroughly enjoy taking note of the inclusion of policy and theory when progressive debating, as I have found it to be more customary in the current public forum sphere. Nonetheless, I also positively annotate traditional style debating, including value oriented argument. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of both. I do not mind a faster pace when speaking, as long as words are clear and annunciated. I also enjoy the inclusion of framework for clarity, but please explain your arguments to the fullest, but most concise extent while adhering to your framework if choosing to do so. Off-time road maps are also allowed and welcome!

With that being said, it is possible to still have a round which centers around the resolution, even if the two teams present have different styles of argument. So please, focus more on presenting your case to the fullest extent of your ability and arguing points of substance during cross, not semantics or pointing out 'an incorrect style' of debate. Good luck and most importantly, have fun!

***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.

I am a parent judge and have been judging since Fall 2022.
I am a physician and health policy researcher.

I find that the best debaters present clear and logical arguments that are supported by strong evidence and important impacts. Regarding evidence, I don't need to be included on evidence chains; rather, I will expect you and your opposing team to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence presented.

Some additional suggestions.

1. Talk clearly and at a normal speed. I will flow the round and need to be able to understand the points you are making.
2. Keep track of your own time. I will also time speeches. If you go over, please finish your sentence. If you go more than 5-10 seconds over, I will put down my pen and stop writing and not capture what you are saying.
3. Please be clear about your warrants and impact (signpost).
4. Off-time road maps aren’t required but are appreciated.
5. Your summary and final focus should be paralleled, and I will ignore any new points brought up in either.
6. Speaker points will be lower for any debaters who are rude or disrespectful to opponents.
7. No K's, theory, or trix.
8. Have fun!

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Please email your case ahead of the round to dlaynekelly@gmail.com If I can preflow ahead of time, it will help me during the round. I want to know your contentions ahead of time.

Please do not spread; I want to understand your words and ideas clearly. If you spread, I will dock speaker points.

I appreciate logical, sequential arguments. Make sure throughout the round you are clearly explaining to me what your argument is and why it matters.

Present clear framework.

State impacts clearly.

Make sure during your speech, you are sign posting. Otherwise, I will have a hard time following your argument.

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant.

Don’t run theory or k; I tend to vote for logical, warranted out evidence.

Make sure you convince me in your final focus why you should win. I will weigh heavily on that. Basically, your FF should write my RFD

Be respectful in words and actions to your opponents. If you interrupt, cut them off, or speak over them, I will dock speaker points

Do your best and have fun!

Speech Events:

I value your ability to communicate your ideas in a well organized structure. A good speaker is one that is able to keep the audience engaged but also has good ideas and argumentation that flows with good transitions, sources, and analysis. There shouldn’t be any holes in your speech where I’m able to question the credentials of the author or their research or their analysis or any other number of things.

Debated. Did okay. Don't care about debate anymore.

Speech docs would be helpful and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

FOR NCFLS:I've never watched a policy round in my life, treat me like a 5 year old (some of them are probably smarter than me).

IMPORTANT: Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when you do all of the pet peeves in a round. For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing, strike me.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Truth over tech, please for the love of all that is holy have warranting

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Totally new Weighing in the first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier

- Make your weighing comparative, don't just use buzzwords like "we outweigh on scope" — that means nothing to me; there should be comparison and actual warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in the summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

-Theory: Don't read it, I'll drop you. If there is actual abuse that needs to be covered, you don't need a theory shell.

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Pet Peeves

- Saying "My time starts on my first word". No really? I thought it started on your fourth word.

- Saying "We're gonna take some running prep." As opposed to walking prep? Where's the prep going? Just take prep, and tell me how much you took after.

- Giving a really long off-time roadmap, and then not even sticking to it. PF rounds are often pretty linear, you can just tell me what side of the flow you're starting on

Fun Stuff

If you do a 360 jump and call it a massive 180 when you read a turn: +0.5 speaks

The Office jokes in speeches: +0.5 speaks

Hey everyone!

I am a graduate of Fordham University in the Bronx, and am very excited to be judging! I attended Nova High where, senior year, I founded and coached our Lincoln Douglas team, so I have a very extensive, but not completely exhaustive, understanding of LD. I am very well versed in debate events- freshman & sophomore year I competed in congress and junior year in PF. So I'm great at following logic- if you are going to run something tricky I'm totally capable to judge it, just make sure you explain it well.

Clear warrants and weighing mechanisms are extremely important to me. Please give me a means to evaluate what you are arguing. Keep my flow clean. Signpost.

I'm pretty much open to anything you wanna throw at me. With a few limitations of course. If you are at all sexist, racist, homophobic, or rude to your opponent, expect me to call you out and don't expect speaks higher than 25. I'm fine with speed to an extent- if you want to spread that's completely fine, just don't expect me to get every word down. If it's important, you better bring it up in your later speeches. I love to hear out of the box arguments - in high school, I ran a rage fem K - so I love to hear new and progressive ideas.

I'm sure I left out some things here so I'll be posting updates, but feel free to email me with any questions!

-Julia Kennedy

juliakennedy97@gmail.com

Background: I was a PF debater from 2014-2016 on the local and national circuit. I also participated in a variety of speech events through NSDA tournaments as well as the IHSSA, including spontaneous, public speaking (IHSSA), and expository address (IHSSA). I am a recent University of Iowa grad (go Hawks!) and am pursuing a career as an actuary.

Debate Preferences:

• In the rebuttal, the team which speaks second should both attack the opposing team's case and defend their own case against attacks by the opposing team.
• Please collapse the round in the second half. If your opponents decimated one of your arguments and you don't have adequate defense, don't waste your time trying to prop it up. The most successful debaters are those who understand the context of their round and can pivot to frame the round around elements they are winning.
• Essential defense should be extended in the first Summary.
• If something is not mentioned in the Summary, it will not be flowed in Final Focus.
• I really appreciate voters in Summary and Final Focus.
• Weighing makes my job a lot easier. If no weighing occurs, you lose control of the round.
• I do not flow crossfire. If something important happens in cross, tell me in a speech.

Speaking Preferences:

• Organization: Please signpost whenever possible. Good organization helps me make a fairer decision and usually results in a better round of debate.
• Speed: I can handle moderate speed, but if you speak too fast, I may not be able to flow everything. Remember -- this is PF, not Policy or LD. Your clarity and eloquence will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please slow down on author names and dates so I can keep track of evidence in the flow.

Evidence:

• I prefer that evidence be initially introduced by direct quote, but if you must paraphrase, please ensure you represent the evidence accurately with regard to its meaning, intent, and context. In later speeches, feel free to (accurately) paraphrase but make sure all evidence is connected to an author or organization for flowing purposes.
• After frequently dealing with teams using inaccurately paraphrased evidence during my time as a debater, I have zero tolerance for bad evidence. I will call for evidence at the end of the round if there is any question as to its credibility. Please have evidence either as a cut card or highlighted in a PDF. If I conclude that evidence has been misrepresented, I will drop it from the flow and drop speaker points as appropriate.

Arguments:

• While I am open to any argument, I am not very familiar with how to evaluate arguments that deal with Ks/theory/etc. You will have to work harder to explain to me why I should care (and slow down, please).
• Creative/unexpected arguments can be fun, but they still need to be well-supported, well-warranted, and impactful to be effective.

Other Items:

• I will do my best to keep time, but please time yourselves as well to keep everyone accountable.
• Please be respectful to your opponents. The inability to do so will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please add me to the email chain: kepner.collin@gmail.com
• Feel free to ask me questions about what you have read here! Debate is an educational activity, and adapting to your audience is an important skill that you will utilize for the rest of your life.

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.

I’m a parent judge, and this is my third year in debate. I try my best to heed the counsel of acting like an uninformed, impartial juror in assessing performance, awarding speaker points, and deciding on the winner. To do well, please:

- Speak clearly and at a normal speed

- Present a logical argument where it’s easy to follow your main contentions and supporting points

- Be consistent in your arguments in each speaker phase

- Use an off-time road map for extra clarity

- When weighing, please make believable assertions. I do internally roll my eyes when a student makes an unsupportable assertion (e.g., "this will save 100 million lives")

- Be respectful of your opponents – let them speak, minimize interruptions, positive body language. Rudeness, disrespectful behavior, or passive-aggressiveness will not be rewarded

- Relax and have fun

Not that I’ve ever experienced this as a judge, but anything said that's homophobic, ableist, racist, etc. is going to result in a "L" for your ballot and lowered speaker points

I am a tabula rasa judge. 

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and hopefully LD soon. I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

Come learn debate from me: NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes from a legendary coach that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

I judge for three reasons:

1. I love debate and enjoy judging.
2. Judging great debaters allows me to grow as a coach and judge.
3. Fulfilling my team's obligation.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm...

Public Forum: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive." Good luck!

Lincoln-Douglas:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 2

Tricks: 3

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of (1) case & (2) all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, Spark, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framework and specific weighing mechanisms. Probably don't go for presumption in substance rounds, I have literally never seen zero risk aside from egregious drops/concessions (in which case you're winning anyway).

(Side note: I'm confused at the number of judges who include "I presume [aff/neg] assuming no offense" in their paradigms in PF specifically. Where are these rounds occurring where neither side extends a single offensive argument through every speech? This always comes across like judge intervention to me.)

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want, although I will not flow off a speech doc so you do actually have to be clear and intelligible

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards. Let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

I have begun to coach LD. I will wear my debater's Des Moines Hoover Husky Howler Novice LD tournament champion ribbon with pride for all eternity. (:

My bread and butter is PF, but I plan on mostly judging LD at tournaments in '24-'25 as our program doesn't really have people who would be competent national circuit LD judges.

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

Full disclosure: I am still learning natcirc LD. However, I've watched hundreds of these types of rounds (+ HS/college policy) on YouTube and am confident in my ability to evaluate debates. You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Not confident in evaluating performance or academic philosophy, this would probably require lots of warranting, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me. Go as fast as you want as long as you're flowable (I will not flow off a doc) and make it a great round that showcases your preferred debate strategies.

I will default to voting on offense extended through the round, but judge instruction can convince me to vote on almost anything. Please attempt to write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Ask me questions ahead of time for any clarifications.

I value the intellectual freedom that debate provides -- running arguments and justifications that exist outside the academic norm is one of the event's true benefits. To help illustrate this, here are some arguments and whether I'd vote on them IF I felt they won on the flow:

Ontology: yes
Wiki theory (disclosure, round reports, etc.): yes
Spark: yes
Wipeout: yes but I think even the most basically competent debaters can and should beat it
Truth-Testing: yes but I'm still wrapping my head around it, not intuitive to me
Presumption: yes
Debate bad: yes
Tricks: yes, but low speaks for minimal academic ingenuity
Memes: yes, but low speaks for minimal academic ingenuity
IVIs: yes, but they're much easier to win when deployed as actual arguments
New Affs Bad: no. This is the only non-exclusionary argument I refuse to vote on

"The brilliance and joy of ... debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable ... If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or 'death good' position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible." - Kevin Hirn, Michigan Debate

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Speech

Just like debate, speech is very hard. Because I value your long hours of preparation, I promise I am fully invested in your performance and will evaluate it to the best of my ability. I look forward to seeing what you have prepared!

Extemp: Don't just answer the question accurately, but implicate it -- why is this even question being asked? Confident facial expressions and humor are always appreciated.

Platform (OO/INFO): Topic selection is massively important. I don't care how technically proficient you are; if your thesis boils down to "we should be nice to each other" or "here's some information about something" you will probably not get a high rank. I put strong emphasis on actually taking a bit of a risk for your topic selection and eschewing "safer" options.

Interp: I do not have much expertise when it comes to these, although I adore POI as the work involved in crafting a strong program feels far more intellectually robust than simply performing a dramatic or humorous piece. All interp performances should feature believable acting, clear storytelling structure, distinct characters, and intentional blocking. I do NOT value excessive trauma in DI; it feels very cynical and almost exploitative to me. HI should obviously make me laugh. The interplay between performers in DUO is fun. And in POI, the most important thing I'm looking for is a clear theme or thesis that ties your program together.

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

(This is a pretty self-indulgent section so only read if you think I provide useful insight into the activity):

You should always presume the other team, the judges, and the audience are acting in good faith. Any accusations or even implications towards someone cheating or otherwise breaking the rules should be "stake-the-round" moments -- that is, you better be willing to take a min speaks L if it's unfounded.

One of the single dumbest things I see in competitive debate is this trend of "I'll give u 0.5 speaks if u reference The Office" or "+1 speaks for bringing me a coffee!" It's pathetically and brazenly anti-educational and borderline exploitative (of children!), not to mention it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw because another team mentioned a dumb meme in their speech. If you are a judge, you are an EDUCATOR; I presume good intentions from people in this community but I am quite skeptical of those who do this. Here's a non-comprehensive list from a major national circuit camp: saying "bae" or "OMG" in a round; mentioning Philadelphia; playing Fetty Wap as walkup music; skipping grand cross; referencing Yugoslavia; winning a staring contest; saying "I'm sorry, that's just cap"; doing jumping jacks; singing and rapping; doing a Donald Trump impression; making arguments that promote Catholicism and Monarchism (imagine if a Muslim student or someone whose ancestors were violently oppressed by monarchic rule were screwed out of a higher seed because they refused to do this); and at least five people attempting to coerce children into bringing them food.

