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 have left standing is less important than how well you are able to convey them. Be kind and good luck.

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. I prize the ability to think on one's feet and deliver a cogent response. 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.

Aside from 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 or 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 - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

I am a parent lay judge. 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 20 years old, and a sophomore/junior 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

Here is my email for the email chain:

Kekeli6504@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is Kekeli and I am currently studying Environmental Science and International Studies at Emory University.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1)Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2)Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3)Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and performative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4)Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5)Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
6)Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning.

Also, some other things:

1)I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanism of evaluating the round is introduced

2)I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

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)I am an open-minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

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.

Warm regards,

Yumna Muhamad 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, marist (including them now because i judge more for them than i do anyone else at this point)

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.

**edit for glenbrooks: after getting roasted for the dissertation that was my paradigm, i've decided to cut it down quite a lot.

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. be aware i'm a petty college student with nothing to lose by arguing with you about my decision, so 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.

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,

My name is Nathan, this is my first debate tournament.

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!

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.

If you want a boost:

+0.5 if you send a seal emoji to start the email chain OR reference “the seal god”

+0.5 if second constructive is exclusively impact turns

+0.5 if you defend American hegemony

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.

Updated 12/23

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

tl;dr: be better than your opponent and don't run bad arguments and I'll give you the W.

General (for all debate events):

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. If you are intent on actually spreading for some reason, just let me know and give me a speech doc because past a certain point I will not understand you and thus not flow what you are saying.

2 - Make sure you give voters. Your last speech (regardless of event) needs to be a clear summarization on the key points of clash, and you need to tell me why you won them. I won't accept any new evidence or arguments in this speech. 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 examination. 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 - Don't go massively over time. If it's like one conclusion sentence that's like 5 seconds over that's probably fine, but past that I'm not considering anything you're saying in my decision.

6 - If you mis-cut or clip evidence, get ready for this fat L.

7 - Obviously, be respectful of your opponents and conduct yourself with a level of decorum. I won't tolerate bullying or ad-hom attacks in or out of 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, CPs, etc.), I don't have tons of experience running them myself. I don't think LD should be one person policy, so therefore 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. If I have another option, chances are I'm adopting a different value. 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 - Case Arguments: When it comes to contentions, I guess I am mildly truth>tech. I'm not going to drop the argument if you are running some nuclear war or other extinction impact, but my threshold for responses will be just a little lower. Contentions that link really well back into the framework will be rewarded.

4 - LARP: 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 like three shells just for the sake of it---my threshold for voting on theory is VERY high.

b - CPs: Counterplans are fine, just make sure to spell out the net benefit and how it is competitive. Just don't run a PIC. Those are low IQ. I don't care take the L. Also, "perm do both" is never a real response to a CP. Explain yourself. Basically, assume nothing, don't make blippy arguments, don't have a ridiculous advocacy, and you'll be fine.

c - Ks: Basically, make sure you explain your arguments well. 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.

d - idek what this is but I don't like it when people pull up with these random cards with just sentence fragments or words highlighted and then claim that they "spike" out the opponent's case like what is that? These are not real arguments.

Public Forum:

There isn't really all that much PF-specific stuff, as most of it applies to all debate events, but there are a few things.

1 - Don't run prog arguments in PF.

2 - 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.

3 - CHOOSE. In Summary and FF you will have to choose. Collapse the (probably) 2-3 voting issues for me well. Also if it's not in summary, don't try to pull it back up in FF.

4 - I don't have a big preference on how you call for cards, but if you do call for one, I will expect you to bring it up in some capacity. If you don't, I will assume the evidence is 100% legit.

Those are all of my major comments on how I judge. I am always happy to answer any questions before the round or via email. Have fun and see you in round!

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.

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 and this is my second time judging in PF Varsity. I will try to take notes as much as I can, so please speak with clarity and conversational speed.

Assistant PF Coach at Delbarton

she/her

im a flow judge. Tech > truth

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

pls strike me if u dont cut cards

i dont flow cross, it doesnt rly play a role in my decision

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.

i was decent at pf

Arguments I would not feel comfortable judging: any explicit gendered violence, explicit mental health depictions

Some general things:

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round.

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.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

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 args

i like prog (ks + theory)... dont read on novs pls

I ran cut card/paraphrasing and disclosure theory in high school so I am definitely willing to vote on these arguments

Every part of theory shells must be extended in each speech to win the shell

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.

The variety of speech and debates is quite enjoyable for me. In my opinion speech and debate are about communicating thoughts clearly, effectively and efficiently through the use of words 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.

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.

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

few must-know notes:

1. send whatever you read off of (case docs, rebuttal docs, any evidence you read) to evan.burkeen@yale.edu.
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. fluent in progressive argumentation.
4. 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 don't have to be super thorough, a quick explanation of uniqueness-link-impact is enough for me.
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. I err t-fw over the non-t K, but I'll evaluate both tabula rasa. I'm not a fan of generic "discourse" as a voter. please warrant out the tva on t-fw. rotbs should be clearly delineated, and weighing must be done between competing links.
7. postrounding is encouraged.

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 understand its usefulness and I've debated like that before. if that's your style, go ahead, but I'll always appreciate some fundamental debate.
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. making references to rappers, including: drake, ice spice, carti, and more. playing music coming into the round will also be great.
4. 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").
5. 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, formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that now 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'm not going to 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.

IN 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. If I can't understand what your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.

IN 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.

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 that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

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 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. 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.

Finally, we hope to return to in person debating this year.  When we do, stand erect and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions.  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 an English teacher in Philly, and this is my seventh year as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in New Jersey where I coach the Congress program. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD at Lafayette College for a while before I switched to coaching.
M.S.Ed - Penn '21
B.A. English & Government - Lafayette '18

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied and I judge all the time so I'm good with 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 myself 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 coach now. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

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

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

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

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.

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 and considering delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins. Road maps are preferred.
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice.
4. I lean Tech>Truth but will certainly discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round. The flow means a lot to me. I am watching cross closely but of course, will not flow the cross or vote off of cross.
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.
7. Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them. 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.
8. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is an auto loss from me.
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.
10. Not gonna lie- I like trad debate. I believe it is beautiful and when done well can take down any outlandish K or progressive case. I am sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points.
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 personally 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. I don't think I have ever given a win to somebody running disclosure as a voter but I guess it could happen.
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.
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 been the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you as 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

I am a retired paralegal in the Bethesda area.

This is my first time judging debate.

I do not know any debate jargon, or obscure topics. Hence, please do not run theory or spread with me. I have to understand you to judge you, and will deduct speaker points if I cannot hear/understand you.

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. Be 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.

my views generally align with jason luo, and most similar to my style wise: fiona li

if u wanna learn more

I am a first timer as debate judge. I will learn along the way.

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!

I debated PF for Taipei American and Worlds for Team Taiwan. Currently an assistant coach for Taipei American.

jonathanchen@uchicago.edu 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

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

Good luck!

Hey, I am Raiyan! I debated for 2 years on the national circuit (2021-2023) in PF, so I've got a little bit of experience.

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.

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 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

Speaker Scores:

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

Ill give boosts for quick evidence delivery, and will 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 don't like open source disclosure, I am more of a fan of full text 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 and panel rounds. Unless it's a round robin, please don't consider running them, just so we can have an educational 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 Elliot Beamer, Eli Glickman, Wyatt Alpert, Bryce Piotrowski, Nate Kruger, and Pinak Panda as a judge when I was debating.

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).

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 but 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

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.

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. I've been peripheral to but not in the debate space for a bit now, so make sure to hold my hand and make things clear to me.

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, so take a look at his paradigm and it 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
• send speech docs, it makes everything easier
• 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.

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: 9/29/2023

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. Since you are here... please mention jelly-filled donuts in your speeches. I'll give you an additional .5 speaks.

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.

If you chug two gallons of water, do a backflip, and then recite the Presidential oath of office in your Summary or 2AR, you get a W30. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

If you see me typing and not flowing, do realize I am still listening and am keeping track of what you are saying. Don't take it as a sign that what you're saying isn't good.

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. TL;DR, speak good.

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

Did PF @ Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and, nowadays, I coach

Ishan > Judge, preferably

Create an email chain and add me: idubey23@mail.strakejesuit.org

tl;dr/stuff you should definitely read = bolded.

~~General Debate Thoughts~~

Do what you know how to do and do it well. If you want my thoughts and/or advice on anything debate-related, feel free to ask before or after the round. Be comfortable when you're debating and avoid as much awkwardness when you're not. Make every effort to avoid being late and don't waste time. Relatedly, pre-flow before start time.

Tech > Truth: I tend to believe truth is largely determined by the technical debating in round. Debate is a game about persuasion. You still need to convince me. The goal of my paradigm is to give you the necessary information to effectively do so. Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge is usually a safe bet, though not a lock. Most of my preferences/biases can be overcome by good debating, though not all.

Send speech docs before you speak.This is non-negotiable and entails, at a minimum, sending all evidence you plan on introducing in your speech. Your opponents can prep when you choose to "specific pieces of evidence" and vice versa. For more details, command f "PF evidence exchange"

Simpler arguments generally require less explanation. I care about how well you argue your position more than what it is, but that does not mean the latter is irrelevant. Conceded arguments are "true" per se, but only the conceded parts. "Even if" arguments and cross-applications can be made but I will obviously allow new responses to them. Also, I will not vote on an argument that I cannot make sense of or explain back to you, even if it was dropped.

Judge instruction is very, very helpful and underutilized. Tell me how to evaluate the round: ballot directive language, thresholds I should establish, when and/or whether I should grant new arguments, if I should err one side or another, gut-checks when appropriate, how I filter what is about to be said, etc. Putting stuff into perspective simplifies the debate and makes my decision more predictable.

Winning zero-risk is not impossible but will usually require solid explanation and comparison.

Speak at whatever rate you want so long as you are comprehensible. I was a fast-ish debater. I appreciate pen time, especially if your cards are short. Do not sacrifice clarity. Slowing down on analytics and for emphasis, especially in back-half speeches, tends to be helpful. If you spread, please read real taglines (thus, additionally, etc don't count!) and actual cards otherwise flowing will be difficult and your speaker points will decrease. On the topic of tags, inventing warrants in them is also ill-advised, e.g. because X (claim nowhere in the card), Y (evidence) explains yada yada. I view this practice similarly to paraphrasing. Also, cards should form sentences.

I stop flowing when the timer hits 0. You should use a timer that goes off else it will be hard to tell. I probably won't keep track of time, so please make sure y'all do otherwise I may flow extra stuff and I won't scratch anything off of my flow unless you can verify that your opponents went over.

Evidence matters. However, this does not mean analytics do not. Good analytics can be very convincing, especially when used to break clash. No matter how much evidence someone reads, there are always gaps in logic that can be exploited. That said, I may not catch nor vote on incredibly blippy analytics. Evidence indicts do not advance the debate unless you explain why. I also enjoy evidence comparison debates and specificity.

Rounds often come down to weighing/impact calc, particularly turns case and link weighing. That said, whether or not you win some offense is still a gateway issue. For those that do: I think the silliest debate arguments are made when weighing, so persuasive comparison goes a long way here because I am probably going to have to do work to resolve this layer. No, "persuasive" does not mean you can say "we outweigh on probability because you know our argument is true in the real world" and call it a day. Link-ins need to be weighed against the original link. Well-executed, nifty weighing is hard, so I will reward it. To me, this tends to be warranted and comparative "link-ins", turns case arguments backed by sound logic and/or evidence, or otherwise generic analysis that is heavily grounded in the context of the debate. I assess probability largely based on if you are winning your link. However, arguments don't start at 100%. You establish probability through evidence and explanation. Probability matters, especially when magnitudes are similar, e.g. extinction. Unfortunately, probability weighing is often just new defense, so call it out. Regardless of the metric, you should attempt to explain why it matters because it reduces intervention on my part, e.g. tell me why I should care that your impact happens faster or is more probable so that I don't have to decide. New weighing in 1FF is fine but earlier is better. It's unlikely that I will do a lot of work for you unless the argument is new in the 2FF/2AR.

Cross ex is binding but you need bring up relevant concessions in a speech (it can be brief, you don't need to waste time re-inventing the wheel). I'll tune in to better understand your arguments.

Extensions are a yes/no question. Extend, yes, but it's not as important to me as it is to others. I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. I won't go fishing for details nowhere in the last speech but present in previous ones. If something is conceded, my threshold for extending drops significantly (though, again, effort could be useful). Nit-picky details only become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically, there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.

If you want to read a complex/wacky scenario, just be read to defend and explain it (especially the latter). You'd be surprised at how often you can win rounds on "untrue" arguments, so it's disappointing to hear such arguments read solely for comedic effect. Being strategic and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Well-warranted impact turns are often strategic: democracy, growth, food prices, climate change, disease, etc. Please supplement these with impact defense and interact with your opponent's impact evidence/explanation if you go this route. Note that I will not vote for straight up "death good"; arguments like spark are still fine.

Link turns without uniqueness are defense. Uniqueness responses can zero a turn's offense, but remember that the "turn" then becomes defense. Even then, generally speaking, link > uniqueness.

~~PF~~

Framing: util is my default. I am familiar with SV, Kant, extinction, etc. Extinction stuff is probably the easiest to argue, so if you are going to read something other than util, don't be overly generic with warrants and/or explanation. Conceding framing is not a round-ending issue; your opponents can still link and outweigh. You can make framing arguments as "weighing" in summary but I will probably dismiss them if there is a compelling response about why that's too late.

Second rebuttal must frontline. I'll give second summary some leeway spinning frontlines.

Defense is not sticky unless you let it be. I have a low threshold for summary extensions of arguments that are flat out dropped in second rebuttal. If 1FF extends something not in summary but previously dropped, 2FF still needs to call it out. If there was a response and 1FF does not address it, I just won't evaluate the argument - if you want to be comprehensive, tell me to look at my flow and briefly reiterate the response.

In a perfect debate, I think that the second speaking team should win. I recognize that late-breaking spin can be annoying but also very persuasive when done effectively. I will flow FFs most intently and try my best to protect 1FF. This does not mean you can leave the door open for 2FF and expect me to shut it.

PF evidence exchange: I will cap speaker points if you choose not to send docs. A doc without cards is not a doc. If you send speech docs AND nothing is paraphrased, your floor for speaker points will be pretty high barring blatant disrespect, bad evidence ethics, prep stealing, any form of cheating, etc. Bad in-round strategy will not cause you to go below the floor. Use Tabroom, speech drop, or ideally an email chain. Do not send links to google docs, especially if you intend on disabling the option to copy and/or download. Long evidence exchanges are a huge pet peeve. The quicker and smoother the round, the better (for your speaker points too). Marking docs doesn't require prep. Using accessible formatting on verbatim or sending rhetoric versions of blocks/cases is fine so long as they are accompanied by cards that match.

I encourage you to stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is clipping or violating NSDA evidence rules (fabrication, straw-manning, ellipses, etc.). If there is a rule against something and you are not willing to stake the round, it will be difficult to convince me that the practice merits a loss. That said, rules are a still a floor, not a ceiling.

You can always chose to read new evidence to answer an argument made in the speech prior.

PF is a rapidly changing event. As such, I like to reward innovation. Even small displays of creativity can go a long way. There's a difference between creativity and stupidity.

~~"Progressive" Debate~~

This is usually a bigger gamble than substance. Tech/truth stuff still largely applies but with far more exceptions and intervention than you might like.

Theory: I prefer binary debates over semantical ones. I do not love theory debates and do not evaluate them rigidly. I will ask myself: "Is X practice enough for Y team to lose the round?"Using theory as a crutch will lower speaker points. In elimination rounds especially, you have to win substantial offense to convince me that it is more important than substance. Substance crowd-out is absolutely an impact and one that I will implicitly consider. Lack of a CI is not always round-ending, especially if you plan on impact turning the shell; I will simply assume that you are defending the violation/status quo. Defaults: spirit over text, reasonability > CI, yes OCIs (non-negotiable), no RVIs (a turn or anything of the sort is not an RVI), DTA, DTD doesn't need to be explicitly said or extended - a warrant for why something is a voter/reject the team/debater is sufficient.

Paraphrasing is bad. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. I will not directly penalize you for paraphrasing if it is not an issue in the round or unless evidence is egregiously misrepresented, in which case speaker points will suffer and you may lose. If I am on a panel, I understand why you would paraphrase but it's still not an excuse for bad evidence. Bracketing can be just as bad as paraphrasing. If you bracket, do so in good faith. If there is a theory debate, intent will probably skew my perception. The only difference with paraphrasing in terms of penalization is if there is clearly excessive bracketing then I will decrease speaker points and call you out.

Disclosure is good and open-sourcing is too. I do not think OS qualifies as semantical. If you read disclosure without open-sourcing, it will definitely be a harder sell. More broadly, reading disclosure with bad disclosure practices is a colossal risk.

You should probably read a Content Warning to be safe (definitely if it's something graphic) but I do not personally think that the absence of a CW should be an in-round voting issue and opt-outs definitely aren't.

I do not love IVIs (short procedural arguments are different) but will vote on them if they are presented as a complete argument and won. If the abuse is clear and obvious, an "IVI" will suffice.

Ks: Err on the side of over-explanation; the team introducing the K has a higher burden of proof in PF because there is no rejoinder. Be very clear on what voting for you does, especially if non-T, in which case I require a very explicit link and solvency. If the K is not about something your opponents read/did, I will be tempted to vote on no link arguments or links of omission bad. "Conceding" the text of a ROB does not mean the round is over: creative weighing under a conceded ROB is welcome. I would not suggest reading PF-esque identity or discourse-oriented arguments with me judging (this does not mean I will hack against them). In PF, I default yes alts/neg fiat but am personally inclined to believe the rules create tension with alts/neg fiat. I will evaluate topical Ks as a more nuanced contention/turn. Ontology claims need to be implicated to matter. I am familiar with nearly all response strategies, so address Ks however you'd like. In PF especially, I think testing Ks from different angles, including less conventional procedural arguments, is good.

I will never vote for call-outs, ad-homs, or arguments based on things outside of the round that are non-verifiable (I think disclosure is different but not all circumstances surrounding it). If there is an in-round issue, that's a different story.

No tricks.

~~After Round~~

I will disclose who I voted for unless there is a rule against it. If you don't want a verbal RFD or don't get one for some reason, there will always be some explanation on the ballot.

Speaker points are my decision (I will not give everyone 30s because you asked) but I will try to standardize them as much as possible. I will base speaker points off of the event norms, strategy, coherence, argument quality, whatever the increments are, type of tournament, and tournament scale (if there is one). Also, include a seal emoji in you doc and/or the email chain for a bump.

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

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.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Louisville MS (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.

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

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, and now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds.

**unless i am on a panel with two theory judges, please do not control f theory and assume that i want to see it. i do not want to see it! i vastly, vastly prefer to see substance. i hate most theory rounds, and do not think i am the optimal judge for them! if you're in a high level round and don't want to change your strategy to fit my preferences, no worries, go ahead and do it. but i may not be the best judge for it at all!**

my email is k.rose.dwyer@gmail.com, put me on chain pls.

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, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, 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,) you need to compare them!

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.

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. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are pretty bad in pf. if this is really what you're passionate about or your main strategy, you can go ahead, but you should be aware that i generally find these strategies to be much worse than substance. i will be much more impressed by a team reading substance and responding to a k well then a team reading a k in a mediocre way.

if you are reading any theoretical or otherwise unconventional argument on a novice/local circuit team that clearly does not know what is going on, i reserve the right to drop you and tank your speaks.

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

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

theory section sigh:

non negotiables:

• if for whatever reason the rest of my paradigm hasn't dissuaded you from doing so and you made it here, and you've decided youmust read theory in front of me, here are my preferences about that, (although again my preference is just to not have them at all).