Coaches need to really re-evaluate the first-year-outs they hire to judge for them, or at the very least put forth a bare minimum of effort into preparing them to adjudicate fairly, equitably, and in a way that doesn't make the debate about them. Easily some of the most incoherent and baffling decisions I've seen over the past year or so have been ostensibly "tech" FYOs who construct the most convoluted path to the ballot they can find. (Not a coincidence that these kids are often the type to list a million cringe things that will "boost speaks.")

Speaking of judges, I have zero patience for people who use their ballot/RFD to bully and demean. Congratulations, you're a college-educated adult and you found flaws in a 14-year-old's argumentation. If I'm on a panel or spectating a round where a judge's RFD is moving into bullying territory, I have no qualms cutting them off and reporting them to tab.

And finally with regards to judging -- I allude to this above, but I see far too many debates, especially here in Iowa, where the extent of judges' RFDs is "I didn't like your case" regardless of the actual content of the round. That makes me sad, as it invalidates dozens of hours of preparation and strategy-building between competitors and their coaches. It breaks my heart when I see a well-prepared team lose because the judge just "didn't buy it." I only vote on what is communicated to me within the debate. I do not care how unlikely it seems or how incoherent the link is.... if it's that obvious, the opposition should point it out, not rely on me to intervene and make that evaluation on my own.

Debate as an activity is incredible. Obviously I'm biased but I genuinely think it's the single best thing high schoolers can do with their time. If you're reading this you're probably a nerd or a competition freak (or both) but you also should be proud that you are involved in this thing we do. It makes kids smarter, more confident, better at speaking, better citizens, more critical of the world and its power structures while also more open to alternative ways of thinking.... and it's exhilarating and fun! If I could just coach debate all day I'd take that job in a heartbeat. I often find myself getting emotional when judging high-level debate rounds because of the talent, passion, prep, and dedication in front of me, and I swell with pride when my debaters develop new skills and deploy them.

Feel like quitting debate because you don't think you're any good? DON'T! My first ever tournament I went 1-4 at the Des Moines Lincoln Railsplitter. Even worse, we started 0-4 and were power-matched against the only other 0-4 team at that point -- we only won because our opponents forgot what side of the topic they had chosen. I promise, it gets better. I have a team that went 1-5 and 0-5 at their first two bid tournaments in '22-23 who just picked up a PF Gold bid at Blake '23. Keep at it and you will blossom.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to the national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions.

My favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and Oratory.

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

I can best understand arguments when people speak slowly and clearly.

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged Speech and PF, LD debate for several years, but I am new to Congressional and Policy debate.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

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

I am a senior at Phillips Andover and have been doing public forum for the past three years, as well as congressional and speech for a few years before that.

Things to keep in mind:

• Carry all of your arguments through clearly in every speech.
• Weigh!! and argue within a framework.
• Creative arguments are great but keep things topical.
• Signposting is appreciated and an off the clock roadmap is acceptable but not required.
• Be respectful to your competitors (this will be reflected in speaker points). Argue as passionately as you'd like against their ideas, but do not resort to personal attacks! Unique points and examples are a great way to keep the round engaging!

Have fun and learn from each other — If you need to contact me, you can reach me at akorczak24@andover.edu.

I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.

All the best!

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Hello Everyone!

Here are a few things that you should consider while going into the round.

1. I am a parent "lay judge", this is the first time that I've judged this event, so if you could guide me through the round that would be great.

2. Please keep your delivery slow and clear, and speak at an understandable rate.

3. Please refrain from using debate jargon.

4. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

5. I won't be timing your speeches and prep time, so please do that yourself.

6. Try not to run any progressive debate as I will struggle to evaluate it.

Other than that, I hope you have a great round!

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

I am lay judge who has recently (since 2021) started judging PF debates.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I award speaker points based on how clearly you lay out your case. It helps if you provide a good summary of your case in the final focus.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Parent judge.

Describe your frame

No spreading (speak at a conversational pace). No Ks, no theory, only run substance.

Be very clear about your arguments, well warranted, be CLEAR about impacts.

Have well-carded responses.

Be clear with weighing in Summary and FF. Write the ballot for me.

Don't talk over each other in cross.

Name: Lalit Kumar

Email: lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com

I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the LD and how it works. I have judged PF tournaments for over a year and got familiarity with LD debates. I have also researched the current topic in detail online.

I usually join a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

Key notes:

1. Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

2. Document sharing - please share your speech/response docs ahead of time so I can follow along. Include me in the email chain (lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com) Please ensure the subject is not blank and populated with tournament name and round.

3. Clarity - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated with evidence

4. Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations. Please explain any technical jargon that you use.

5. Time - Going overtime will lead to deductions. I would recommend timing yourself and your opponents. In case you notice your opponent is overtime, feel free to raise your zoom hand to highlight this.

6. Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.

7. Theories and Ks - I have limited understanding of Theories and Ks; but I am okay to proceed as long as you break it down in simple and clear terms. You need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic.

In Public Forum debate, I will prioritize the students' capability in creating further analysis and not just giving away the facts that they gathered in certain resources. This analysis is important as to show how you process all of the information you've collected before and getting the best output to the forum right away within your time. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner. A deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will contribute more on the matter of debate. The team that wins, would be a team that more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful to us in the future.

I am a traditional style judge. Debates that are too "progressive" in nature undermine the entire tournament and are unfair to other competitors participating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

flow judge

didn’t read theory much but i’ll evaluate it

near 0 K experience so read if u rly want

typically do not feel like flowing off a doc, but it depends on the day

be nice

Hi everyone,

My email is klayton.nd@gmail.com so you can add me to email chains!

I am new to judging debate and don't have much debate experience. I am looking for cohesive evidence based arguments and thoughtful responses to the opponents arguments. I will appreciate if everyone maintains a professional and courteous atmosphere.

Hello, I am a new parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly for me to understand, and do not use too many technical terms.

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

I debated for Horace Mann in NYC and was the president of my team senior year.

Treat me like a flay judge only in the sense that I prefer slower, well-warranted rounds over the current weird tech meta of dumping as many arguments as possible and making rounds incredibly messy. This doesn't mean that I don't know what's happening on the flow (i.e. don't drop turns or responses because you're debating as you would in front of a lay judge) – just slow down, speak like you would to a normal person, and extend well/provide warrants for everything you say (especially including frontlines and weighing). The more you explain something, the more I'm likely to vote for it.

If you want me to call for a card, tell me to in a speech. Don't read progressive arguments in front of me. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc so just speak at a reasonable pace. If you have any other questions about my preferences, feel free to ask me before the round.

I prefer traditional arguments in which the debater takes the resolution and explains their side instead of using a progressive argument, which may be hard to follow. I also find it easier to understand the main points of the debater's argument when they use sign-posting and/or road mapping.

Spreading is not preferred because it is often difficult to follow the debater and if I can't understand the argument I can't score it favorably. 

I greatly enjoy hearing arguments that students bring to bear on compelling contemporary topics! Thank you for engaging in this important exercise and seeking to think critically about issues we face. The world needs smart, capable, analytical minds more than ever and I look forward to seeing your talents on display as a debate judge. While I come from a family of debaters, I didn’t enter the realm until I went to law school. After graduation, I served as a law clerk for a federal judge and later became a litigator where I prosecuted child abuse and neglect cases. I now teach at a law school and direct our international programs. I have judged countless moot court competitions at the graduate level and have enjoyed listening to high school debaters grapple with the challenging issues of our time at many tournaments as a lay judge on the high school debate circuit.

I am a lay parent judge who has judged a lot of tournaments, but I know absolutely nothing about (and care nothing for) technical debate. I have, however, been subjected to listening to my son talking too fast in the other room for the last three years and I still don't get it. You won't do yourself any favors by presenting that format to me. Convince me as a lay judge as to why your position should win and please don't address nuclear war and extension as your key argument for any topic because while it relates to many areas, I know WE WILL ALL DIE and you are not likely to win on weighing or impact on that basis.

Be calm. Be respectful to one another. Know your worth and enjoy the process. I look forward to learning from you and wish you every success in the endeavor!

Hi! I'm Felix (he/him), and I debated PF at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I got to octas at the TOC and top-spoke Harvard, Lexington, and Bronx. Now I debate APDA and BP for Yale.

Add felix.j.leonhardt@gmail.com to the email chain.

Parli paradigm:

Treat me like any other parli judge. Don't make new arguments or responses in your last speech -- use this speech to collapse on an argument and explain why it wins the round.

PF paradigm:

I will vote off the flow (tech>truth, tabula rasa), unless one team is rude/offensive, in which case that team will lose.

I feel comfortable evaluating almost all arguments that I have come across in PF, but I have significantly more experience with topical debates. This means that I am more likely to make a good decision in topical rounds, and it means that I will be more receptive to arguments about why topical debates are good.

No matter what kind of argument you decide to read, here are my requirements.

1. Be nice!

2. With the exception of arguments made in first constructive, if any argument (weighing, defense, turns, etc.) isn't responded to in the next speech, it is conceded. This means second rebuttal needs to frontline.

3. Nothing is sticky; first summary needs defense if you want it to be on my ballot.

4. You need to extend your arguments in summary and final focus.

5. Debate is an educational activity, so fairness is very important to me. As such, I won't evaluate arguments that I believe are made to win the ballot in a way that your opponents can't interact with. This includes theory against novices and tricks.

Below is some additional advice. While nothing below is required, it will probably help you win, and it will definitely help you get better speaker points.

1. You almost always need weighing to win. Don't explain why your impact is large or probable, explain why your impact is larger or more probable than the other team's impact. This goes for any type of round -- substance, theory, K, or other.

2. Teams don't read as many analytics as they should. Don't just read your blocks; explain to me why your opponents' argument is wrong.

3. For arguments about structural violence, framing is good. It should come early in the round.

4. I dislike the new trend of reading six case arguments and going for the one that's undercovered. I don't think you leave yourself enough time to fully explain a link chain for each argument, and by omitting parts of the link chain, I think you make it harder for your opponents to respond. If you do this, I will consider the other team's pointing out the omission (of lack of development) of a certain part of the link chain as sufficient defense.

5. Ask me questions after the round. Learning from both wins and losses is how to get better at debate.

Most importantly, have fun! I love debate and I want everyone to love it.

I coach with DebateDrills -- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy.

Hello! I'm Henry (He/Him), and I look forward to judging your round. I debated PF for four years on the national circuit.

• I'm a pretty standard flow judge.

• I'm a sucker for really good weighing that is comparative and well-implicated. Blippy, non-comparative weighing, on the other hand, won't score you any points with me. Start weighing as early in the round as possible.

• Please signpost.

• Please extend stuff in summary + FF. I'm not a stickler for super detailed extensions, just be sure to re-explain the argument.

• Turns/1st rebuttal offense should be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

• I don’t care about cross.

• I'm generally pretty nice with speaks, especially if you make me laugh.

• I have some experience debating/judging theory rounds, but not much experience with other kinds of prog args.

• Be respectful!

If you have questions about my paradigm or anything else, I'll be happy to answer them before the round starts. Good luck, and I'm excited for a great round!

I am a lay parent judge and new to debate jargon. Off time roadmaps are welcome. Please be sure that everything you say is understandable and do not speak too fast. When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking. Thank you.

I am a parent lay judge.

Please do not spread or run theory.

Hello! I'm currently a freshman at the University of British Columbia, and I have approximately four to five years of debate experience.

General:

I expect all debaters to treat each other with courtesy and follow the established rules of the round. In other words, please be respectful! In particular, be polite during crossfire!

Clarity of speech and argumentation are important! If you can talk fast while still being clear, then that's up to you, but please try to speak slower if that will improve your clarity.

It's your responsibility weigh your arguments and explain why they are the most important, I shouldn't have to do that.

Experience: 7 years of judging PF and Congress, Juris Doctor with Legal background.

Philosophy:

I approach debate as an educational activity that fosters critical thinking, effective communication, and the exploration of various perspectives. My role is to evaluate the round based on the arguments presented, the quality of evidence and analysis, and the overall coherence of the debate.

Roles of the Debaters:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value clear, concise, and organized speeches. Debaters should articulate their points effectively, signpost, and provide a clear roadmap for the round.

2. Argumentation: I prioritize well-developed and supported arguments. Provide strong evidence and analysis to back up your claims. Quality over quantity; I prefer a few strong points to numerous weak ones.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments. Effective rebuttal involves addressing the core of the argument, not just the surface-level claims.

4. Flexibility and Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on your opponent's arguments and the direction of the round.

Evidence and Sources:

From my legal education and background, I pay very close attention to sources. Cite reliable and credible sources. The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. If a source is questionable, make sure to highlight this in your argumentation.

Cross-Examination:

I consider cross-examination to be an integral part of the debate. It's an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extract concessions from your opponent. Effective cross-examination can significantly strengthen your case. I will pay close attention to challenges to opponents' arguments and how it is used to strengthen your case.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, argumentation, strategic choices, and overall contribution to the round. Be respectful and professional throughout the debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to fairly and objectively evaluate the arguments presented. I will not inject my personal opinions into the decision-making process. I will assess the round based on what transpires in the debate.

Speed and Delivery:

While I can handle a moderate pace, I value clarity over speed. If your arguments become unclear due to rapid delivery, it may hinder your overall assessment.

Respect and Decorum:

Maintain respect for your opponents, partner, and the judge throughout the round. Be mindful of time limits and follow the established rules. I do not tolerate arguing over each other or unnecessary interjections as it muddles and slows the debate.

Final Thoughts:

Remember, debate is an educational activity, but don't forget to have fun! Embrace the opportunity to learn, grow, and engage with different perspectives. I look forward to a productive and insightful round!

I am a very lay judge-- that means if you run prog or spread, I will not understand you, and will probably not vote for you.

My ideal round is clean, slow, and civil. Please be respectful during the round, and make sure to not interrupt your opponents. Any obviously racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments are L25's.

I am truth>tech. If you tell me that fishing conflicts are going to escalate to nuclear war, you'd better have the best evidence in the world to back it up. Even then, I'd say it's somewhat risky.

Please time yourselves, and if your opponents go over time, feel free to show me your timer. Prep stealing and taking a long time to find evidence will irritate me.

(My daughter wrote this paradigm-- if you've hit Hunter MM tell me about them :) )

I currently live in my home country of Armenia and am teaching gender studies to university students in addition to working on a research project on the labor market here and translating professionally. I am coaching one LD-er and will be judging some tournaments remotely.

What is below is still relevant and is a reflection of how I think about debate but was written when I was much more actively involved in the community. In short, I'm K-friendly and flow-focused. I'm also 8 hours ahead of EST which means if it's past 2pm for you, it's past my bedtime and you would benefit from slowing down a touch. But I am doing this voluntarily because I love debate :)

Who I am

I (she/her) debated college policy (CEDA/NDT) at The New School, where I started as a college novice. I read Ks that were research projects about things I cared about. I love debate for its educational value, the research skills it builds, and the community it fosters. I have no issue dropping speaks or ballots for people who undermine the educational value of the activity by making people defend their personhood.

**I will be wearing a mask. I don't know y'all or where you've been and I don't want you to breathe on me. It's not personal. Please ask me for any other accessibility accommodations you need before the round and I will do my best to make the round comfortable for you!

For all formats (specifics below)

Email for the chain: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I vote on the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it. If provided them, I follow ROBs and ROJs seriously in framing my decision. I have voted both on the big picture and on technicalities.

I am excited to be in your debate, especially so if you are a novice, and I would love to chat post RFD if you have questions! :)

Policy:

DAs, CPs: Fine, no strong opinions here.

Ks: Yes, fine, good. Explain your links and your impact framing.

T: Hate when blippy, like when thorough & well-explained and have voted on T when it has won the debate many times. I am unlikely to vote on an education impact vs a K aff, though.

High theory for all of the above: Explain yourself. I don't vote on arguments I don't understand.

Likes: Clear spreading, smart debating, impact calculus, well-warranted arguments, case debate, thorough research, debaters from small schools.

Dislikes: Unnecessary hostility, bad evidence, blippy T blocks, strategies that rely on clowning your opponents, mumbling when spreading.

I am by far most comfortable in clash and KvK debates. I don't really care about policy v policy, but will give it the proper attention if put in them.

Public Forum:

If you don't share evidence, strike me. And also re-evaluate your ethical orientations.

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain. The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence. Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

Debate is a communication activity, but it is also a research activity, and I think that the single most important portable skill we gain from it is our ability to ethically produce argumentation and present it to an audience. I believe that PF has egregious evidence-sharing practices, and I will not participate in them.

I like smart debating, clear impact calculus, and well-warranted arguments. Do what you're good at and I'm with you! This includes your funky arguments.

I am fine with speed, but going fast does not make you a smarter or better debater and will not make me like you more. Debate is above all else a communication activity that is at its best when it's used for education. I can't stand it when more experienced or more resourced teams use a speed strategy to be incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things. It's bad debating and it perpetuates the worst parts of this activity.

Please be as physically comfortable as possible!! I do not care what you are wearing or whether you sit or stand. It will have literally zero impact on my decision.

I am far less grumpy and much more friendly than the PF section of my paradigm might make me seem. I love debate and go to tournaments voluntarily. See you in round!

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Indiana University.

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I am not that familiar with progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.) so I might have a bit more trouble understanding them. If there is an abuse in round, you can just call it out in speech; it doesn't have to be formatted as a shell.

• I default to the first speaking team.

• A lot of times (I did it too) debaters will see that their judge is a past debater and just spread random cards without warrants. Understand that I still know the topic a lot less than you do. You still have to read warrants and explicate them for me to understand what your argument is.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate in my opinion.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

• Disads/offensive overviews are yucky, especially in second rebuttal. It gives insecure energy, like "I don't know how to respond to an argument so you're just reading another piece of offense to crowd it out on the flow". My threshold for responses to these are low.

• I do not like new responses in final focus that are disguised as “JuSt WeiGhiNg.” I will notice and it will not be on my flow.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

I am pretty lenient with speaks but there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

• I was pretty aggressive in crossfire so I am fine with that as well but just be conscious of your opponents. This means letting them respond to your questions, ask their own questions, and overall just have an equal opportunity to talk.

• Talking over someone never won a debate and I can assure you that winning perceptually doesn't really win my ballot.

• 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 speaks. Strike me if that's an issue (honestly quit debate, too <3)

This paradigm doesn't cover everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Have fun!

tl;dr former PF debater treat me as a flay judge

Email: oliverlin2004@gmail.com

Debated Public Forum at St. John's School. Did some Worlds as a senior.

Speed is fine as long as you maintain clarity. Speech docs are preferred, but I will begin to dock speaks if I need to refer to it multiple times.

I don't flow cross and won't call cards on my own. If you want me to do either, put it in a speech.

I don't mind if you want to postround as long as we have time.

Theory

I'll try to evaluate it tab but I will drop the shell instead of any reasonability stuff.

Kritik

Never ran it. Never hit it. Run at your own risk.

Substance

Tech > Truth. No sticky anything. Please extend and weigh.

Turns should be clearly implicated as they are delivered. A new impact in final focus or second summary is a new argument.

Don't be a jerk in round. I will start by docking speaks, but I will drop you for unacceptable behavior (any -isms, bullying, threats). Please be civil.

Worlds

Same thing as PF except no speech docs and obviously no progressive stuff. I think reading a principle argument is almost always strategic and I like to hear them.

Speech

Zero experience here. As lay as it gets.

As a judge, I evaluate debaters based on the following qualities:

1. Present well organized speeches so that audience can follow the arguments;
2. Respond to opponents’ questions or attacks and have strategies to effectively defense his/her own arguments;
3. Utilize evidence effectively;
4. Respect your opponent.

I am a litigator who focuses on antitrust, securities, and data privacy matters. I've judged Public Forum debates for about two years.

There are four things that, in my opinion, make a debate go well.

First, at least for Public Forum debates, talk at a moderate pace. We all have a tendency to speak quicker than usual when debating, but slowing down will often help you get your points across more clearly. I speak in court quite a bit, and I also have to fight the reflex to talk quickly.

Second, for the first two speakers, start by giving a couple of introductory sentences, rather than going straight into your contentions. Taking 10-20 seconds to do that will provide an overview of where you are going, and make the rest of the argument much easier to follow.

Third, feel free to use all the time allotted to you. You might raise a point in the last few seconds of the debate that resonates with a judge.

Fourth, be kind. Judges, both in debate and in court, appreciate when opposing parties are civil to each other.

In Public Forum Debate, I will prioritize the students' capability to create further analysis regarding the facts and materials they deliver during their speeches. Facts and materials that have explanations as to how they are materialized will have higher credit than facts without explanations. Numbers shouldn't be the only explanation for your argument. Regarding, rebuttals and responses, I will give more credit to speakers that provide deeper reasons to prove their opponent wrong (not a one-liner). Information and facts from reliable resources like journals or research papers will also have higher credit than other sources like newspapers or websites. The team that wins, would be a team that can provide more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful.

I'm a parent judge. Fluent in English but not a native speaker, so slow down, I don't evaluate what I don't understand, including jargon. I vote for the cleanest argument extended through the round, and I care most about logic and argumentative reasoning (that's not to say that I don't care about anything else, however).

As a parent judge, I value clarity, commitment, and collaboration. Please don't speak too fast as a steady pace with clear pronunciation and articulation can always make your presentation better understood and more effective. The logic should also be clear and sound. Each member of the team also needs to show full engagement with and devotion to the debate and to their respective position, and they need to support each other to make the team strong. Please remain respectful throughout the debate.

Hello!

I mainly competed in PF in high school, and I am a current undergraduate at Yale University.

I prefer tech over truth. My decisions almost always come down to who won on the flow; although, weighing/impact calculus makes decisions a lot easier.

I am neither a fan of nor super qualified to judge theory. I also dislike Kritiks.

Please respond to arguments made in the last speech; I will not judge on sticky defense. Be sure to extend everything you intend to use. Also, any arguments made after time will not be evaluated.

For speed, I can usually keep up, but try to stay under 280 wpm.

glhf!

General：

1. Don’t make assertions, always back your statements up with cards and warrants, with analysis the best. Whatever you say in a debate pls make sure it has evidence.
2. Evidence is important to my judgments, but logic matters more. I would prefer you debate from both logical and evidential perspectives.
3. For me each speaker will have 5 more seconds at the end of each speech to finish up if exceeded then I’ll interrupt.
4. Speak fast as long as it’s clear. Don’t mumble words and expect me to hear everything.

Crossfire:

1. You are allowed to interrupt during crossfire. But I don’t accept very rude debaters, and I'm not able to judge if everybody is talking over each other. Please don’t run crossfire into your own rebuttal speech or summary, be sure it is used efficiently.
2. Please challenge your opponent whenever you think there is a mistake in their cards. It will be very compelling to me if you can turn a card over.

Summary/Final Focus:

1. I would like an organized summary speech with clear clash points and impact weighing.
2. I don’t recommend bringing up too many new cards during the summary (and no new cards at the final focus) because it's more about showing me how you have won. Instead, you should focus more on linking back to your team’s FW, constructive, and rebuttal.

my email: klil.loeb@gmail.com

I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington. I debated LD for 3 years and PF for 1, so I'm pretty familiar with any type of argument. That being said, I do have some preferences that'll be helpful for me and you in terms of evaluating a round.

SCROLL DOWN FOR LD PARADIGM

PF Paradigm:

- Weigh. Clash is SO important and is too often avoided. All your arguments should be connected and should flow in a way that I can directly compare one to another. If both teams are talking about separate topics that don't interact, that's a pretty unsuccessful round, and I won't know where to vote.

- Extend. If something is dropped in any speech, I won't evaluate it, even if it's brought up again later. Make sure anything you want to factor into the decision is mentioned in every speech, and is especially emphasized in final focus. If its not brought all the way into your last speech, I'll consider it conceded, and won't vote on it.

- Sign post. If I don't know what you're talking about, I won't factor it into my decision.

- Be polite to your opponents. If you're rude, definitely expect me to lower speaks. It doesn't help you in any way to ruin what should otherwise be a good round with a bad attitude. Have fun and be nice and you'll have no problems.

- Most importantly - and what I'll be paying most attention to - use your last two speeches (especially final focus) to CLEARLY tell me why you should win the round over your opponent. The clearer you are, the easier it will be for me to make my decision, and the happier you'll be with the outcome. I vote off both offense and defense so make sure to maximize your voters.

Some little things:

- I'm fine w speed

- Time your own speeches and prep

- I don't flow/vote off cross. Anything you want me to remember should be brought up during speeches

- I love unconventional arguments

- DON'T have a loud conversation while I'm filling out my ballot omg i cannot express how much this irritates me

- Also feel free to make the round fun in any way - whatever that means to you, I love when people make me laugh (when its appropriate)

The debate is about you so have fun! I'm chill with anything as long as you do everything listed above:)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round!

.

LD Paradigm:

I’d prefer if you didn’t read Israel-Palestine specific colonialism / genocide in front of me.

- do what you want for the most part i don't care if you just tell me why i should vote for you

- Tech > Truth

- I love plans/counterplans/disads etc.

- I like K's. I ran K's.

- I'm not super into phil but I'll vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure you actually understand what you're saying otherwise how am I supposed to figure it out from you.

- I like theory

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I won't know where to vote. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote

- FOR ONLINE DEBATES: slow down! It's almost impossible to understand when either my or your computer's slow. I'm fine with speed otherwise though if you're CLEAR!! If i can't understand you though, I'll dock your speaks.

Good luck:)

This is my first time judging Public Forum debate, and I am not familiar with the jargon or format. But all hope is not lost. I was a policy debater in both high school and college and was in the elimination rounds of the NDT debating for the University of Texas. I am therefore very familiar with competitive debate in general. I will enter the round tabula rasa and vote for the side that wins the debate, not the side who makes the arguments with which I agree. If you want to speak fast, go for it but please be clear, especially since I am getting back up to speed. I will signal you if you are going too fast for me. And again, please avoid PF jargon.

A couple of specifics:

"Kritiks"

"Kritiks" were first developed in the early 1990s, right at the end of my policy debate career. I have never been a big fan of them. Here, again, I'll be tabula rasa, but I tend to think of these arguments as easy to beat. I would rather hear a really good debate about the substance of the issues.

Theory

I'm not experienced with the PF theory arguments, so if you want to make one you need to explain it clearly and avoid the jargon and acronyms.

Background

I am a practicing lawyer and will readily understand legal-based arguments.

Erica (she/her). Debated PF at Stuyvesant for four years. Email for speech docs and email chains: el963@georgetown.edu

Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will instantly drop you.