• i honestly hate most theory debates and DO NOT TRUST MYSELF TO BE A GOOD ENOUGH THEORY JUDGE TO EVALUATE COMPLEX ONES. i am definitely, definitely not your optimal theory judge.
• I've never judged a theory round I could not describe as frivolous. if your round seems like it's threatening to evolve into a tornado of crap I am extremely open to evaluating under reasonability.
• theory must come in speech after abuse!
• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell 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.
• i will not vote on an out of round abuse UNLESS it happened between last round and this round (ie they're not disclosed from last round and not breaking new). if you ask me in r7 to correct an abuse that happened in r1, that means they could be dropped for it forever and i'm unwilling to set that precedent.

specific arguments

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

k debate :0:0:0

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 infinitely more than non-t ks. straight up i am just not a good judge for anything non-t. your link should be specific, that's cool! how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing! the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. way too often in PF k debates, you hear something like "their link is the X evidence which assumes the US government having power is good. the impact is imperialism which means extinction!!!! the alt is to not do imperialism <3" to avoid this trap, explain precisely how your link gets to your impact, and prove that the causality is not in the other direction! also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess but i prefer alternatives that make a tangible change to the mindset of the round. i am open to different ways to see my ballot - to align myself or not with a protest, to decide which conception of reality i see as more correct, or really anything! but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. 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. what we call IVIs are mostly underdeveloped and silly. the lack of structure seems to equal a lack of warrants. only time i'm open to this is calling out specific instances of harmful language.

Blue Valley Southwest: 2015-2018

Liberty University: 2018-2020

Email for the chain: maverickedwards1@gmail.com

Top Level:

1. Ignore my facial expressions.

2. Much better for policy than the K.

3. This paradigm reflects my random thoughts about debate. Generally, you should keep the debate simple. Complex strategies, big words, and flexing your topic knowledge will probably hurt you because, chances are, I am not well researched on the topic or your advocacy.

4. Tech > Truth, but I do not have the sharpest flow. Do not blaze through concessions/arguments that you think are game-winning. Do frame the debate at the beginning of the 2NR/2AR: writing my ballot early will help me flow the important stuff.

K on the Neg

1. The AFF gets to weigh the 1AC.

2. I do not understand high theory.

3. Links should be to the plan.

4. I often find myself voting NEG because AFF teams are bad at answering the K.

5. The perm double-bind is 100% true for structural Ks (e.g., capitalism with a movements alternative). I have heard no convincing argument otherwise.

K on the AFF

1. Defend a material change from the status quo.

2. 'Debates about debate' probably lack ballot solvency when the forum is two teams (one of which has to negate) and one judge. Outrounds may be different because there are observers; however, I tend to think most observers watch to improve their flowing, scout for their school, or support their friends. My overwhelming bias is that AFFs must 'solve' their impacts. Rejecting fiat does not free you from solvency. I am sympathetic to the uniqueness argument that debate is deeply flawed and unfair in a structural-sense; making that observation alone is not enough to win the round. I am also not convinced that debate rounds are an effective forum for creating genuine change.

3. Counter-interps are your friend. You are in a great spot if I believe your interpretation is predictable and good for clash.

4. Impact turns to procedural fairness, predictability, and clash are not persuasive.

K v K

1. Nope.

2. Empirical examples are good. I will place a lot of weight on evidence that compares your theory of power/explanation of the world with the opponents' theory of power/explanation of the world.

Framework

1. Procedural fairness is my favorite impact.

2. TVAs do not have to solve the whole AFF, but TVAs that solve none or few of the AFF's impacts are unpersuasive.

T

1. Many AFF teams are bad at defending untopical plans.

2. Reasonability should frame the AFF's interp. Something like "Even if the NEG's topic is better, ours is [predictable, sufficiently limited, debatable etc.]. Voting NEG [justifies a race-to-the-bottom for bad interps, discourages topic research, etc.]."

3. Limits and contextual ground standards are great .

4. TVAs are underutilized.

5. Slow down on caselists. Assume I do not know what AFFs look like on the topic.

CP

1. CPs should be textually and functionally competitive. I lean AFF on Perm do the CP.

2. CP amendments are okay against new AFFs and add-ons. Not a big fan otherwise.

3. 'Perm do both' can be explained in the 1AR, but not the 2AR. NEG teams should ask how the perm functions in 2AC cross-ex.

DA

1. A++.

2. Turns-case args should be couched in the internal links and links of the DA when possible.

3. Good 1NRs line up their speech with the 2AC (impact o/v is the exception).

4. 1NR should card dump if you have the goods.

Theory

1. Go a bit slower.

2. Conditionality is good, but strong impact comparison + technical proficiency can prove otherwise. Condo bad has become relatively popular; I do not love this trend. 2AR on substance > 2AR on theory. This should not deter you from going for Condo if that's the best 2AR or the NEG has really messed up.

3. Perf-Con theory < conceding assumptions made by one contradictory position to take out the other.

4. Everything should be a reason to reject the team. Why artificially limit the impact of your argument?

Things I've noticed about myself as a judge

1. I highly value scenario/impact explanation. This is especially true for rebuttals.

2. Reading is difficult. If you think the debate should be won/lost on card quality or a key piece of evidence, make that known.

3. Impact turn debates are my favorite rounds to judge.

4. I am prone to confusion.

5. Long deliberation, quick rfd kinda judge.

Hot Takes

1. Good for spark/dedev/co2 good.

2. I will flow/evaluate both policy and critical arguments. "Policy debate bad" or "The K does not belong in debate" are unpersuasive arguments.

3. I will evaluate arguments about an individual's or team's bad acts outside of the debate as a reason that individual or team should lose. However, I have a high threshold for two issues. First, the "link" evidence should leave no doubt that the act(s) happened. Assertion alone will not establish a "link." Evidence beyond 95% certainty will establish a "link." Second, there must be a reason to reject the team. Why should I punish a team for an act or acts happening outside of the round? Safety, detoxifying the activity, and deterrence are possible, but not exclusive, avenues.

Public Forum

1. Arguments in the final focus must exist in the summary.

2. I care about line-by-line. Meta framing is not a substitute for clash.

3. Signposting will get you very far very quickly.

4. Some teams do not read evidence in rebuttal - that seems bad, but nobody tells me why.

5. One team has expressed that FF and Summary speeches do not need to extend arguments or do line-by-line. I vehemently disagree.

6. Teams that email evidence/speech docs get a .5 speaker point boost. Set up the email chain before the debate.

7. PF evidence is usually awful. Use that to your advantage.

8. Only read paraphrasing theory if your opponent has misrepresented or overstated the author's claims. If you provide that evidence, I will stop the round and treat the situation as an ethics violation. The opposing party will be allowed to respond one time and the moving party will not be allowed a rebuttal (i.e., give me all of your evidence upfront). It does not matter who paraphrased and cut the evidence (you are responsible for what you choose to read).

9. Wiki theory is getting out of hand. Disclosing carded evidence on the wiki is enough.

House Keeping

1. Be polite and don't be offensive. You will lose for discriminatory language or policy.

2. I think death/suffering good arguments are unpersuasive. Arguments about inevitable death/suffering are unimportant.

3. Mark cards during the speech.

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

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- 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, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and 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. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is 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. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant 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.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and 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.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but 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.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. 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. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- 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.

- 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:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg 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. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant 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.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. 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 cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont 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 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if 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 cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not 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 ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls 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

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop. If you feel like there has been a clear and obvious transgression (someone said something awful), then make the argument. Almost any other IVI should be theory or not be at all.

- 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. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- 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 theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. 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 para 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: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or 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 because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

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 bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

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, and here are my preferences.

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 judge to be in the role of an undecided audience member attending this debate to learn about both sides of the topic. I will use the information, arguments and clash presented in this debate to move me from “undecided” to “decided.”

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.

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. 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 as long as 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. As long as 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. Accordingly, 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.

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

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 to 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, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., of ANYONE (unless you are directly quoting a relevant source or citation), WILL ruin your score. It WILL be reported to the tournament authorities.

Stephen Fitzpatrick

Director of Debate, Hackley School

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 and 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. That will be especially evident during cross-fire. I will flow, but only to the extent I can follow what you are saying.

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 polite, 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.

I will be open to persuasive, integrated cases, and critical impacts. 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.

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.

hi, i'm daniel — i'm comfortable with any pronouns. my email is dgarepis@uw.edu, please add me to the email chain.

tl;dr

i debated four years for palo alto high school and have extensive experience with both lay and flow debate. you're free to debate however you feel comfortable and i will do my best to adapt to you. that said, there are a few things you must have in an argument in order to win my ballot:

• each argument must have four parts - a uniqueness (what is happening right now in the status quo), a link (how the resolution would change the status quo), an internal link (how this change would lead to an impact), and your impact (how this affects people in the world/why should i care). this applies to all offense, including turns!
• you need to extend your offense in every speech after 2nd rebuttal. this means briefly (20-30 secs) re-explain your argument in every speech).
• on't run arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

ok, those are the basics. the rest of this paradigm contains more details for higher-level rounds.

evidence

• i would strongly prefer if both teams send evidence via an email chain, as they are permanent records that cannot be changed.
• i would also prefer both teams to send speech docs with all of their evidence. if you are reading quickly, this becomes a requirement.
• even if you are reading slowly, sending speech docs makes the round run faster, eliminates opportunities for stealing prep, improves the quality of the round, and prevents disputes about evidence.
• if you don't send speech docs, at the very least send properly cut cards quickly when asked.
• paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

other in-round things

• as long as you send a speech doc, you can speak as fast as you want. but just because you’re going fast doesn’t mean you can blippy — properly extend and warrant all arguments.
• i'll listen to cross, but of course i don't flow it and it won't factor into my decision or speaks unless something is carried over into a speech.

back half

• second rebuttal and first summary must respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. you should be collapsing on one or two pieces of offense to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out
• i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!
• weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but extinction > sv > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. arguments about probability should be done on the link level rather than on the weighing level. if you really want to read probability weighing, you need to give me a warrant like policy paralysis.
• in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

speaks

speaker points are a flawed system that can often fall victim to people's biases. here is my attempt to make speaks less arbitrary. I try to give speaker points relative to the level and style of the tournament (I've given 30s to novices many times), and average probably around a 28. speaks are my way to reward creativity, style, and other things that don't factor into my decision, although general round strategy plays a large role as well.

30 - you are clearly one of the best speakers at this tournament. you were well-prepared, had good strategy, made few mistakes and likely ran a unique or interesting argument/piece of defense/turn that caught my attention.

29 - you are a top speaker, and made very few mistakes, but lacked a memorable moment or certain spark OR you tried to step out of your comfort zone and did well, but made a few mistakes.

28 - you are a good speaker, had mostly sound argumentation/responses/strategy and will likely break at the tournament, but maybe made a few mistakes, were somewhat boring, etc.

27 - you were able to keep up with the pace of the round but likely made/had at least one significant mistake/bad moment. you may have had some good arguments but weak strategy, or were unable to respond to something.

26 - you might not be entirely ready for this level of debate, but you tried your best and had a few good moments or arguments, and were respectful.

25 - you may not have been able to fill all your speech times, had few arguments that made sense, and are clearly not ready for this level of debate OR you were egregiously disrespectful despite being a good speaker

under 25 - you were a bad speaker and were rude, spoke for less than 30 seconds, or were blatantly discriminatory.

circuit debate

theory

• default to competing interps no rvis.
• i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]
• in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do not need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) must have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

k

• assuming this is a pf round, i have experience judging most critical arguments that get run (sec, set col, cap, identity-based arguments, in that order).
• i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions
• please explain and extend the rotb

pet peeves

• don't say game over or tko please
• all i need is "our case, their case, weighing" or "one off, then case" or at the very most "overview on their case, then our case"
• the best way to start your speech is to say "assuming everyone's ready, i'm going to begin." (not "3, 2, 1, go" or "partner ready? judge ready?")

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

- warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well

- 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 ig) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm lol)

- 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 in 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 debate 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, and there is a non-zero probability I am wrong (but low probability)

- 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 2022):

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 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.

Max slightly above conversational pace (think, "New Yorker" ), make winning arguments clear (enough that I don't have to think too hard), be respectful, and have fun!

lake highland '21, fsu '25

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

4 years pf (broke toc, states, multiple nats), 3-year NFA-LD (qualled to nfa-nats 3x)

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine (just send a doc), weigh, warrant, signpost, just try not to be blippy.

How I evaluate rounds:

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

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

Overall Specifics:

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

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

• Progressive: Just don't run theory or a K on some novices. K's better have a good alt that you can explain well (or it's just a DA and will be evaluated as such) + framing that is well explained in the round or don't expect me to vote on it. I would say my understanding of K's mainly comes from NFA-LD, which is more similar to HS policy and I don't know what norms exist in PF for such arguments. I am familiar with Cap, Set-Col, Virilio, Rhetoric K's, basic stuff. Theroy is okay as long as there is an actual proven violation in the round. I rather not judge some bs theory debate that probably doesn't accomplish any real norm setting.

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

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

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

• post round me, idc.

Things I do not like:

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

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

Things I like:

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

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

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

I understand the basic parts of debate but please signpost a lot and explain what you’re doing, especially in the back half

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

If you make a fish/fishing pun in speech, +.5 speaks

(My daughter wrote me this paradigm)

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.

PF Paradigm:

Lots of this is explaining how to debate. That's mostly so you know that I know how to debate, I assume you'll know most of this stuff pre-round.

TL;DR:

- NEW UPDATES: 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.

- Relatively standard flow and tabs judge who votes for the team that extends and the "biggest" impact(s) (it is up to you to WEIGH so I know your impact is the biggest).

- Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well.

- Collapse early and explain warrants – bad extensions (i.e. you say “extend this author” without re-explaining or extend part of your link chain) don't fly with me unless the round is so fast you have to. If you are concise enough that I have to flow at breakneck speed and you still don't have time to extend your case, I'll cut you some slack.

- Terminal defense is a prerequisite to weighing. If your opponents show your argument is bogus, I don't care anymore that it had good magnitude.

- Progressive debate is good but it might make intervention more likely. WISCONSIN CIRCUIT: Disclo and paraphrasing are not norms on the Wisconsin circuit, 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 the Wisconsin circuit has much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. 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.

- On that note: my opinions about debate shift a lot. Don't hang your hat on something I say in my paradigm – cite my paradigm in-round to guarantee I care.

- I am a proud hack for evidence ethics.

- 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.

- Speed is fine -- send doc for over 250wpm. I'm bad at flowing off docs and don't like doing it. See above -- I'll dock your speaks for it.

- If you are in a JV, novice, or middle school division, tell me your favorite animal for an extra speaker point to show me you've read my paradigm carefully. Skip to the section for middle school and JV competitors; the stuff there is more relevant to you.

You can honestly stop reading here and you'll probably be able to adapt.

Case/Framing/Theory:

- Non-util frameworks should be introduced or implied (i.e. you run racism so it's pretty clearly not straight util) in case. Util can be introduced in either rebuttal.

- Unless an explicit argument is made countering my paradigm, you do not have to respond to any of first case (this INCLUDES theory and framework) in second case.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). If a framework is proposed by your opponents, you don't have to say "util" in rebuttal to refute it – as long as you say why your opponents' framework sucks, I will default to util if you're right. Likewise, if someone reads paraphrasing theory on you, you don't have to read a counterinterp that you may paraphrase. If you prove their interp is bogus, then I assume that debaters may paraphrase. I am aware that this is an unorthodox standard for responding to theory. If I were debating a round, I would explicitly propose a framework or counterinterp. However, I think saying "you didn't propose an alternative, so I had to default to the other team even though the link-level defense was good" is intervention.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. I likely won't though; I could only see it happening if for instance you run a really weird meme interp because you know the other team won't know how to respond (i.e. "Interpretation: debaters must flap their arms and fly to rounds instead of walking"). Disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. are all fair game, except for the exceptions listed at the top of the TL;DR.

- Quality>quantity.

- (This is my bias, just so you know) 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.

- 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.

Rebuttal:

- Number responses in rebuttal – it's good practice. I need to know if you're grouping responses/contentions.

- Weighing should start in rebuttal and get extended through the round. If your weighing is in more speeches than your opponents' weighing, I will default to it absent good metaweighing.

- Meta-weighing should start as soon as you've heard the other team weigh (bonus if you anticipate how your opponents are going to weigh and metaweigh before they even get the chance to weigh).

- I don't evaluate non-comparative weighing.

- Weigh disads when they are presented (in rebuttal). I default to on-case arguments over disads aren't weighed.

- Frontline in second rebuttal. I don't evaluate new frontlines in second summary. Don't tell me what your case is in first rebuttal unless you cross-apply it.

- Don't read a new contention in second rebuttal. I'll dislike you if you read a new contention in first rebuttal.

- My impression of SOL v probability v clarity: SOL = your links have more defense than ours. Prob = your links are inherently less probable for generally accepted reasons. Clarity = the effect of affirming or negating we show is either more easy to isolate from other factors or more easy to quantify compared to your arguments. Probability weighing absolutely exists in debate. The content of your weighing is more important than the buzzword.

- Link weighing is awesome. Teams tend to only do it when it's obvious they have to. Do it anyway.

Summary/FF:

- Summary/FF should mirror each other.

- Sticky defense doesn't apply with the three-minute summary unless you are concise and still don't have time for defense.

- Repeat your impacts in summ/FF unless the round is legit so fast you don't have time.

- The "voter vs line-by-line" distinction is dumb. Just tell me what I need to know in FF and jump around as little as possible.

- Don't say "extend the Caldararu evidence" without telling me what Caldararu says. I try to flow author names and usually fail.

- Don't extend too much. 1 clean link chain with weighing is enough to win a round.

Other:

- If no offense ends up on the flow at the end of the round, or if making a decision based on tech is impossible for some reason, I default to an entirely lay paradigm and vote on truth. If your opponents are running like 5+ voters and making the round impossibly messy, I could be receptive an appeal to presumption. Make me like you enough for me to presume for you.

- Some wise words from my coach Ben Morris: "I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments"

- I will look at evidence if I think that it would be a good idea. That's not intervention.

- 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.

- American-impacts-first weighing is meh, but if it isn't warranted then it can come across as racist and it usually is racist. "Social contract" stuff isn't good enough for America-first.

- Most prerequisite and timeframe weighing in PF is trash. I tend to prefer good weighing to trash weighing even though how it's done matters the most. Good prerequisite weighing is amazing and I love it. If you like to read disads and weigh them in rebuttal you better do it well or else you'll get an unhappy judge.

Evidence Ethics: Don’t misrepresent evidence. I do not care whether or not you paraphrase. Just do it well – it's not that hard and most teams paraphrase well.

When you read evidence, say the author name (always), and the date and publication if they matter. Read the date if there is a reasonable chance either team will claim recency matters. Otherwise, read it if you feel like it. Read the publication if it is an exceptionally good or bad source. If you want to explain your evidence just to be safe, that's probably a good idea.

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 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..."

If both teams have warrants, the team with better empirics wins the link over the team with better warrants, unless the legitimacy of the warrants is explicitly weighed in the round. If one argument has a card and another doesn't, I don't automatically default to the card.

If you can't produce a card that's called for, you should be really apologetic.

I weigh analysis backed up by evidence over analysis not backed up with evidence if you beef up the credibility of the person who wrote the card. If you don't, I default to the better weighed warrant. Ways to do this well (not a complete list): your source is a professor, your source is a really good journalist who got a Pulitzer Prize or something, or your source has some type of firsthand experience with the topic. Ways to do this badly: "uhh, our guy wrote for ______ so I guess he must have some qualification even though I don't know what it is".

If I call a card and it's misrepresented, I drop you with low speaks. Non-negotiable.