I won’t flow over 180wpm. (unless you speak so clearly that I don’t notice — which you probably won’t)

Speak fast at your own risk. I won’t vote on anything not on my flow. I also won't flow what's said overtime. I will absolutely clear you.

Tech > Truth, but just barely. In my heart it’s truth > tech. Do with that what you will. On the off chance I vote for your four extinction scenarios, I will be so unhappy, I’ll cap your speaks to 27.

If you lie in your speech and I catch you 27 max.

Anything you want me to vote on must be said in both summary and final focus. I like weighing and warranting.

For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing me, strike me.

No progressive argumentation. I will instantly drop you. If there’s abuse in the round, just say it; you don’t need a shell.

Time your own prep.

I am a parent "lay" judge in Brentwood TN, and I judge for Ravenwood High School.

• Truth > Tech
• DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't understand it, it is not being evaluated.
• Time your speeches/prep.
• I do not disclose for preliminary rounds.
• For elimination rounds, do not post-round me. I am not going to change my decision.
• Speaker points are awarded based on annunciation, strategy, and quality of content.
• Everything in Final Focus MUST have been in Summary. Do not try to sneak something in because I am a lay judge.
• PLEASE COLLAPSE in summary. That being said, do not try to change what you collapsed on in Final Focus. You will receive an L.

Overall, respect each other. Especially in the crossfire. Although I do enjoy humor, please do not be condescending or disrespectful. Have fun!

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments.

I am here to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine which team has done the better job of persuading me. I am not an expert in debate, so I will not be able to follow complex arguments or jargon. I am looking for debaters who are clear, concise, and persuasive. I will also be considering your delivery and demeanor when making my decision

some specific things I will be looking for:

• Clarity:Can you explain your arguments in a way that I can understand?
• Conciseness:Can you get to the point without using too many words?
• Persuasiveness:Do you use evidence and logic to support your arguments?
• Delivery:Do you speak clearly and confidently?
• Demeanor:Are you respectful of your opponent and the judge?

some things that I will not be swayed by:

• Speed:Speaking quickly does not make you more persuasive.
• Volume:Yelling does not make your arguments more valid.
• Jargon:Using complex debate jargon will only make it harder for me to understand your arguments.
• Personal attacks:Attacking your opponent personally is not a valid argument.

TLDR: Weigh, warrant, and extend. Collapse in second rebuttal. Defense is not sticky. Tech > Truth as long as the argument is not offensive. Run something fun I am bored of these arctic debates please. I am good with progressive arguments

email for email chains: satvik.debate@gmail.com

i presume first unless you tell me otherwise

i will not intervene on arguments not having a warrant unless you call it out. however, just saying "there is no warrant between ___ and ___" will be sufficient for me to not vote on an argument without a warrant. but please warrant your args to make my life easier

make weighing comparative pls

DONOTT read tricks!!!

i will not vote for risk of solvency arguments on policy change topics. it is not sufficient to just say that "the status quo is failing and we have the only risk of solvency". this is lazy debate. make actual warranted arguments that are compelling for me to vote for.

I will vote off the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I will evaluate anything you say as long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic in any way and is properly warranted.

Arguments with warrants and evidence > arguments with warrants but no evidence > arguments with no warrant but evidence > arguments with no warrant or evidence

No new arguments are allowed from second summary and onwards except for weighing. However, all weighing must be done during second summary and first final focus at the latest. Second final focus is too late. Also, it is best to start weighing as early as possible.

Second rebuttal should frontline everything from first rebuttal, including defense, on all arguments you plan on going for.

Extensions

You definitely should briefly summarize your argument when extending it but I am not super picky about how in depth the extensions are as long as all parts of the argument are brought up, and especially the link and impact

Be strategic, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

If you have any questions, please please please ask me before the round starts so that everyone involved has a great experience!

I am a past debater (Parliamentary debate), and current debate coach. I judge based off of what I see on the flow. I will (try) not to make any assumptions on what you are saying, nor will I include anything that I may know into my judging.

I will be looking for clear communication of arguments, evidence, and impacts. I want to see how your side of the ballot is going to best solve for the problems proposed, and have the strongest real world implications. I want to see effective and explicit weighing.

I can take notes at a pace slightly faster than conversational. If you spread I will lose track of my notes and your argument. I prefer clarity over number of words said.

Prior to the round, please email me your case at mattmmak@gmail.com. I am a new judge - for me, the arguments that make common sense are more important than complex arguments that are too theoretical. Please avoid running theory and avoid using jargon or acronyms - speak clearly and don’t rush. I am very pragmatic and don’t tend to believe blown-up impacts.

Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.

Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.

Otherwise, good luck! You got this!

If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.

Hello everyone! I am a lay parent judge. I have judged a couple PF tournaments in the past and I am familiar with the structure of the round and PF terminology. That being said, please try and avoid unnecessary use of jargon. Please speak clearly and at reasonable speed. During the round, make sure your evidence is backed by strong logical reasoning, and make sure to strongly weigh the debate. I will be paying close attention to how teams respond to questions during crossfire as well.

Lastly, I am generally well informed about geopolitics, history and contemporary issues, though not an expert in the topic you will be debating. if you use topic-specific jargon, please provide an explanation.

Thank you, and good luck!

My debate paradigm is... that you as debaters set the direction for the debate, within both the rules and generally accepted norms of your event.

Show me why YOUR approach to debate is the right one.

.

In addition, remember to:

- Always be respectful of your opponent(s) and audience.

- If you choose to spread, remember that your arguments are only as good as what your audience is able to hear.

.

Mr. Nick Malinak

Head Forensics Coach - The Hill School

NSDA Diamond Coach

Former LD Debater from Richmond, VA. Dual degree student at Columbia and Sciences Po Paris (poli/phil major). Work with Richmond Debate Institute, Champion Briefs.

LD:

Likes: LARP/Policy/Trad, Kritik, Phil, Action Plans/Advocacy.

Meh: Aff K's, Theory, specifically Disclosure stuff (I think it's a bad norm, but if you convince me and weigh it, I can vote on it).

Don't run: Tricks.

I don't care about speed, just if it is anything above a moderately fast conversational speed, I will ask for a speech doc just so I don't lose stuff. Send docs to vm2659@columbia.edu.

Generally flexible (except on tricks), so if you feel comfortable running something under the theory category and you're worried that I will treat you unfairly don't be. If your argument makes sense, I will flow it and respect it. You only need to make it clear, if it is anything other than trad, why your argument matters more than debating the resolution. If you try to claim fiat win because your opponent didn't mention topic "x" before you did, I just won't really weigh that impact very highly (or at least, the burden will be on you to prove why I should weigh that highly).

Generally tech>truth, caveat things like racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc. Debate space being safe matters above all else. Should a debater violate that, they will be immediately dropped with low speaks. After that, the only reason I am not fully tech is that if you do not weigh things like the probability of your impact when talking about things like nuclear war, then I will have to do the weighing for you. Don't make me do guesswork, use your 2AR or 2NR to do your job.

Big pet peeve: if there is a significant and noticeable discrepancy in debate ability between you and your opponent or they do not understand your argument because you are doing some complicated prog stuff like a kritik with really big scary words, please try to meet your opponent at their level to some degree such that they can engage. I will still give you a win if your opponent does not understand your argument and the argument itself is well-done and coherent, but I will DEFINITELY give you lower speaks if you are merciless in your pursuit of my ballot. Help novices and younger debaters get better at the sport by giving them the opportunity to respond to your arguments, even if that means narrowing the gap between y'all on a technical level.

If you want me to consider an argument, you better extend it and the relevant evidence clearly in later speeches. Do not just read the name of the author, say something about what is in the card. Don't make it easy to forget why you are winning the round or I might just forget. Things that weren't said in 1AR should also not, for that reason, end up in the 2AR as a voting issue.

Lastly, have fun. I don't like when debates are super stuffy and stressful. Make jokes, treat your opponent cordially (try not to be snarky during cross or uncharitable during the round), and don't be obnoxious. I'll enjoy myself if I see y'all are enjoying yourselves.

PF:

Honestly similar vibes as above.

Run whatever you want, have fun, be respectful, debate evidence well, and extend things. Weigh in later speeches. Be friendly during crossfires. I don't care if you run a K but just make sure you can run it well. Bad kritiks are horrible to watch play out.

Collapsing to specific arguments =/= dropping your entire case. If this turns into a debate where both teams are arguing on a single turn they're applying to each others' contentions, the debate begins to feel pretty stupid.

If you are second-speaking team, do try and frontline against the rebuttals read by first speaker just before your speech. It feels rather ridiculous when someone gets up and gives a four-minute speech and it's like the next person completely ignored them.

I think speech docs should also be a norm in PF because I find evidence sharing upon request takes really long and can just be pre-empted with really zero drawbacks, but if teams prefer to do evidence sharing upon request for whatever reason, let us please find a way that does not require too much time outside of the round. I do not like waiting 10 minutes between speeches when no prep time has been taken.

No typing or doing any prep work when a clock is not running (aka you can prep while your opponent takes prep time but, for example, do not try to prep while your opponent is sending evidence; that's just taking advantage of the system).

Have fun: PF is a fun format when done right, let's have a good time.

lay judge

39% of Americans have a high school degree or less.

54% of Americans have a literacy level below the 6th grade.

Public forum is defined by the National Speech and Debate Association as being "designed to be accessible to the public"

1) Speed kills... you, not me. In the real world, no one spreads except auctioneers.

2) Avoid assertions. Claims without evidence are weak, but if you have no choice, it's better to say something that is well thought out and persuasive than nothing at all.

3) Generally accepted concepts are welcomed. Logic and reason do not need citations. (i.e. inflation leads to a recession)

4) Truth over tech. Focusing on tech will land you a technical loss.

5) I value cross-fire, good questions and answers that advance your case win speaker points. Frankly, the entire debate should have the tempo and reasoning we typically see in cross-fire.

And if you're really clever, you'll do my thinking for me in summary and final focus.

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

LD

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

PF

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

I competed in Public Forum Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and sadly some degree of Congressional Debate throughout high school. I also competed once in World Schools Debate at NSDAs.

I'm willing to hear any type of argument as long as it is presented in a logical & respectful manner...if you are going into my round aware that your arguments are not run-of-the-mill please please please be careful with how you present them...you do not want to leave me with questions about what your argument is while listening to your case because I'm going to get distracted by my own questions and then I will miss your second link, your first impact, etc.

In regards to more specific preferences, look below:

- I do not like spreading at all, especially in an online format where audio can be sketch...if you are spreading, I am going to be at least subliminally primed to favor your opponents so probably avoid doing it...

- If you're 1st Speaking in the round and terminal defense was not contested by your opponents in 2nd Rebuttal I'd mention it in 1st Summary to make it very clear to me what happened and you're aware of it (if it is important for an RFD).

- If 2nd Speaking in the Round, you should frontline in your Rebuttal...at least respond to turns...new responses to turns in 2nd Summary are annoying

- The earlier you begin weighing the better...I want my job as a judge to be completed as soon as possible...weighing is de facto forced in PF for Summary and Final Focus, but feel free to do it in Rebuttal if you have time (if you are preoccupied with responding to their case, blocks, turns, etc., that's fine though)

- I know some judges argue against the nature of Speaker Points because they're very subjective and are a potential vehicle for biases to be expressed subliminally or deliberately, but I also think speaking style is important so...kind of conflicted about them. Generally, I'll try to give everyone higher speaks because I don't want to deal with people complaining about me. If you find a way to incorporate quality Disney movie-musical and/or Disney Channel Original Movie and/or Disney Channel Television Show references, you're likely to get a 30.

- However, if you knowingly falsify evidence, docked Speaker Points are the least of your worries...

- I appreciate solid warranting in every speech. If I don't understand an argument by Final Focus, that's on you. Ensure your links are clear and are still standing, otherwise weighing is just a waste of time.

- I generally type comments and the like during crossfire, so I am not necessarily paying the closest attention to it (first cross may be the exception as I likely won't have that many comments to write down by then)...if something important happens in cross that I should be paying attention to, reference it in a speech please. Avoid being rude or domineering in cross as well.

- People in PF I feel overuse the phrase "Our opponents dropped..."; please, only say your opponents have dropped something if they actually dropped it. Otherwise, I will get annoyed.

- If y'all are fully fighting over a piece of evidence, I may call for it...it's kind of annoying in an online format but ugh I guess its kind of my job? Request for me to call the card if it's truly of significance.

- I don't have much experience with k's, theory, etc. so like...do as you will but I would not recommend going for it.

- If you are discussing sensitive topics I highly encourage you issue a trigger warning for all those hearing / listening to your arguments.

- This is more in-person specific, but feel free to wear whatever you want in round. I remember having to stand outside the round holding my partner's bag while she was switching between slippers to heels and it's really just unnecessary...a number of my speech friends would also wear sweats/baggy clothes over their suits when walking outside, etc. Feel free to debate in that. It makes no difference to me.

mcentyredylan89@gmail.com

James River 22, wherever I end up 20something

Debate should be fun. If there’s anything I can do to make the round better, let me know.

Tl;dr: Tech>truth, I <3 judge instruction, make complete arguments, weigh comparatively, signpost well, and don’t sacrifice clarity to go fast.

General:

- Go for the arguments you’re most interested in. You didn’t spend all of that time cutting cards to never read them.

- Tech>truth but I’m not a flow bot and have made mistakes before.

- I really appreciate clear judge instruction because it helps ensure I look at the round the way you want me to.

- Start weighing as soon as you can

- I flow by ear. Clarity is important. I don’t like needing docs to follow speeches. Ideally, I’ll only look at cards if you tell me to.

- Make complete arguments and fully extend them

- I love when final speeches tell a concise and coherent story about the round.

PF:

- The second rebuttal needs to frontline all of the offense from first rebuttal and everything against the argument y’all go for

- For evidence exchange purposes, send all of the cards from case and rebuttal.

- Generally, I believe that kritik alternatives function as counterplans and this trend of reject alts to sidestep counterplan arguments is silly. The neg inherently rejects the aff. If you want to make an argument that your rejection of the aff through the kritik solves the harms outlined in the K, go for it, or you could just read a CP and be ready to answer the arguments about the rules.

LD:

- The application of more dense phil within debate gets messy to me and I need clear explanations/implications of this literature.

- My flow template has 6 off and I don’t want to add more.

- Not your judge for tricks

Speed/Speaker points:

- Some speed is fine(~275wpm) but don’t sacrifice all of your clarity to go fast. If I can’t follow you, I’ll say clear a few times, and if there’s no effort to be clearer, I’ll give up. Spread if you want, but please, please slow down on tags and implications. Also, slow down on transitions between pages and signpost more than you think you need to..it’s important.

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and start around 28

Kritiks/Theory:

- If you read a K, I need to know what the link is, who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Read whatever interp you want. My only rule is that you must be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation. I enjoy debates about debate but need to hear clear explanations for why your model is better.

Other:

- If neither side has tried to do any sort of impact comparison, I’ll flip a coin to pick a winner. Heads is aff and tails is neg. I’m open to hearing presumption arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

Thank you, Castelo..debate would not be a part of my life if you hadn’t started coaching.

Hello. I am a parent judge, and I have quite a bit of experience judging Novice, JV and Varsity PF.

Important things to note:

1) No spreading please. (I am helping my dad write this, and I can assure you he cannot keep up if you spread. If you spread, there is a good chance that even if you have a great argument, it won't make it onto his flow, and you might lose.) :( That being said, some speed is fine (he's not that old).

2) You need clear warranting, and this includes in rebuttal. Also, please explain link chains.

3) Please provide off-time roadmaps and do signpost.

4) Second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal. Rebuttals should be linear and respond to your opponents' points in the order they were said.

5) Extend your arguments.

6) WEIGH. You can start weighing as early as you want, but you MUST weigh in summary and in final focus. If you aren't telling me how I should judge this round, then I will have to decide for myself.

7) I don't flow crossfires, so if you want something in crossfire to make it onto my flow, you must bring it up in a speech.

8) Especially if your case has more than two contentions, please consider collapsing in summary.

9) Tech > truth... to an extent. If you say something blatantly false, I won't vote off of it.

please no theory

By way of background, I am a finance professional focused on healthcare.

As always, please be considerate of each other.

Have fun, and good luck! :)

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Background: He/Him/His pronouns. I am a third-year law student at NYU and currently coach PF at Durham Academy (NC).

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add nmengisteab@gmail.com to the email chain.

Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but it is up to the debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut cards means I won't evaluate your evidence in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense > Defense. Offense requires proper extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be difficult to win with just terminal defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but please be clear; if you aren't, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: The second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal responses. Generally, anything in Final Focus should be in Summary—extensions and frontlining matter. New weighing in final focus is flexible depending on the position and/or whether it's responsive (this doesn't give license to dump all new weighing in the last speech).
• Please weigh: Use comparative weighing for your links and impacts with either timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms. Please note that winning your arg's link first is more important than only focusing on weighing.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. You can expect I'll have already researched a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will intervene and vote you down) if you argue anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e., Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). Run at your own risk.
• *Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you must do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. Evidence of abuse is needed for theory, especially disclosure-related shells. I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, preferably cut-card open source, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow. If your disclosure is unintelligible b/c you pasted pages of article text, then I don't think you really disclosed (open to this as a response as applicable).
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression. Use your best judgment here.
• *Note - if you read excessive off positions in a PF round (ex: 4), I will try my best to evaluate the round, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please preflow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are necessary to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; Speaker points usually range from 28 to 30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

I am an inexperienced judge, this will be my first time judging a debate tournament. If debaters could please send me the word/pdf versions of their contentions so that I can follow along in more detail while learning the proverbial ropes, I would appreciate it.

Two-time NJ PF state champion - JV in 2021 and Varsity in 2022. 4-year PF debater.

Zot Zot Zot! UCI class of 2027

Flow judge - basic stuff. but not a fan of theory/k's or anything nonstandard. Just be respectful to each other.

Collapse in summary, and weigh as soon as you would like. The sooner the better. I will not evaluate new responses come ff.

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay judge who has been judging both debate and speech events for approximately five years.

I particularly value a clear presentation of a particular argument. Please consider the amount of evidence that you need to present to support your contention or your refutation of your opponent's contentions. Being able to clearly and logically present your arguments is as important as the volume of data that support your argument.

I do not like the approach of trying to present an excess of data in the hope that your opponents might miss a particular piece of evidence.

Good luck and have fun.

Ram Miller

I have judged elimination rounds at more than 50 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on 14 Chief Adjudication Panels, 2 Equity Panels, and more than 15 Grand Finals, and chaired more than 10 elimination rounds. I am experienced with the WSDC, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of the evidence.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated withit.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligentvoter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leadsto equity violations.
• Roadmapsare appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I am reasonably low during speech. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

I am a lay judge. I am looking for clear communication, professionalism and mutual respect in the debate. I also expect the debaters to maintain time.

I will also look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. Debate should be vigorous, but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.

Comparing and contrasting in your arguments is very important. Do strong weighing between the two arguments (Affirmative/Negative) and explain why yours is better than theirs and why I should vote for you. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear.

I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument rather than one who stays on the same point for too long.

I don’t prefer intervening and expect teams to call out bad behavior such as spreading, new arguments in final focus etc. Competitors do not have to reply every argument in case a team is using spreading tactic. 
Competitors are encouraged to focus on main issues pertaining to the topic rather than “minor” or “obscure” arguments.

This is my fourth year as a citizen judge, and I take my role in the tournaments very seriously. It is such a joy to witness well-prepared debaters making contentions with respect and grace. I base my decisions on your ability to convince me that you have the sounder argument in this particular round, and on your professionalism and respect for your debate colleagues. I don't need to see your cards, and I trust you to take responsibility for timing yourself. Bring on the debates!

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

Other things to consider: Signposting is helpful. My decisions are influenced by which individual/team more clearly, concisely and factually presents and supports their case. You can speak quickly but don't spread (240 wpm +). Try not to fall into "debated speak" as it makes it more difficult to understand/relate to your arguments. It is much more important that I can understand and follow your line of reasoning and how you build your argument. Building a logical case supported by a well thought out line of reasoning with supporting evidence is much more important to my decision than how quickly you can rattle off information. It is very important that you can support (or cite evidence for) "statements of fact" in your argument. You can off time roadmap but limit this to less than 15 seconds. Focus on your contentions and countering your opponents arguments - DON'T focus on telling me what your opponent is doing wrong or the rules they are breaking (ex. bringing up a new contention in final focus) as that is just wasting time. Finally, don't laugh at, belittle, or otherwise show disrespect to your opponent or you will be docked individual points. Most importantly have fun, be nice, and we'll all have a great time. If you have questions please feel free to email me at trmoffitt@yahoo.com.

Background: I'm a senior in college and I attended McDowell in Erie, PA. I did a lot of events but some of them were extemp, info, DI, OO, and BQ.

Pf:

What I want to see: I am a math & cs major. I like quantitative arguments that can have impacts. I have been out of the speech and debate world for a little bit so please give some background to the topic but you can mainly go right into the args. Weigh impacts + tell me how i should judge the round. I am also good at understanding speed but don't spread cause it's pf. Also if you think it's a good theory argument then i guess use it but its also pf. I will flow the round and probably judge based on that.

Please be nice :)I will not tolerate hate or intolerance of any type. I will tank speaks if you are mean.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before or after the round, but if you try to argue with me after round I won't like that and probably give you poor speaks :)

Here's my email for the doc chain evelyn.moore2002@gmail.com

I'm a freshman at Yale who did debate at Regis for four years, primarily in public forum. Given that, I've seen pretty much everything debate has to offer.

My general philosophy is that debate is an educational activity, meant to be informative, rhetorical, accessible, and logical. Act like I know nothing about the topic, give me a baseline understanding, and then, and only then, convince me that whatever your contention or argument is applies better than your opponents. For me, using logic and critical thinking is just as important as spewing a bunch of facts about whatever the topic is.

That means...

• don't read a case that, realistically, is over 700 words.
• don't impact to world extinction because of nuclear war
• don't list 15 different authors names without explaining what they say
• do spend the majority of your summary and final focus contextualizing your argument
• do use one or two fleshed-out responses in rebuttal rather than six "turns"
• do make clear comparisons between pro and con arguments in summary and final focus

Very simply, if you speak well, speak clearly, speak slowly, and speak truthfully, 99% of the time you will win the round very very easily.

If you have questions, let me know. Good luck

Hello, my name is Kylie, and I have a few years of experience with debating public forum. I am from Juneau, Alaska; and can’t wait to see how you do.

I have a few preferences...

Eye Contact / Delivery: Please don’t solely read off your paper for all your speeches, know your arguments and be ready to ad-lib.

Be respectful: Please do not raise your voice, just strengthen your argument. Don’t shame another team for asking you to define a term, and definitely don’t be afraid to respectfully ask the other team- I may even need the definition too, so it can be beneficial for universal clarity. Please keep table talk to a minimum as well while the other team is speaking

Enunciate: Understanding the topics and arguments is hard without trying to decypher what you’re saying when you speaking too fast, Remember your content is only half the battle, you have to convince me.

Framework: Please make sure you include an outline of what you want from the debate- you won’t lose if you don’t, but it can make my choice easier.

May the best debaters win...

Email chain: owenmm@utexas.edu

tech only, no truth.

default TT

I did PF for Flower Mound, and I broke at TOC (2x qual), TFA (2x qual), NSDA (2x qual), and a bunch of natcirc tourneys (if that matters to you, idk).

PF

Skip grand cross and I'll like you (but if you actually have questions to ask please don't skip because of me).

I only give less than 29.9 if you give me a reason to.

Obviously, I will tank if you are disrespectful -- including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- just be a good person please.

and I only give 30 if you dedicate the debate to Sid Thandassery before constructive.

for all: quality > quantity — I need good warranting, explanations, implications, etc. It’s much easier to vote on one really good argument than a few bad ones.

Theory (1)

default: DTD, CIs, norm-setting, fairness > edu, no RVIs

but it doesn't matter, make any arguments, I don't hack (unless you disclose full-text, then good luck)

LARP (2)

extend, probably nothing is sticky.

collapse, signpost, be organized

weigh and meta-weigh

Tricks (1-2)

please run tricks in PF.

Phil (2-3)

I read phil and I like it, but don't be too crazy.

K (4)

I have no problem with them, I'm just not familiar with many Ks. Run whatever you want, but if you want me to vote right, I can prolly follow Cap, Set Col, most Pess Ks, and maybe Psycho.

LD

Speaks are based on strategy.

Bonus if you mention Sid Thandassery, any ex-Flower Mound debater, or bring me caffeine.

Basically same arg prefs as PF

I am a parent judge.

Preferences: No spreading and do not use debate jargon or fully explain it. Make sure you self time and keep track of your prep. Signpost and be respectful. Have fun!

warrant

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

---

also, if we can get the round done in under 45 minutes, everyone gets 30 speaks

“don’t hate the player, hate the game” - ICE-T

tl;dr → flow????

sreekar.nagul@gmail.com and trinitypreppfdocs@gmail.com, put me on the chain plz and label the chain with the round, both teams and which side they are on

i did pf for trinity prep for 3 years on the nat circuit and now i go to berkeley. i was pretty mid at debate but i qualled to the toc my senior year so there is that. i won this tourney called peach state and did ight at some other nat circuits. if there is one thing you need to know about my paradigm, it's this. debate is a game, play to win

I hate intervention, I will do anything to avoid doing it unless told otherwise.

tech>everything, if it's warranted and has an impact, it can pick up my ballot. imo tho true arguments are easier to weigh and win

if you wanna spread send a doc, but I would highly prefer if I could understand what you are saying. if you spread past rebuttal, I will call clear twice and if I still can’t understand you I’m gonna stop flowing. i am notoriously not that good with speed but i will try my best. don't share google docs, send a pdf or a word doc, non-negotiable. all in all, speak fast but never sacrifice clarity for it. if I can't catch what you are saying, then it is not on my flow.

collapse by final, its strategic and boosts speaks

signpost, it will boost your speaks and is like essential to me

rebuttals responsive to actual warrants will be rewarded with speaks

frontline everything you wanna go for in 2nd rebuttal and any external offense from 1st ref(i.e. turns and disad's). if its conceded in 2nd ref, its conceded the same way something not frontlined in 1st summ would be conceded, aka terminal concession

conceded defense is sticky, but bar that defense is not sticky and turns have to be extended, implicated, and most importantly weighed in either team’s summary if you are going for them. turns don't have to be weighed when they are made.

the argument that wins the weighing is what I will evaluate first, please give me a reason to prefer your weighing over your opponents (i.e. better link in to the chosen weighing mechanism, meta weighing, short-circuit, link-in, or best of all prereq). if there is no comparative weighing done, I default to strength of link / magnitude > time frame > probability.

you must explicitly extend any offense (with warrants) you want to go for in summary and ff, no new things in final and anything you say here has to be in summary (1st ff can respond to 2nd summ weighing, and 2nd ff can respond to 1st ff weighing tho)

cross is binding if they make a concession. bring it up in the next speech andkeep extending it for it to matter, we can skip GCX for an extra minute of prep (instead of 3 min total for both teams it would be 4 min, and if the tourney starts with 4 min prep it would be 5 min)

idk how to evaluate cp’s and tricks so you prolly shouldn't run them (nsda rules is prolly terminal d), but things like fem and neocol framework I can (and I think are strategic). bringing up a new fw in summary is prolly abusive

pull up evidence fast, if not the opponents can have unlimited prep until you send. speech docs prolly resolve this. if you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so explicitly and frequently by the end of the round. i think calling for cards is super interventionist because i think the debaters are the ones that should resolve clash not me. if your opps lie about ev but you never call them out, i wont intervene and/or dock them.