On the flip side, if your opponents misrepresent evidence, you get high speaks even if you really sucked. I don't believe teams should face any negative consequences from performing badly against teams that, by misrepresenting evidence, have a structural advantage. Point out miscut cards in email chains even after the round; it may sway my vote.

Be able to pull up cut cards that you read in a speech. Don’t paraphrase an entire article into a sentence. If you have URLs at the bottom of your case for your evidence, that's bad but I'll deal with it if you know the exact paragraph you paraphrased or quoted without searching endlessly and wasting time. If I call a card, I don't need the full article, but I'm not one of those judges who drops teams for showing the wrong one and being cranky.

Speaker Points:

Varsity Scale:

- 30 = I sincerely learned something from you and feel gratitude towards you as a result.

- 29 = you went into the round with a plan and it worked.

- 28 = no egregious strategic mistakes

- 27 = a few egregious mistakes

- 26 = very major mistakes

- 20-25 = I will explain why you got a 20-25 in my RFD

Non-Varsity Scale:

- 30 = I sincerely learned something from you and feel gratitude towards you as a result. Next time go to varsity.

- 29.5 = You went into the round with a plan, and it worked. Next time go to varsity.

- 29 = no egregious strategic mistakes. Next time go to varsity.

- 28.5 = a few mistakes

- 25-28 = major mistakes

- 20-25 = I will explain why you got a 20-25 in my RFD

Ways to get 20-25 (not a complete list if I think of something else): rudeness, very intentional or potentially intentional racism/sexism/etc, or implying that your opponents suck.

Speed: I can handle a decent level of PF speed. However, speed is a tool that must be correctly. Don’t speed through a speech and end up with time remaining or end up going over arguments you already told me again. Don’t speed through a speech so you can say “like” after every word instead of being concise. If you go too fast, which you probably won’t (since I can tolerate a normal level of speed), I’ll say “clear." Also, if you speak fast, you may risk my not fully understanding the warranting behind an argument, which you wouldn’t like. It is a risk that is sometimes worth taking, though. Go at the speed that you need to present a narrative and cover the flow.

Cross: Cross shows me if you did your due diligence prepping. It also gives you ground in later speeches, if you want to cite a concession or logical flaw that was exposed in cross. I don’t flow cross.

Not "directly" debate-related:

Fairness > Education > Winning the round. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked.

I’m a cis white male – that means I might not catch something discriminatory. If I didn’t catch something, let me know at any point (e.g. not necessarily in the time constraints of a speech if you don't want). There are no frivolous requirements here (e.g. I don't need a theory shell to vote on an out-of-round action in this situation). You'll probably get a W30 if what you're saying makes remote sense. If I notice a male debater talking down to a female debater in cross, I'll try to butt in and point it out. I probably am not the best at dealing with sexism/racism/etc, but I do my best. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- Keep the tournament running as fast as possible. That means you should enter and unpack before I get to the room. Plop yourself down in any chair that looks satisfactory to you – I do not care where you sit. I don't need to watch you flip a coin unless you want to meet me before picking your side (I sometimes like to meet a judge to get a sense of what to pick in a flip).

- The idea of debaters wearing uncomfortable formal clothes to impress me as a judge pains me (although it does make me feel powerful), so take off your tie or whatever if it's uncomfortable. You can debate in a t-shirt in front of me. I believe that uncomfortable clothes make people worse debaters.

- Have preflows done (not the end of the world if you don’t, but a good practice).

- The one exception – I probably will take a long time to write my RFD. So hang tight.

- I flow on my computer. I have been told by friends that I press the keys down hard when I type. This makes noise. Deal with it.

- I disclose my decision.

- Roadmaps are fine. Short roadmaps project confidence.

- Thanks to Ben Morris for this idea: if you say "3-2-1" to start a speech, I may say "blastoff," and you will have to deal with it. Nobody starts a conversation by saying "3-2-1 hello," so don't start your speech with "3-2-1 we affirm."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as “rooters” or "nuclear" as "nook-you-ler" I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant 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.

---

Middle School/Novice:

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.

---

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 and please label it.

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

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

***Impact turns are my favorite argument so read them, especially if they are in second constructive. 30s if you win Quebec secession

*Highlighting your opponents evidence and reading it in round will give you a speaker boost.

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

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, 2.5 years of British Parliamentary experience, and one year of WSDC experience. I've been in many tournaments across different circuits, either forensics (Harvard, Stanford, U Penn, Duke, etc.) or nationals (UK TOC, NSDA nats, etc.), so you can expect me to flow. However, some important things need to be stressed:

1. Speed: I'm going to start by saying I'm ok with speed, but please do not prioritize speed over clarity, ESPECIALLY when there are numbers or key links you want me to put down on my flow. Spreading is fine, as I have done that before myself, but keep in mind that spreading is essentially gambling, and I do not guarantee I flow everything you say. Evaluate the risk yourself.

2. Theory/K: I am very fine with these, as long they don't go against some important fundamental values related to racism, sexism and such. They actually make the debate quite fun. However, please remember that it is your burden to include everything you need related to these for you to win (framing, framing, framing, weighing).

3. Summary/Final Focus: I am pretty strict with these. It's best if you frontline in second rebuttal, but I don't make that absolutely necessary. However, if you drop something in summary, then I pretend it does not exist from that point on.

4. Speaker: Be polite to each other during crossfire. For evidence checks, include the card cut and the link, and please don't paraphrase/lie in your evidence. If you violate any of these, I will not give you an L, but I will secretly dislike you and dodge your points.

All in all, 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 debate or topic terminologies. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision. To win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis. 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.

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 now debate APDA at Brown. 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 and 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

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* 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 – as the volunteer judge for one tournament event back in spring 2023. 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 and supply chain 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 or numbers 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.

Im pretty blank slate, just don’t run a 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, be very kind. Comparative analysis matters most. Taking a brief moment to clarify the mechanics of a model/countermodel goes a long way.

In any format, give a good 'Roll Tide' at any given time for extra speaker points

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 and I don't have much experience. I have a daughter who debates, but just a few general rules. 

• 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if both teams want a lay round thats fine j lmk

on evidence:

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

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

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

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

speaks

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

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

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

27.6-27.9 = decent amount of stuff to work on

28-28.2 = you're getting there

28.3-28.5 = avg

28.6-28.9 = nice

29-29.3 = good. you might break to elims

29.4-29.7 = i think you should be top speaker

29.8-30 = ur better than me congrats

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

+.3 for OS disclo

+.1 round reports

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

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

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

also,

defense is not sticky

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

analytics r cool if u have warrants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 third 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

If you mention biking or protein powder (my favorite things) in your speeches, I'll give you an extra 0.5 speaker point.

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

I am 1 year out of debate. I am currently a freshman at Vanderbilt studying economics and history. I do college BP and debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com.

Please correct me if I misgender you. I don't care what you wear. Speak informally, swear for all I care- just do it in a way that is persuasive to the public forum. (Those two articles explain how I view language and attire in debate, if you have time I recommend you read them!)

Also, 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.

WEIGHING❤️-

• Weigh early and intentionally.

• Weigh comparatively and don't just give me jargon. I want you to explain your weighing not identify that it fits one of the STIMP categories.
• I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args- 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.

SPEED ❤️-

I will not flow spreading nor will I flow off a doc. I don't mind you talking fast and can flow faster than your average judge but I won't flow the absurd. I think spreading is ableist and unnecessary in PF. Beyond that, it harms many debaters' public speaking development. If you are going too fast I will yell clear.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

• Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case")
• Always put FW at the top of the speech. Feel free to use OVs just tell me where they apply.
• I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.
• Have cohesion between summary and final.

THEORY- Overall I can evaluate a theory round but I will never be a stickler for structure or jargon because I don't know it that well. If you limit the jargon and go generally line by line I can usually follow. I am more truth>tech when it comes to theory. I won't evaluate any frivolous theory shells. I get that debate is a game but you can play that game with other judges. If you aren't sure if your theory is frivolous then just be aware I am always giddy to vote on reasonability so if your argument crumbles under reasonability I wouldn't run it. I do not believe that disclosure is a must in debate and I am happy to vote for a team that does not disclose. However, the norm of disclosure is growing in PF more and more, so, if you are not disclosing you better have a decent counter-interp to defend yourself. Pretty much the exact same thing goes for paraphrasing. I do not believe paraphrasing is inherently abusive but I will vote on a paraphrasing bad shell is well argued.

I will not evaluate more than 2 shells in a round from 1 team. I think spamming shells and waiting for one to be under-covered is disingenuous and ruins the idea that we should debate the rules before we debate substance. If you do this I will just drop you the second the opp gives me a voter on it (ie. fairness).

Ks- Limit the jargon please. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds.

The performance K

I don't love performative Ks. Discourse is not a voter for me. Talking about something is not solving it. Nor does a trophy for one oppressed group suddenly solve all their woes. If you guys want to run a performance K and you have a legit voter other than discourse then you can try it but I am going to vote for topicality frequently and I will likely be swayed by your opponent's demands of your alt. Also, please please please don't spread a poem on me. If you have literature you want to read then give me a high level analysis of why it matters in the round.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K but just know that I may not be able to evaluate it at a super high level. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. My 2 biggest problems with most PF Ks are as follows

1. The literature is too dense and those who read it barely understand what it is saying because they have just stolen cut cards from policy and LD. Thus, I implore you to cut the card in a way that your message could be clear to the public forum, not someone that has a PhD in the subject. You don't just get to drop all efforts at persuasion because you are running a K. This isn't LD or policy- you don't get 7 minute speeches in PF. Thus, the literature you read should be adapted to the format, not the other way around.

2. The alt is heavily under-warranted and vague. Ex. If you are running cap, you can't just read some poli sci professor who claims socialism is the solution to the world's problems and that we have to have a worker's revolution. You have to actually tell me why this exact scenario leads to better outcomes than the squo of capitalism.