THEORY

if you run theory, use a shell, I default to competing interps and no RVI’s. yes, I think paraphrasing is bad, round reports are good, and disclosure is good. no, I won't hack for any unless you win the shell. the same extension stuff applies, but collapse. weigh the voters, if not, I will default safety > accessibility > resolvability > inclusivity > education > fairness. if no one is garnering offense on theory/unresolved clash on theory, then I will default substance, and if there is nothing on substance then I will presume.

I think friv theory is bad bc the short speech times in PF, however, I dislike intervening more than friv theory, so I will evaluate it, but I will err on the side of a good ‘friv theory bad’ shell or a reasonability claim.

for novices: if you choose to run theory and the other team clearly does not know what is going on, as long as you drop it and go for case debate I won't hit your speaks too hard, but if you prove that the other team is a capable opponent in your violation then I'm all for it.

for varsity: saying you don't know how to respond to the shell isn't enough, varsity debaters must know how to respond to varsity arguments (i.e. theory, kritiks, and other progressive arguments)

although I believe trigger warnings don't really do anything (see Association for Psychological Science and Harvard University), if an arg actually has triggering material that you have evidence to back then I am all for it. reading trigger warning theory as a way to not interact with arguments is a horrible practice that is super noneducational imo.

KRITIKS

I will never hack for a K and will evaluate it on the flow unless told otherwise. this doesn’t mean I won’t vote on a k, if it's won on the flow I will gladly vote for it, but if it's not then I won’t. specific alts are great

for novices: idk if I should evaluate k’s in novice, but ig if you make a claim your opponent is extremely capable then maybe… I would err on the side of caution tho

EXTRAS

all in all, I think speaks are a matter of technical ability and strategy in the round, if you seem well versed in your arguments and make good decisions on the flow you will get good speaks. generally tho, ill just shamelessly steal what my coach said, “speaker points, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. in short, content above style”

postround me as hard as you want, it's definitely educational, good for the activity, and incentivizes me to intervene as infrequently as possible

I will presume neg if there is no offense, it is the aff’s job to prove to me they are better than the status quo. if it is a benefits vs. harms res, ill intervene ig or look for any semblance of offense i honestly don't even know.

if an argument is conceded, i will consider it true. my threshold for new responses/cross-apps/implications on conceded arguments is pretty low, but there is no harm in actually responding anyways. this being said, i know pf is structurally skewed towards to the second speaking team, but I will try my best to protect the first final.

RANDOM

if you make a crazy double entendre bar in any of your speeches your speaks gonna go crazy high.

all in all, I agree with like almost every flow judge, so just don't do anything stupid, abusive, or discriminative otherwise you will get L20's and as cliche as it is, hAVe fUn in whatever way you think fun is

if you didn’t understand any of this, I wholeheartedly agree with Jake Kaminski’s paradigm, there is nothing on there I don't fully agree with so read it if you want more info. my other favorite paradigms are John Nahas and Anish Iyyavoo. if you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask.

for novices: If this is your 1st or 2nd tournament, you will do great! Focus on responding to all of your opponents arguments, comparing why your arguments are better, and explaining all of the parts of your arguments very clearly in every speech. Most of all, have confidence, you are going up against first year debaters only, you can win if you believe you can win. "We All Put Our Pants On the Same Way"

props if you got this far in my paradigm, I used to stalk paradigms all day to learn how judges would think so I could tweak my game, lemme know and I’ll boost your speaks

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

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

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Do's :

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

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

Lastly, Have Fun:)

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

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say, take notes and provide feedback. I understrand that you have spent time and effort on it so I take judging very seriously.

You can speak as fast or as slow as you want, however, explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains – things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone – don’t yell – and be as persuasive as you can. Be respectful!!

For the October Topic, I do have a little topical knowledge on it and I've seen unique arguments for both sides!

tl:dr: add me to the email chain, run theory and kritiks at your own risk (I'm not familiar with them), do NOT be a jerk, but make the round entertaining (I'm okay with aggressiveness as long as it's not toxic [e.g. not giving your opponent a chance to speak)

Email: josh.debate.123@gmail.com
- Email Chain: Please set the chain before the round starts. If you send evidence to the other team to be checked,
send it on the chain. I don't need you to send cases (unless you are spreading/reading theory).

General Conduct in the Round:
- I do NOT tolerate racism, sexism, or anything that discriminates another group of people
- You can be aggressive (that makes the round fun), just don't be a jerk
- Debate should be fun, not toxic

Speed: I'm not the best with speed, so if you spread, please send a speech doc.

Background/Experience:
- PF debater for 4 years in North Texas
- I understand turns, no-links/de-links, non-uniques, etc...
- Theory: I never ran theory or ever encountered it in a round. With that being said, I know paraphrasing and disclosure
theory. I am not opposed to theory as an argument, but be aware that my lack of experience may lead me to
incorrectly evaluate the argument.
-Kritiks: I don't understand Kritiks at all. I love philosophy (it's my major), so I'm not opposed to philosophical
arguments. However, because of the short time in PF, you will most likely not be able to explain them within the
round. If you want to read it for fun, go ahead, but again, be aware that I might incorrectly evaluate the argument.

Speaks:Strategy + Speaking Style
- Everybody starts at 30 speaks. I will take down a point/half-a-point if you do the following:
- First Speakers:
- don't extend a contention properly in summary
- don't frontline (1st Speaking Summary)
- don't weigh
- bring up new responses in summary

- Second Speakers:
- don't frontline (2nd speaking Rebuttal)
- bring up new responses in final focus
- don't go "big picture" in final focus

- both speakers
- mumble consistently
- too quiet
- monotone/lack of tone variation

have fun and good luck y'all!!!

I am a Yale student judging this tournament for the second year. I am familiar with the structure of PF, but I would appreciate if you clearly enunciated and kept your delivery at a normal speaking pace. I have minimal prior knowledge on the topic, so please err on the side of over-explaining while being concise and avoid complicated debate jargon. Please provide a clear summary of why you were the stronger team in the final focus, and remain respectful at all times. Thank you and see you soon!

email: pjokeef@emory.edu

flow judge

im not tryna flow off a speech doc, or evaluate K's / theory

Hey

I competed in PF in the DC area and on the circuit. I am now studying at UVA.

Preferences

To preface: If I am judging you in a round with multiple judges, consider me flexible. I understand that other judges may have different preferences and I know it can be frustrating when your judges don't all want the same kind of round. You can't make everyone happy, so focus on making the other judge(s) happy. I will adapt.

Add me to the chain/Google shareable/carrier pigeon please:
aidan@theomaras.net

If you contextualize arguments for me, I will be able to better evaluate them.

I will vote off of the flow, but I recommend that you provide a narrative on why I should vote for you that outlines the voters and gives me a clear path to a decision.

Again, I will flow, but note that I prefer rounds to be accessible to people that have not gone to a camp. This means that, while some jargon is acceptable, making an effort to communicate in plain English will win some speaks. If you disregard this, it will not affect my decision but it will probably affect your points.

Respect is essential, so I am unlikely to vote for you if you are rude, disruptive, -ist, etc.

Please don't spread. High-speed, well-enunciated speech is fine, but try to stick to fewer than 240 words per minute.

Don't go over time. When the time on your timer is greater than time allocated for your speech, close it out.

If you run an alternative argument (ex: theory, kritiks), do so knowing that I probably will not evaluate it "correctly" and that I am heavily biased toward substance.

If there is an egregious violation, and you clearly articulate it, I will consider the arguments. Again, I am unlikely to do so in the way that a coach, camp, or captain told you a judge ought to; if you make unorthodox arguments about the debate space, I may evaluate them in an unorthodox way.

Roadmaps are fine as long as you give them quickly. Roadmapping is not a tool for your understanding, it is a tool for your judges' and opponents' understanding. If I feel that you are turning your roadmap into prep, I will disallow future roadmaps.

I will use the tournament standard to assess speaks. See the relevant docs for details.

Please ask if you have any questions. Good luck!

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

He/Him pronouns

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

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

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

EXTENSIONS

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

SPEECH AND PACE

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

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DECLAMATION

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

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

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

Please feel free to debate at your own pace. I only ask two things of the Public Forum competitors that I'm judging. First, that they don't spread (talk at an incomprehensibly fast rate), and second that they remain respectful and cordial to their fellow competitors and judge at all times. A spirited debate is awesome, but a shouting match is decidedly not. Rules for other formats that I may judge are listed below.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate:

-My four years of debating were spent entirely in Public Forum, and resultingly I'm more experienced with arguments backed by hard evidence as opposed to wholly tech-based or framework-based ones. However, this doesn't mean I consider the latter two to be any less legitimate—as long as you argue your case well, I will evaluate you based on the merit of the argument provided.

-I understand that spreading is more common in this format—if you have to do it, I won't hold it against you. However, I ask that you try your best to keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener, even if they're at a faster pace than one is accustomed to listen to.

-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.

-I do not evaluate disclosure theory, and I advise any competitor who plans on using it in a round I'm judging to rethink their strategy going ahead.

-I allow off-time roadmaps.

-Keep it civil always.

Policy Debate:

-Like with LD, I understand that spreading/fast-paced speeches are the norm, or at the very least accepted. While I understand the constraints of time may necessitate such behavior, I will once again request that you keep your speeches comprehensible to the average listener so I can fully appreciate your argument.

-Frameworks are bound to be argued over—if neither side can agree on a framework to use for the debate, I will choose to evaluate which one held more weight.

I a parent judge . I am not very fluent with debate terms and hence will base my judgement on arguments presented for pro/con , clear articulation and public speaking skills. Please do not speak at 500 mins/ min if you want me to understand your points !

I am a parent judge, with 10 years of experience.

Important:

Please speak clearly, avoid over speed, and explain your points thoroughly.

Online Debate:

For online debates, prefer cameras on and you are fully visible.

Relevant Thoughts:

• Evidence quality is important. Good data and analytics can beat bad cards.
• My experience is policy-heavy, and it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.
• You as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.
• In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech.
• Speed is fine with me in beginning speeches but make sure your speed doesn't affect the quality of the argument.
• Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

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

Hello, I am a parent judge for the debate.

- In online debates, please keep your cameras on and ensure that you are fully visible

- Judgment criteria:

I value clear and effective communication. Please articulate your arguments coherently, and avoid speaking too quickly, as it may hinder my ability to evaluate your points. Please speak at a relative slow pace so I can clearly understand your arguments.

When presenting an opinion on a topic, it is essential to determine whether you have the ability to provide sufficient supporting evidence for your viewpoint and analyze it. I hope you will do your best to support the opinions you are advocating.

During the back half of the debate please focus on why I should vote for your side.

During questioning, be clear in your thought process when asking or answering questions.

Best of luck to all participants, and let's have a productive and intellectually stimulating debate!

Hi everyone! I have over 20 years of judging & coaching experience, and while I spend the majority of my time on the interp side of speech & debate, I also enjoy judging Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate now and then.

The best way to win my ballot is to be a good community member and a respectful debate opponent. I believe that you can make strong, compelling arguments without being rude, snarky, or condescending to your opponent. And please, do not yell at one another like you are fighting with a sibling who stole the last popsicle. Being strong and assertive is not the same as being loud and aggressive. I am all for clash (I look forward to it) just be a respectful opponent.

You winning my ballot is really up to you, not me. Do your research, make strong arguments, and present them compellingly. I appreciate a clear structure, roadmaps, and signposting.

I don't love the crazy fast talk. I would much rather you make solid, clear arguments on the most important points rather than list off at lightning speed everything you have read about the topic.

Tell me why should win the round, be specific, and make it about what YOU did in the debate. Of course, you can mention the errors of your opponent, but please do not tell me "our opponents didn't respond" when they clearly did. No tricks, no gimmicks, no trying to pull a fast one.

Finally, stick to the debate topic. You will NOT win my ballot if you are running a wacky case that has nothing to do with the actual topic, I find that to be a complete lack of respect for the activity.

Standard, traditional judge, with experience across all events.

Appreciate clash, weighting, and topicality. Structure of your argument should be explicit ("this, therefore that"). I avoid making any connections on my own. Think about it this way--do you really want the judge having to define your argument for you?

Ks: I don't like them. I accept that they're here to stay and can tolerate them in LD (in good faith), but will be skeptical. I do not consider your opponent to have an obligation to treat the K as valid. Ks have no place in PF. Same goes for other nontraditional strategies and theory battles.

Speed is not an issue. I can keep up. If you're somehow going too fast, I may notify you to slow down, or even stop notetaking entirely, but this is rare. If you plan on spreading you better have explicit signposting.

Tech-versus-truth: Moderate. Use your best judgment. As stated above, links should be explicit.

I will not buy wide leaps in logic and do not appreciate attempts to overwhelm opponents with unwieldly links. "This, therefore this, therefore this, therefore this" is not good faith debating and is often nontopical. If you're being especially egregious I may knock you on topicality even if your opponent does not

Full disclosure: I consider all of forensics to be primarily about public speaking but will not be won over by rhetoric, volume, or flowery imagery. Vocal skills matter but that alone will never win the round.

Hold each other accountable, especially on timing. If a speaker goes way over time, that is the opponent's fault for not stopping them.

As a mother to two debaters, I have had my fair share of debate tournament experience. As per what my kids say, I am not a flow judge, but more like a lay judge. I like to see how arguments flow through, but at the end of the day, whichever case is stronger and better in being communicated to me will win debates. Please note that I do not consider points in cross ex valid unless brought up in speeches and that fast talking is harder for me to understand. Sportsmanship and quality of speaking are of the upmost priority here. Every idea is runnable if you are a good speaker.

For any tournament, the speaker's backup research to prove his/her point forms the crux of the debate.

The arguments should have a flow that eventually leads to the decisive point

The tone set along with the time used for the debates will also be considered while judging the tournament.

Hello! I'm Sofia, I debated four years of Public Forum for Blake and I am currently a first year at UChicago.

Please add these to the email chain: saperri@uchicago.edu,blakedocs@googlegroups.com

If you are a novice, scroll down to the bottom of my paradigm to the "for novices" section

HOW I JUDGE:

Tech > Truth. I will be flowing all your speeches and will make my decision based on the flow, with as little intervention as possible. If you want me to vote off something that happened in cross, you must bring it up in a speech. Evidence is super important; please read cut cards, and if your opponents ask you for evidence you must be able to send the fully cut card (not just a URL!) to the email chain. Keep track of your own prep time. In speeches, I'll stop flowing at 5 seconds over if you're finishing a thought but if you start a new response overtime I won't flow it. Don't be unnecessarily rude, I'll tank your speaks. I do love some snark tho; you don’t always have to be nice in debate. Racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc will not be tolerated and will result in an auto L.

Please send speech docs with cut cards before your speech!!!!!

SUBSTANCE DEBATE TAKES I HAVE:

Defense is not sticky – you must extend all defense that you want to matter for my ballot, even if it was conceded, in the first summary. Additionally, second rebuttal has to frontline and objectively, from a strategic standpoint, should frontline before it attacks the opponent's case.

Weighing– make your weighing comparitive and warranted, and you must respond to your opponent's weighing and explain why yours is better. I cannot emphasize this enough. Weighing preferences: Say probability instead of strength of link. Saying you outweigh on probability because the argument was conceded is stupid- think of some real warrants. Outweighing on timeframe isn't just "our impact happens now, theirs happens in 10 years" - you need to implicate this claim, ie the solution to their impact doesn't have to be the aff (intervening actors solve). Tbh, I think metaweighing is stupid 99% of the time- a better strat when trying to win a weighing debate is to match all their mechs/respond to them, and use your extra mechanisms to "break the tie". Weighing should start in 2nd rebuttal and the last place where new weighing is ok is 1st final (already kinda cheeky– don't read 4 new mechs, it has to build off of summary's weighing)

Extensions – Extend uq/link/IL/impact of the argument you are going for. My link/impact extension threshold is relatively low, but warrants do still have to exist. I personally don't think you have to extend case in second rebuttal– extensions should start in the summaries. Additionally, you should never go for both contentions, or both links of one contention, it's a waste of your time. Go for one piece of case offense, and 1-2 pieces of turn offense. Or just go for turns

Framework– Framework is great when done correctly; otherwise, it's a massive waste of everyone's time. For example, DO NOT read cost-benefit analysis framework– framework is meant to frame your opponents out of the debate. Reading the implicit, universal rules of a debate round as your framework is not strategic at all. Additionally, if you are reading SV framework, you should probably make the the warrants for the framework specific to the group you are impacting to (women, indigenous people, etc). Otherwise, you allow the opponent to get away with some very sketchy link-ins which defeats the purpose of framework. PF is having this stupid trend of kids spending 15 seconds reading "fRamEwOrK" that essentially says "SV is bad, vote ___ to break the cycle"– this is not what good framework looks like. There should be several, smart warrants for why your framework is important as well as a clear ROTB with warrants as well.

Evidence comparison– do it. post-date, empirical, meta-study, greater sample size, etc. Please don't make me intervene when there's two competing claims/warrants just sitting there on the flow– evidence comparison is key in these scenarios.

Speed– When done well, I love it. I think it allows for more interesting, technical debates with more clash. However, if you can't spread, DON'T DO IT. I will not flow off your doc. Your speaker points will suffer. You can still win rounds with efficiency + good word economy; please please don't try to go fast if it sacrifices your clarity.

Off-time roadmaps– Most of the time these are goofy. Just tell me where you are starting and sign-post from there. If there are three sheets or more then please tell me the order of the sheets but that’s lowk it

PROGRESSIVE DEBATE TAKES I HAVE:

Theory

I default to competing interps, but essentially I'll just evaluate the flow (not much different than evaling a substance round)

Theory must be read in the speech right after the violation

Out of the shells you could read I will probably be most receptive to paraphrasing and disclosure theory, I have some experience reading these arguments, although not a ton– send the shell to the email chain before you read it. Also stop forgetting to extend drop the debater in the backhalf

PF doesn't seem to understand what an RVI is, so if you want to read a shell know that THIS IS WHAT I CONSIDER AN RVI: All we need to prove is that we don't violate to win this round (ie similar to winning off of defense). HOWEVER, if the responding team concedes no RVIs that DOES NOT MEAN THE SHELL IS CONCEDED. If the responding team wins offense on the shell (ie a counter-interp) they can still win the round. This argument is very simple and I don't understand why there is such confusion surrounding this issue. It's just like a normal round - if you win a turn on your opponent's case, that is a voting issue for you.

Some random preferences that may be useful to you: Don't read a para good counter-interp, I will not vote for frivolous theory, I'm generally skewed towards trigger warnings bad, I think round reports are ultra dumb

EDIT: Theory is done so poorly in PF 99.99% of the time and it's honestly painful to watch/endure sometimes. I cannot promise you your speaks won't be dookie if you read theory. That said, do what you need to do to win, but I would probably advise against reading theory in prelims if I'm your judge.

Kritiks

I have some experience reading and/or debating set col, security, fem, and cap, so those are for sure the three I would feel most confident evaluating. However, just generally run Ks at your own risk with me, I don't know much about most of the lit

Stop running Ks without an alt or reading very goofy alts– please read an actual alt that YOU UNDERSTAND + CAN EXPLAIN. If your opponent asks you "what is the alt" / "how does the alt solve for the harm" / "what is the role of the neg/aff in this debate", and you can't respond without opening your speech doc and word-vomiting policy backfiles, rethink the strat.

Similar to theory debates, I believe K debate extensions should be done off the doc - that’s what I did all throughout my career and I believe it makes things a lot more consistent. If you’re paraphrasing your ROTB and alt differently every speech it could potentially make you a moving target and make your argument a lot more vulnerable to responses. I feel like it also just makes the debate more efficient, especially if the argument is new to you.

IVIs

Literally just no

There are structures and mechanisms in place for you to deal with in-round abuses, DO NOT read a 10 second blip with horrific warranting and expect me to vote on it. Read theory or call a violation with tab

If you are going to read an IVI, I'll feel comfortable voting on any RVIs read against it + evaluate it through reasonability

FOR NOVICES:

TLDR: TO MASSIVELY INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING THIS DEBATE, EXTEND ONE OF YOUR CONTENTIONS AND WEIGH IT. Like 70% of novice rounds are won by simply doing this.

Some things I would like to see in round:

1. Every speech after constructives must answer the speech that came before it. For example, in second rebuttal you must respond to the responses the other team put on your case (as well as respond to their case). Also,
"sticky defense" is not a thing- defense must be extended in first summary for it to matter.

2. Please weigh your arguments! Magnitude, probability, Prerequisite, etc. and give a reason why your argument outweighs. If you just say "we outweigh on magnitude" and move on without comparing the impacts and actually explaining why, I can't really evaluate it. Also, make sure to respond to your opponent's weighing, otherwise I'm forced to intervene.

3. In summary and final focus, extend the links/warrants/impact(s) of the arguments you're going for. If you just say "extend Russia" and don't explain what "Russia" is, I can't vote on it. My link/impact extension threshold is relatively low, but warrants+internal links do still have to exist.

4. Please narrow down the back half of the debate! Y'all should really only be going for one contention from case, and don't try to extend every response from rebuttal in summary/final focus. Choose a couple you think are the strongest and you are winning the most, and explain those+weigh them well. In summary you should probably be collapsing on 2-3 pieces of offense (arguments that give me a reason to vote for you, like case or turns) and in final focus you should probably be collapsing on 1-2.

5. Last speech where new arguments are okay is first final focus, and that's just for new weighing (and it should be building off of summary's weighing, not like 3 completely new mechs)

6. Please signpost, order, and label your arguments!!!

MISCELLANEOUS:

My goddesses: ELIZ and TRONK

stay clippin

Most importantly, don't stress and have fun! You got this :)

Put me on the email chain: drewpeterson2002@gmail.com

For some background, I have previously competed for 3 years on the national circuit, been coaching / judging for 4 years nationally and also served as the the Tournament Chair for the Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament.

I strongly prefer hearing smart arguments over a large quantity of them.

My threshold for warranting and explanation is likely much higher than you think. Warrant is severely lacking in PF. In order for me to vote on argument, all parts must be clearly extended and explained in the later speeches.

Do not just do impact calc just for the sake of doing it. Impact calc is not nearly as relevant / important to most of the decisions I make as it can be. Make your analysis truly comparative.

However, all of my rules and preferences are negotiable. Debate is up to the debaters. Go for whatever type of argument you want, but stick to what you do best. That includes theory and kritiks.

Hello,

I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 3 years now.

I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.

I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.

I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.

Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy. I'm a sophomore at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for Charlotte Latin.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.

General

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.

Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.

I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible. If you're going to go fast, slow down for the tags.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.

How I Evaluate

I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Prog

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments OR are in the varsity division of a TOC-bidding tournament. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

I default to competing interps and yes RVIs, you have to read No RVIs and reasonability with warrants if I'm going to vote on it.

Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE JUDGES WHEN I DEBATED: Gabe Rusk, Brian Gao, Bryce Pitrowski

I have never debated, although I have good friends who are accomplished debaters. As such, I have had some exposure to debate theory. I am somewhat familiar with the "stock issues" from policy debate. However, please only run highly theoretical arguments if you are confident you can adequately explain any necessary background to a layperson like myself. Please do not use excessive jargon or spread.

Debate words I am familiar with: aff, neg, squo, nonunique (nuq?)

I know these are extremely basic haha, but I also know you probably don't enjoy being super verbose so I'm trying to be clear about what I understand.

Please add me on the email chain and feel free to contact me at zbp1@williams.edu

Pronouns: she/they

About me: debated (policy) at Sonoma Academy under Lani Frazer + Laila McClay. I ran both policy affs and k affs named after MTS songs.

Accessibility in debate is super important to me. Let me know if you need to adjust the round in any way. Any sort of request will not affect your speaks.

General: (policy oriented)

Do what you do best. This isn’t about me. I’ll minimize judge intervention as much as possible.

Just explain and impact out your arguments and you’ll be fine. I don’t have a ton of argumentative preferences, but I’m probably not the best judge for super high theory args. I think they lead to pretty annoying and substance-less debates. That said, I’ll vote on pretty much anything as long as you tell me why I need to vote on it. Please be organized. Signposting is important.

Sass is fun, but try not to be overly mean. Debate is stressful enough as it is.Don’t be terrible.

If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ableist etc. comments, I will nuke your speaks and contact your coach.

Speed:If you can, a camera on while you're speaking would be great. I’m fine with whatever speed you want to go at, just be clear. If I’m staring blankly at you, you’re not being clear enough.

Theory:Fine. I find theory debates pretty boring, but if you impact out what you’re saying and explain why it matters, I’m fine with it. If you want me to vote on it, do at least two minutes of work on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality:Sure, I’ll vote on it. I don’t love Ks of T, but just explain it well and I’ll be fine. Tell me why I should vote on it.

Ks:Hell yeah. I’m not super familiar with a lot of high theory Ks, but that doesn’t mean I won’t understand them if you explain them. Pls know your lit and know how to explain it. One of my biggest pet peeves is when k teams try to confuse confuse the other team in cx by shouting out buzzwords and not actually saying anything.

Specifics: Framing is important! Contextualize your links. Links of omission=bad. I also generally believe that debate is valuable and educational, but if you win that it isn't I guess I'll vote on your Baudy k. If I have to.