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 tell me your prediction of who will win NBA MVP this year, or tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump your speaks .5 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUND

Unless the tournament is running behind I'm happy to stay for as long as you want to answer questions. I enjoy it. Postround me nicely if you want but just know that I submitted my ballot before I disclosed.

Additionally- if I tell you the round was bad, that's okay. Bad rounds happen and I certainly participated in plenty. I just don't enjoy the platitude of "great round" when it wasn't. If the round really was great then I want people to know I mean it. I will always tell you what you did well and what you did poorly if I have time. If I don't, please don't be afraid to ask what you did well! Reinforcing good habits is just as important as breaking down bad ones!

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

The first person to give me two pieces of paper for my flow gets +1 speaker points.

If it is the first round of the day and you bring me caffeine I will give everyone in the round an auto 30.

I'm Ethan and I competed in PF for Myers Park for 4 years as Myers Park BJ

Put me on the chain- ethan.jacobs@emory.edu

Come to the round pre-flowed; your speaks will get a boost

At the end of the day I adapt to you- do whatever you think will win

The best way to win my ballot?

1. Know your evidence. Even if you didn't cut it you should know exactly what is says and what the implications are.

2. 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. I think this makes rounds a lot easier to judge.

3. If you go fast be clear. To clarify, I can handle fast PF speed but I don't want to hear any speed that requires a doc for me to flow. I will say clear if it is too fast.

4. Argue with warrants, not just impacts and taglines. Your arguments need to be coherent, logical, and should have a clear linkchain. Good analytics>Bad cards every time

5. Compare, compare, compare. The point of the debate is to establish why I should prefer your arguments over theirs, not to establish that your arguments are good.

6. Understand that debate is a game. The best strategies will win. You can lose the debate even if you are arguing for the better point if your opponent utilizes a nice framework or overview.

Novice:

Do three things and you will be fine. 1. Bring one argument all the way through, explain it well, and tell me what the impact is (why does this matter?). 2. Compare your argument to theirs. Even if you have a good argument it needs to be BETTER than your opponents. 3. Respond to your opponents points in every speech. If it isn't in the last speech, I don't care.

PLEASE ask me questions after or before the round. The only way to get better is to learn where you are going wrong.

Prog:

I am most familiar with disclosure, paraphrasing, and TW theory. PLEASE do not run a recycled shell that you didn't write. I am tired of hearing the same standards over and over again for these arguments. Come up with something creative plsssss. Friv theory is lame, tell me to judge on reasonability here and I will. I think I know most of the jargon, but just in case keep your speeches clear- I will knock off some speaks if you spread your shell.

Feel free to run topical K's. I am not an expert but I understand the basics. To get my ballot, you will need to have a convincing alt. I don't know any literature so overexplain your evidence.

I have little to no experience with non-topical K's but feel free to run them. I will not vote for any voter related to discourse, you should not win for simply bringing up a topic. I think if you are running a non-topical arg you should be able to justify a real-world impact that goes beyond simply bringing up a subject. Make sure the alt makes sense pls.

Ev ethics--

All shared evidence must be in cut card form. Evidence exchange should be timely, if it takes longer than a minute for non tech issues then I will start to consider dropping it from the round

Paraphrasing is only ok if the card retains the exact same meaning as the cut card. I paraphrased a lot, especially for lay cases. I think it can be a strategic way to make your case more accessible and narrative-based if done the right way. If a card is called by me or your opponents that I deem misconstrued I will drop it from the round and tank your speaks. I do think paraphrasing theory is very convincing though, so I think I would be a good judge if you want to have a competitive round about paraphrasing.

Speaks:

Speaks will probably be based on how easy it is for me to flow your speeches and what I think of your strategic choices. Have a chill round and debate well and you will get very good speaks.

PLEASE ASK ME ABOUT MY PARADIGM- also if you tell me you got here I'll give you +.5 speaks

I have been a coach for five 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 (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” during speeches. Cross is important to me as it shows me what you know. Please stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you cannot answer their question. 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.

Glenbrooks:

Experience: Two years of policy in high school, in third 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: My average speaks is a 28. 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. Speech docs is fine, just send them. 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.

Please 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: sdjohnson@uchicago.edu

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 is 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)

Yale:

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

I debated PF for 4 years

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

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

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

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

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

I am a 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 good listening from both teams. Please speak clear and do not speak too fast, I want to make sure I follow what you are saying. Please be polite in cross and do not interrupt the other speaker. I like both teams share their case to my email ravikanth23@gmail.comso 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 parent judge with a solid amount of experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace that I can follow. 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 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 to all debaters!

Hi! I'm Charles (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.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

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

-----------

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'm more sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans, but it should be argued and justified in the round by the negative team. 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.

-----------

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 French authors. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

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

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

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

-----------

Misc. notes:

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

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 and Lincoln Douglas for about 6 years now, although not on as high a competitive level.

What I Like 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.

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 will encourage your opponents and any other judges to please call "speed" if you're going too fast. Please slow down if that happens.

Other Debate Pet Peaves

Evidence sharing. 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 am excited to be judging. I prefer progressive debate and the inclusion of policy and theory, as I have found it to be more customary in the current public forum sphere. But, I respect traditional style debating also, 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, clearest 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.

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic.

debate is a game and the best players will win.

I am a parent judge. I am a physician and health policy researcher.
Some suggestions:

1. Talk clearly and at a normal speed.
2. Keep track of your own time.
3. Please be clear about your warrants and impact (signpost).
4. Off-time road maps aren’t required but are appreciated.
5. I will not judge off cross-ex.
6. Your summary and final focus should be paralleled, and I will ignore any new points brought up in either.
7. Speaker points will be lower for any debaters who are rude, disrespectful, or passive-aggressive to opponents.
8. No K's, theory, or trix
9. 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, which in most instances 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 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.

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.

I've debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years. Speech-docs would be appreciated and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

IMPORTANT:Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when literally everyone still does all of the pet peeves in round.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is. Feel free to run wacky arguments as long as they have good warranting though.

- 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 first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- 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

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns otherwise they are dropped

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

- 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.

- I presume the first speaking team if no offense is generated in the round

-Theory: You can read it, just understand I might spend the round being grumpy and miserable. That being said:

• Read theory to counter actual abuse, if you read frivolous theory I will drop you.

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

- Going new in the 2. Don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank 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

Annoying Erica Lung (PLEASE SPAM HER elung30@stuy.edu): +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 am a recent graduate of the University of Iowa (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 some speed, but remember -- this is PF. Your clarity and eloquence will be reflected in your speaker points.

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.
• 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 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, but blippy NLs from the first rebuttal don't all need to be answered here.

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.

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. 

NOTE: I am always happy to provide additional feedback if desired (feel free to email me at klynpar@gmail.com). Speech and debate is awesome, please stick with it if you’re reading this especially if you’re in Iowa. I'm committed to making speech and debate a safe and welcome space for everyone.

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.

Public Forum paradigm

[NATIONAL CIRCUIT ONLY — local competitors just do your best, your coach should’ve taught you how to win PF at a fundamental level, I give really extensive and constructive feedback]

Include me on 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 used to have a really long paradigm (it's still too long probably) with a diatribe about how I generally don't like theory or Ks in PF. At this point I'll vote on any and everything -- BUT I would still much, much prefer a substance debate (even if it gets really techy or framework-y or evidence comparison-y) over anything that attempts to modify the role of my ballot. Again, I'll still vote on those things, I think judge interference is really bad, -- I just won't have as much fun as a judge. If you think there's been a violation (disclosure, paraphrasing, misgendering, etc.) run a shell. Ks have forced me to expand my literature base, I'd consider myself familiar with setcol, afropess, feminism, cap bad, securitization, and I understand the warranting behind most other identity Ks. I'm not as familiar with other standard Ks nor more philosophical ones. If you have questions, please ask (preferably with both teams present), I want debate to be fun and educational.

I’m a tech judge (tabula rasa and all that), I flow on my computer using Flower. Best way to win the round is to do the work for me

Be kind and respectful, it would take a lot for me to change a ballot because of this but I’m pretty quick to change speaks if it’s rough

Extend everything you’re going for through every speech except 1st rebuttal

I vote on impacts/voters/the weighing debate unless the framework set forth is something other than stock benefits/harms or cost-benefit analysis

Speed is fine

I don’t flow cross but I pay attention, it’s fun, you should be able to extemporaneously explain things

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback

Speaker points: 0/minimum = abuse, 26 = novice, 27 = needs improvement, 28 = solid, 29 = excellent, 30 = a top debater at this specific tournament the score is given out; I give speaker points for clarity and quality of argumentation (if there's a low speaker point win, the low team won "on the flow" but the higher team were generally better speakers and arguers and probably won the "truth" debate but not the "tech" debate). I don't bump speaks for anything arbitrary, it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw bc another team mentioned a le epic meme in their speech and I definitely am skeptical of people who do this even if it seems innocuous.

(Also, Iowa judges who are reading this paradigm: The speaker point range is 26-30 in 2023, with 26 meaning "the student was a really bad speaker." It's not a decade ago where it was 20-30. Stop making students freak out and arbitrarily lowering their seeds by giving them a 26-27 unless they truly deserved it.)

Long story short, Just win baby~!

--------------------------------------- [PFers stop reading] -------------------------------------------

Speech

Interp: Please have a clear theme or focus to your performance (It's why piece selection is so important -- please don't get frustrated if I downgrade a performance if I don't enjoy the piece. A prurient example of this is me judging my local circuit's DUOs one year. There was a performance of an excerpt from "Little Women" that was performed/acted beautifully... but the script was just horribly boring and the outdated language + no context for the full story of the [excellent!] novel just made it impossible to get into, so I never ranked them very high despite their great talent. In other words, be entertaining and compelling!)

Extemp: This event doesn’t leave a lot of leeway, the only consistent thing I see people do that hurts them is not answer the question accurately even if they have solid speaking/organization/etc.

OO/INFO: Persuade me and/or inform me, and just generally be compelling and/or entertaining, if you don’t do those things you probably won’t finish very high

Impromptu/Spont: Not telling (:

Congress

Bills: Please make them workable and just generally make them make sense, I hate disorganized and unfocused bills that have zero real-world implication

1st aff: This speech has no excuse to not be rock-solid because you technically have had a week-ish to write it, I’m way more willing to drop 3s and 4s on 1st affs that aren’t effective, give me your impacts clearly and show me why on a human level this bill is needed

1st neg: Need to respond to 2 things: the 1st aff and the bill itself, please do both otherwise it’s not worth the time and either the bill or the 1st aff’s arguments go unchecked

Subsequent speeches: These should be extemporaneous and directly respond to arguments previously made, do not be redundant with previous speeches on your side, I value speaking and argumentation above all

Questioning: Why are Congress competitors so afraid to ask questions? Most Congress speeches at least on the local Iowa level have major flaws either in argumentation/logic or in interpretation/workability of the bill, please call these flaws out if you see them, it’s not disrespectful or bad decorum to use your designated questioning time

Presiding: If I can essentially forget that you exist, you’ll get a really high rating, but if you’re constantly asking the parli for help/stumbling over procedure/messing up recency you won’t be ranked at all

Overall: Give me impacts, actually work really hard in preparation both before and during the session, speak well, and run an efficient and compelling debate

Lincoln-Douglas / Policy / World Schools

Minimal experience, but I'm always excited to learn more! I'm confident in my ability to evaluate arguments and debate but I'll probably get lost if you use excessive event-specific jargon, so please hold my hand a little haha. My overriding philosophy of tabula rasa, keeping judge ballot interference out of decisions, etc. also applies here

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 national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions

Am decently experienced in Congress and Speech as well, I coached national qualifiers in each in my first year as coach (22-23)

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. I am looking forward to another fruitful year of speech and debate.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well organized and evidence supported contentions. 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. If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

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

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

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 withtout 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 really don't have preferences for progressive arguments, except that you do them correctly, and are not using them as a gimmick to win a round. I will evaluate Ks and theory, but they are not a huge part of debate in my state in PF, run at your own risk.

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

Note:

I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the public forum and how it works. As a parent of a public forum participant, I have seen many debates online. 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.

GENERAL:

1. Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

2. Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.

3. Squirrelly contentions - If someone uses a squirrelly contention I would encourage them to have good defense/substance around it otherwise it will lead to deductions.

4. Strong/Stock contentions - I would give credit for a good stock contention even if your defense is found a bit lacking.

5. Theories and Ks - I am okay with these, but there needs to be details and substance around it, and you need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic. Otherwise, it will lead to deductions.

6. Speech Speed - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed; a clear enunciation is important to ensure the judge comprehends your contentions and rebuttals.

7. 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.

8. Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations.

REBUTTAL/SUMMARY/ FF:

1. Weighing - I am a fan of weighing, but I would encourage effectively providing terms like magnitude, scope, impact analysis, etc.

2. Evidence - Also, I am a fan of evidence-based arguments. Logical arguments lacking evidence can lead to deductions.

3. Extending - Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the case to the rebuttal, rebuttal to the summary, and the summary to the final focus.

4. Collapsing - As part of the summary, I would encourage collapsing, but if you prefer defending each contention, then you should be careful that you do not dilute your speech.

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.

email: mehull3@illinois.edu

flow judge

lowk im not tryna flow off a speech doc

i dont trust myself to evaluate Ks, but ill evaluate theory

dont read tricks unless it's funny and u dont care ab winning

if there's no offense in the round ill presume for the more polite team

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.

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 - I strongly prefer to judge slower, well-warranted, and actually coherent rounds rather than the awful current "tech" meta of reading as many contentions as possible and spreading out your opponents in every speech. I'm begging you, please please please slow down, go for less arguments, fully extend link chains and internal links, and actually read warrants for everything (especially frontlines and responses/defense). You do not need to go for every argument on both sides of the flow and speak incredibly fast to win the round -- your speaks will reflect it if you make my life miserable by being incomprehensible. The more moderately you debate, the higher your speaks and chance of winning the round will become.

Please don't read theory in front of me. My personal thoughts are that paraphrasing has its merits and disclosure is not necessarily a good norm, so do what you will with that information. I can't and would strongly prefer not to evaluate Ks. Tricks -- whatever.

Other preferences: I won't read evidence unless you explicitly tell me to call for it during a speech. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc, and I also probably won't flow more than three contentions. Go fast at your own risk. Feel free to ask me any questions you have about my paradigm 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 appeared daily in court representing a state agency as a civil prosecutor in 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 debators grapple with the challenging issues of our time at many national 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 extention as your key argument for any topic because while it relates to many areas, I know WE WILL ALL DIE and you won't 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 am a grad student at The New School, where I debated 2019-2023 and was a college novice. I value debate primarily as an educational and research activity, as well as a community-building space. I have a huge amount of respect for the amount of preparation and dedication that goes into attending a debate tournament.

**I will be wearing a mask. I will appreciate it if you are too, although it will not impact how I decide the round. Please ask me for any accessibility accommodations you need before the round.

Email: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I will default to voting on the flow, but truth matters and impacts can outweigh the flow if you make that argument.

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:

Please don't put me in policy v policy rounds outside of novice.

Fine for DAs and CPs

Good for Ks (I was a cap, fem, and set col K debater on both sides, and am quite familiar with the lit), and performance. I think links matter more than alts but if you're going for an alt I need to know how it solves case or why it matters more.

For T, I am not especially technical but I love smart, well-debated T arguments. I am not as familiar with high theory on T, so don't rely on me understanding the technicalities of it. I think the topic is a suggestion that you can choose to take or not.

I think conditional advocacies need to be full arguments when they are first presented.

Framework matters because debate is ultimately about the people being impacted by our plans.

I love case debate.

80% of top speed in open is comfortable for me. I will be more likely to vote for you if you slow the hell down and explain why your arguments matter and why you should win than if you say more things faster than the other team.

I flow on paper.

Public Forum:

I am affiliated with Poly Prep.

Set up the email chain BEFORE the round and send your speech docs for constructives. I don’t read them during the debate because I strongly believe that debate is a communication activity and you should be comprehensible during your speeches, but I do think that PF is far behind other types of debate in terms of evidence sharing as a norm and that it needs to improve.

If you spread, it can be at up to 70% top speed and you need to be very, very clear. Do NOT straight-spread and think I can understand it or that I’ll like it because I come from policy. If the other team can't understand what you are saying, they can't answer it, and that fairness issue outweighs the flow. I can't stand more experienced teams whose strategy relies on being incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things.

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 and usually I genuinely don't notice.

You can run Ks. Do your thing.

Even though I was a policy debater, I have been judging PF for 4 years so you can assume I am familiar with how theory works.

LD

Assume I have not done any topic research.

My knowledge of LD comes from having debated policy, and from having judged it for a couple of years.

I don't know what a trick is and I don't want to know. I would rather you slow down and explain why I should vote for you and why your arguments matter than spread through blocks.

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. Debated 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.

Theory

I'll evaluate it tab but I will drop the shell instead of defaulting to reasonability (which is the same thing in my opinion).

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 when 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 (as long as it makes sense with the topic).

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 been an judge for Public Forum debates for about one year.

There are three things that, in my opinion, make a debate go well.

First, talk slowly, at least for Public Forum debates. 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, 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.

Third, 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. 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.

I'm currently a senior in college. I did debate all four years of high school for Lexington High School. 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 mostly judge PF now so I've been p much only hearing that recently, so I might not be really familiar with your super out there args.

- I love K's. I ran K's.

- I also love disads/counterplans.

- I'm not thattt into phil but I'll def vote on it if it's explained well. Make sure it is and that you actually understand it. If you barely understand the lit how am I supposed to figure it out from you ya kno.

- I'm fine with theory but not if its frivolous, tricks, rvis (probably), nibs, and any other underdeveloped sketchy argument. If you really can't go without it, a few spikes or necessary T/theory is alright and I'll def vote on it if its explained WELL.

- WEIGH AND WARRANT. If there's no clash, I probably won't know where to vote and you probably won't be happy with my decision. The easier your arguments are to understand, the easier it is for me to vote you up, so just explain everything clearly and you'll be set:)

- 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, but I have watched a handful of rounds so I'm familiar with the format. I was a policy debater in both high school and college, and won the NDT in 1993 and Rex Copeland Award in 1992 and 1993. I am therefore very familiar with competitive debate in general. I will vote for whichever side wins the debate, not the side who makes the arguments I agree with. If you want to speak fast, please be clear, especially since I am just getting up to speed on PF debate.

"Kritiks"

I personally debated the "Kritik" back in the early 1990s when it was first developed, so I am familiar with those arguments, and I will vote for them if you argue them well, even though I find them to usually be easily beatable. I am not the sort of judge who prefers these arguments or would encourage you to make them. I would rather hear a good debate about the resolution.

Theory

I'm not experienced with the PF theory arguments, but if you want to make one you need to explain it clearly and not use acronyms that I may not understand (I didn't know what an RVI was until my son explained it to me).

Erica (she/her). Debated 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 drop you and you will get low speaks.

I don't follow debate anymore so assume I know nothing about the topic.

Weigh, extend, warrant and implicate arguments, and collapse.

Don't:

• take forever to send cards
• spread
• go new in the 2
• go overtime

I can't evaluate progressive argumentation of any kind. If that's your plan, strike me.

Misc:

- tech over truth but the wackier the argument the lower my threshold for responses are

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns otherwise they are dropped

- Defense should be in first summary.

- I won't flow off a speech doc

- My face is pretty expressive so if I'm frowning, I probably don't understand/don't like your argument

- If you mention Taylor Swift & Travis Kelce in a clever way +0.5 speaks

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.mahendra@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 ARGUMENTS IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE UNHAPPY WITH MY DECISION.

MAKE WEIGHING COMPARATIVE PLEASE

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

At the very minimum, you should summarize your argument in a few sentences and make sure you extend your impact. You do not need to extend author names.

If you have any more questions about extensions, pleeeeease ask me before round. Don't just not extend because you do not know how to. I'll be more than happy to help!