K affs:A lot of the above still applies. I’m more comfortable with advocacy statements, but I don’t need one. Just do whatever you want as long as you put in the work and explain what you want me to vote on. But generally, if you don't explain how your aff functions and just repeat buzzwords, I'll be annoyed and have a difficult time voting aff.

FW vs K Affs:I think your aff should have some relation to the topic. Explain what the ballot does and why voting aff does all the things you say it does. That seems pretty self-explanatory, but apparently it's not.

DAs:“Throw em at me.” If you read politics, you better hope it's unique and you have specific link ev.

CPs:Cool. Have a solvency advocate pls.

Prep:I can tell when you're trying to steal prep. Emailing and tech malfunctions are not prep.

Iam a parent judge. It is important you go slowly and explain your arguments clearly.

Experience: I am a parent judge who prioritizes fairness in my judging.

Philosophy:

• Open-minded judging
• Clarity over speed
• Focus on a clear framework
• Valuing quality evidence
• No biases for or against specific arguments

Speaker Points: I allocate speaker points based on the following criteria:

• Clarity of communication
• Argumentation quality
• Organization and structure
• Engagement with opponents' arguments
• Use of evidence
• Respectful and professional conduct

Timekeeping: I expect debaters to manage their own time effectively.

Looking forward to a fair and respectful debate.

I am a parent judge.

Please keep it simple. For your arguments, please speak slowly and clearly, and make sure to emphasize to me what you truly want to get across in your speeches. Again, I am not experienced so I will not be able to get down every single thing you bring up in your speeches. It is your responsibility to make your narrative clear and tell me why you're winning.

I would prefer no progressive argumentation (theory, Ks, etc) as I have no idea how to evaluate them.

Former corporate lawyer and switched to a career in finance for the last 15 years. Parent of a PF debater. Preferences on style: Speed kills-if I did not hear it then it was not said. I would focus on clearly communicating and emphasizing your important points in lieu of speed. I do not vote on Theory or K arguments. Please practice good debate etiquette and most importantly, have fun.

Kyle - He/Him/His

Updated for NSDA Nats, if I'm judging you in CO it's obviously less strict but I still have preferences :)

My email is kyle.quinlan6045@gmail.com. Please add me to an email chain. Flashing seems to be especially important with online debate. Use a descriptive subject line to help me keep track of rounds. Note I will not pull up the doc to follow in round, but want your evidence to read if needed.

I did CX and PF in high school.

PF (CX is going to be similar vibe):

I'm a flow judge. You'll probably be best adapting as if I'm flay - I strongly prefer slower, well warranted argumentation with a clear collapse. In general I prefer traditional debate, but I'll definitely listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. Don't lie about evidence (paraphrasing is fine). I use an offense-defense paradigm to help me evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense. Defense alone never wins rounds (unless you fully unironically have terminal defense on everything and make a case for why I vote your side on presumption). I will flow everything but cross, but I'll still pay attention and jot down notes if something important happens. Also my preference for case format is a doc with a paraphrased version that you read and then all cut cards included below it, but that's just a preference so do whatever you want.

Some extra stuff

1. Front Lining is necessary. If you're speaking second, you need to defend your own case in rebuttal. If you leave your side of the flow empty going into summary, you just dropped all your opponents attacks on your case. I used to disagree with this, but second speaker is a huge advantage otherwise and I think this makes for better debates. Feel free to drop a contention so you can do more attacks, but you have to front line or you'll almost certainly lose the round.

2. Please collapse. We both know you aren't winning everything, and you don't need to win everything to win the round. Just tell me what you are winning and why that should win you the round.

3. Analytics. You don't need a card to make an argument. Strong, specific card > strong, specific analytic > weak card. Just make good arguments

4. Speed is fine, but if your opponents ask you before or during the round to slow down try to honor that. Debate should be accessible.

5. Tech > Truth. I will try my hardest not to step in and do any work for either side. The bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

6. Theory in PF is kinda lame, but there is a place for it and I'll give you the ballot if you actually win it. Bar is lower to respond in PF w/ shorter speeches but again, you still need to respond.

7. Evidence calls shouldn't take too long (like 2 minutes tops). If you can't find the card I'm just dropping that argument. Be able to show your opponents the quote you use and a little context around it. That being said, if you're paraphrasing in case and you heavily misrepresent or outright lie about evidence, I will most likely just give you the L. Let me know at the end if you think your opponent did this and I'll read a card or two and make a decision.

If you have any more questions, just ask me before the round. If you want more feedback after a round just email me and I'll probably tell you more. Be nice and have fun :)

Random stuff I'll keep adding as I watch rounds:

1. Time yourself, I'll forget.

2. If I'm timing I'll just stop listening after ~5 seconds over time. If I forgot to start a timer just stop your opponent when they're like 10 seconds over.

3. Cross is usually zzz. I'm listening but I'm not flowing so if something important happens say it again when I am flowing :))

I am a parent judge, and this is my first year judging debate.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

• Do not speak too fast, otherwise I may not be able to fully understand what you are saying.
• Please be respectful to other debaters.
• My knowledge of debate jargon is limited, as well as my judging experience, so please clearly explain your arguments and impacts.

Email: me.shree@gmail.com

Thank you!

Hi! I'm Rhea(she/her), and I debated Classic (MN only) and US Extemp. at Eastview High School in Minnesota. I was a national quarterfinalist 2x in US Extemp at NSDA Nationals, and placed 3d at NCFLS.

Stylistically, I prefer you to speak at a conversational speed. I also like when people signpost. I understand that due to time-constraint you may need to speak fast, but if I can't understand your argument, then I can't judge it well!

I like it when arguments are well developed and have real, weighable impacts. I dislike theory.

I really care about evidence ethics! Please read cards instead of paraphrasing. I will call for a card if it gets indicted.

Obviously be kind and respectful! Don't be rude during crossfire. If I feel like you are being disrespectful, discriminatory, or condescending towards your opponents I WILL drop your speaker points.

I remember how all-consuming debate was when I was in high school. But remember, this is just a high school activity at the end of the day. If you emerge from your debate experience having gained a deeper understanding of critical global issues and becoming a more confident speaker, you have won. This is cringe lol, but it is how I truly feel now that I am in college and have had more time to reflect on my debate journey.

About me: I did PF in high school so I have some exposure to the event. I've been judging for the past couple years, so I'll probably be able to make a good decision if you read this and follow along.

Publlic Forum

1. Tech > Truth but if you're rude you're probably getting low speaks
2. Respect is important
3. The team that wins the more impactful argument gets the win
4. Final focus should be voting issues and weighing
5. In terms of speed, 200 wpm is probably my max but I'll flow off a doc if provided
6. I won't evaluate theory or Ks

Debate the way you think will win, and I'll follow along.

Hi, this is my first time judging. I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slow and no jargon. Please send me your cases to yogi.rakasi@gmail.com so I may follow along, because English is not my first language.

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day (AFA , IPDA , NFA) ... currently I'm a consultant teaching IE's at the university level (AFA)

• PLZ treat your opponent and judge the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate or toxicity in debate
• I prefer speechdrop, google docs or NSDA file share .. unless you're a debate coach or tournament director or prospective employer... you don't need my email
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• I mainly judge College IE's and HS nat circuit PF - these are my absolute fav's
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DON'T want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
• IF USING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (whether debate or public speaking event) , you need to address the 5 C's of historical analysis ... if not then this is for you ---> L
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

PO's: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

^^ To the PO's, if you don't establish your gaveling procedure almost immediately I will have no problem ranking you last - non negotiable

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO A LONG WAY IN THIS EVENT

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Usually Tech, however it all depends on what you run, if you're going to say things that are absolutely not true (holocaust never happened... etc) STRIKE ME - because if I have to go Truth I will have no problem telling you you're wrong and will make an example out of you

I better see clash

IMO, Condo and anything Fiat should be left to LD/CX - but I will evaluate it I guess

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

I value good strategy and refined rhetoric, if you have this you'll most likely get my ballot

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

IMPACT CALCULUS is your best friend !!!

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - HECK YEA

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX, but I am getting back into the groove.... best way to describe me when pertaining to policy is Game Theorist

Now in days no judge is really Tab - lucky you I'm all about Game Theory

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

If any debate round is near impossible to judge (terrible evidence, round going in circles, no clash, toxic behavior, challenges... etc) I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2024-2025 season!!

Hello all,

I am a parent judge , i look forward to judging as the energy of the debaters and the passion they bring to the topic is commendable. I appreciate the participants to respect others and the diversity in opinion that is being presented. Debaters bring in their individual style for presentation of the case and the arguments which is well appreciated. The consideration for debaters would be to frame the argument and presentations as an effective communication thus depicting clarity of the argument.

Lay Judge

Please speak slowly and clearly (this is my first time judging) or else I won't be able to flow or follow your arguments. If you run progressive or non-topical arguments such as Theory, Ks, Tricks, etc., I will NOT vote for you, so please just stick to the topic. I am familiar with speech times and how PF debate works.

Also, if you are setting up an email chain to share evidence, please add me to it: rajesh_a_rao@yahoo.com

Hi thanks for looking at my paradigm.

- I am a fairly new judge

- I am not familiar to debate terms

- Please don't go too fast

I am fairly generous with speaker points.

I will most likely give you (28-30)

I do not tolerate disrespect please keep this debate clean.

I debated for 4 years on the PF national circuit for duPont Manual High School and go to UT Austin rn. Let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions!

1. Make it easy for me to vote for you with well-warranted and weighed arguments in the 2nd half

2. Plz rebuild in 2nd rebuttal (and even start collapsing!)

3.SIGNPOST

4.WEIGH COMPARATIVELY:don't just say magnitude, tell me how you have 3 more magnitudes than your opponent

5. I'm fine with speed; Just no spreading

2nd Half (Summary/FF):Collapse needs to happen in summary and these speeches should mirror each other. Make sure you are telling me why things matter when extending it. Extend the warrant AND impact in BOTH speeches for me to vote off of it (weigh it and you'll win!)

Cross:I kind of enjoy watching cross so take it as an opportunity to clarify arguments or just to be funny. That being said, it won't factor into my decision at all unless it's brought up in a speech.

Evidence:I'll call for it if someone tells me to or if it's key to my decision. If it is sus, I will not be a happy camper.

Theory n stuff:I have no idea how to properly run or evaluate it but I will try my best. Please do not use this as a tool to be exclusionary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email:Benjaminredler@gmail.com

Ask for preferences before round starts

pls be funny im losing it here.

bonus points for jokes, catchy sayings, metaphors, etc...

auto gold bid if u run a contention about plastics and the kardashians

theory and Ks are welcome

if you want to lose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

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

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

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

Hi! My name is Carson Roemer and I'm currently a junior at the George Washington University studying Business Analytics.

I don't have much experience judging public forum, but I understand the general framework of the event. I am not a traditional flow judge but I will be writing down extensive notes that will help me make my decision.

I am comfortable with understanding fast speech, but please do not try to spread.

Please try to make arguments as clear as possible and be nice/respectful to each other!

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate!

hi hi im soph i debated w ransom everglades for 4 years on the nat circuit. now i am a sophomore at emory and coach:)

preflow before round cuz as soon as everyone is there im starting

my emails are sophia.r9234@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

pls add both emails to the email chain (I prefer email chains to docs) and send speech docs w/ cut cards

(i don't know why this is formatted weirdly tab just does it idk)

1. debate stuff

1. i will vote off the flow

2. tech > truth but don’t say anything ridiculous and this doesnt apply if it makes the round unsafe

3. start weighing in rebuttal if possible and keep it consistent

4. COMPARATIVE WEIGHING don’t just say “scope”

5. PLEASE WEIGH ANYTHING OFFENSIVE (THIS INCLUDES TURNS)

6. no new weighing in final, no offensive overviews starting at first summary but i dont rly like it in 2nd reb either

7. please collapse

8. extend links, not just a tagline with an impact

1. saying “extend tariko ‘21” is also not a link extension

9. signpost, especially in rebuttal, if i don’t know where you are i can’t flow

10. SIGN MY BALLOT FOR ME. tell me what i’m voting for and why. also tell me why i’m not voting for your opponents

11. if there’s no offense i’ll presume for the side that lost the coin flip

12. defense isnt sticky

13. you should have cut cards

1. if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to

14. I'm down w ks and paraphrase theory (shoutout jdog) but technically i never actually RAN a K or initiated theory i just know how they work so take that as u will - that being said I coach 3 K teams and understand how they should be run but in like a watered down pf way so run whatever u want but send rhetoric
15. with that being said- I have a very LOW threshold to feel bad if a team is in varsity and upset about hitting a varsity argument when there is a novice and/or JV division. if you are in varsity, be prepared to hit theory and potentially a K. simply saying "pf is for the public" and/or "I don't know how to answer this" probably wont win my ballot unless there is no nov division and you are clearly a nov. if that is the case-L25 for the team reading varsity stuff on novs, otherwise if you are volunteering to be in varsity nothing is off limits
16. I'm not the best w tricks but I can try
17. if you genuinely think I made a mistake you can postround but not aggressively pls <3
18. im not gonna flow cross so just say it in a speech
19. I don't hack for or against anyone so if you know me, that isn't going to influence my decision and I would be a waste of a strike
20. the only caveat to the thing above is if you are known to be problematic to like an egregious point (i.e having a national news article referencing being publicly antisemitic or saying racist, homophobic, or sexist things) then strike me lol. i cant like separate the art from the artist or whatever. ill down u.