Speaker Points

This includes how persuasive you were, how compelling your arguments were, clarity while speaking, your demeanor in crossfire, the structure and organization of your speeches, etc.

Be confident, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

Strategy

Here's a couple of things to think about.

1. Did you collapse on the right argument?

2. Did you even collapse at all? (Hint: you should!)

3. Did you weigh?

4. Did you frontline your case properly?

5. Did you have enough time to respond to their case?

6. Did you make any glaringly obvious contradictions?

7. Did you just make clashing claims or did you resolve that clash by comparing your arguments and explaining why you are more correct?

8. Did you decide to suddenly shift up your argument in second final focus and read 17 new turns on their case? (plz don't)

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 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.

I will go over my paradigm at the start of a debate round, but generally I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly.

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

I am a former traditional LD debater from Maggie Walker Governor's School in Richmond, Virginia and current dual degree student at Sciences Po Paris and Columbia University. I have experience debating at the NCFL Grandnational Tournament and the NSDA National Championship. I did British Parliamentary when studying in France and will be doing some APDA in the US. Most of my energy since then has been devoted to teaching middle and high school students the fundamentals of debate, both LD and PF, with the Richmond Debate Institute.

I am flexible and responsive to various debating styles. If you debate progressive, I will flow your debate. If you are traditional, I will flow your debate. I appreciate when debaters offer their opponent the option to have a traditional round because this creates a better space for newer debaters, but I do not by any means expect it or drop debaters for not doing so.

If the round is non-traditional in any way, I will ask for speech docs. My email is mandgiboys@gmail.com. It helps me keep everything in order on my end, and it also means I can keep your arguments organized should I fail my flow. I will note if any cards are unethically cut or arguments misrepresented, but it will still be the duty of the opponent to point out that the evidence is deficient before I strike it. The counter to this is that if evidence is so unethically cut to the point that the argument is simply incoherent, then I just cannot flow it. This has only ever been a problem once, but the disclaimer is needed: bad evidence ethics makes for bad debates.

The only thing I don't like flat-out are tricks. All your opponent has to do to win the round if you use tricks is say "Tricks are For Kids," and I will immediately scratch it from the flow.

Make sure that if you are using progressive debate tactics, whether that means Kritiks, Theory, or some other thing I am not familiar with, it is clear what your tactic is intended to accomplish. It should make sense or be explained by the debater in-round during speeches. If I cannot rationally buy into it or the logical flow of the argument is just not there, I will not vote for you. I need to also buy that the goal you are seeking to achieve is more important than any discourse advantages of discussing whatever the resolution is. If a ballot for your K does not accomplish more than a ballot for your opponent to reward them for learning about a topic, I will default to voting for your opponent for contributing to an instructive debate on the merits of a specific policy. Respect for debaters' and all people's identities is also paramount: that is one thing not up for debate. If you have any questions about this paradigm, please bring it up before the round. If you are worried that I won't let something fly, I probably will but just ask me before the round. Treat your opponent with respect and honor the activity we are doing, and I'll be a happy judge.

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 / are arguably abusive in my opinion.

- 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 or say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc., 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

I did PF in high school(James River ‘22) and judge PF now. Debate was fun and my coach(Castelo!) is one of my favorite people.

Be kind and have fun

Tech>truth

I like when debaters interact with the responses against their arguments instead of just reasserting them, weigh comparatively, and keep things organized by signposting well.

Signposting clearly and weighing comparatively = good speaks

The way the round goes is up to y’all. I have no major preferences in terms of the arguments you make but the way you make them matters a lot. Defense is not sticky and the 2nd rebuttal should respond to the 1st.

I can keep up with all PF speed, but I can't keep up with real spreading. If you're going too fast, I'll say slow/clear. If anyone debating can't follow a speech I encourage you to say slow/clear.

I’ll disclose if I'm allowed to

If you have questions, please ask

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.

Update -- January Section 230 Topic -I think this topic is where I start to shift a tiny bit towards truth > tech, so fair warning. Make the flow clean if you don't want me to intervene more than usual.

Background: I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

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 greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 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 up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., 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). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to 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, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

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.

Teams should start an email chain before the start of the round - My email is brianmigliaccio3@gmail.com. Add me to this email chain as well, and have cut cards ready at the beginning of the round to be sent the moment they are requested. My least favorite thing about debate is the purgatory that is between speeches waiting for cards.

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 four 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 drop a particular contention.

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. Be sure to collapse on your arguments before FF. It is difficult for me to reach a favorable conclusion if you base your argument on theory, counter interpretation, or disclosure theory.

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

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 im a freshman at 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.

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 not binding, but if they make a concession, then bring it up in the next speech and keep 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’ll buy a TKO arg if its made cuz why not?

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 uneducational 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 less 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 smh.

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.

Please keep in mind that I am a lay judge and I have no experience as a debater. Please speak clearly and don't use too many debate jargon.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. Please speak SLOW and CLEAR. Because we are having our tournament online, it is very hard for others to hear what you are trying to say. If I don't catch your words clear, you will end up losing a few points. (I'd rather have you not finish your speech than mumble rush through the entire thing.)

2. Please send me your case beforehand so I can follow along. This will give you an advantage during the tournament. Please send them to n.hyunsun@gmail.com .

3. Once you enter the conference call, please turn ON your video and mute your mic.

4. Please time yourself. I will not warn you about your times unless they are very over. This will heavily impact your speaker points!

5. I normally don't give oral feedback usually so please wait until the ballots are posted for your feedback :)

6. I primarily focus on the structure and organization of the speeches. If I find it difficult to follow along and messy, I won't be able to favor your side! Please be organized!

7. I highly favor quantifiable evidence over others. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

*** Do not yell into the microphone. If you speak too loud, it's going to sound like you are mumbling. If you speak too quietly, no one will hear you!! ***

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

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 for a few years in the DC area and on the circuit. Now studying at UVA

General

This is my first time judging LD. I know a decent amount about the event, but don't assume that I'm an expert. If you contextualize things for me, I will be able to understand them and evaluate them. If not, I might have some trouble voting for you.

I'll flow everything, but I recommend that you provide a narrative on why I should vote for you that contextualizes the voters and gives me a clear path to a decision. I lean toward voting off the flow, but please note that I would prefer the round to be accessible to people that haven't gone to a camp or learned a ton of jargon. Context, context, context.

Please don't spread. High speed is fine -- if you enunciate clearly -- but Mach 12 is probably not (idk, stick to < 240wpm-ish).

Respect in round is huge, so I'm unlikely to vote for you if you're clearly rude, disruptive, -ist, etc

Please note: 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 judges happy.

Preferences/Speaks

Add me to the chain/Google shareable/carrier pigeon please:
aidan@theomaras.net

If you run an alternative argument (ex: theory, kritiks), do so knowing that I probably won't evaluate it "correctly" and that I'm heavily biased toward substance.

If there's an egregious violation in the round, and you can clearly articulate it, I'll consider the arguments. But, again, I will not do it "correctly". Definitely don't read disclosure.

I will use the WACFL standard for speaks. See the relevant tournament docs for more details (or ask me).

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 2/19/23

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 of civ 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. Usually that ends on the TVA flow.

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 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 Congress and PF 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. 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 in a compelling manner. 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 then 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: My competitive history and much of my early coaching/judging history have been in speech, but I am experienced in all events across my decade of experience. I consider all of forensics to be primarily about public speaking but will not be won over by rhetoric, volume, or flowery imagery.

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 two speakers' team camaraderie should be reflected throughout the debate.

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

I strongly prefer hearing smart arguments over a large quantity of them.

Warrants always beat taglines. Warrants are severely lacking in PF. You must actually have and extend warrants if you want me to consider something an argument in the debate round. Just saying I have evidence that says otherwise is not an argument. I probably have a higher threshold for explanation than you think.

Impact calc can be the most important, but in the large majority of the decisions that I make it is not nearly as important as it should be since the weighing is not comparative. No new weighing in second final. Don't weigh just for the sake of weighing by throwing out some terms. Instead, make a real comparative analysis of why I should prefer your argument.

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, now I'm a freshman at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.

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 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. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read if they made an in-round violation but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

I’m neutral tab ras on most theory but threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous.

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 Last Chance, 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. In general I prefer traditional PF, but I'll 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.

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 ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  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

POs: 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

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? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

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

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 - cool

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 prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

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:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... 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 2023-2024 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!

My name is Alex and I am excited to hear your debate. I debated in pf for 3 years at my high school, and now I'm in college and help coach my old team.

I'll be completely honest with you, you probably know way more about the current topic than I do. I didn't love doing research when I debated, and I like it even less now. I'm not saying to dumb down or change your argument for me, I'm just saying don't be mad at me if your argument makes sense and it takes me a bit to grasp it.

For the actual debate stuff, there are three very important things to remember. 1) Flow your opponent's argument and do it well. Like 9 times out of 10, you can listen to your opponent speak and find logical cracks or loose ends in a source or argument. You should try to use those sometimes. 2) Weigh your impacts because that is all that matters. Without impacts, a debate is meaningless. They are the reason why I should vote for your argument and they are beyond essential. You should explain to me why your impacts are more important/severe than the opponents' impacts. 3) Clash is always appreciated. While clash isn't 100% necessary, sometimes its really nice to see two intelligent teams go back and forth about the argument.

While all that may sound intense or scary or demanding, I promise that no matter what happens I'll be entertained. Just have a good time and I'll have a good time too. In all actuality, I couldn't care less what happens, I just enjoy judging.

Email:Benjaminredler@gmail.com

I want to be treated as a flay judge!

I debated in Pf at Nova high school for 5 years

-I don't believe in progressive debate. I hate theory and K's with a passion. Run a K or theory and I'll drop you :)

- I prefer weighing to start in rebuttal but obviously it doesn't have to be, just make sure it is in summary if you want it to be considered in final

- don't just weigh on the impact level, weighing on the link level matters more to me as impact weighing is kind of obvious for the most part

I-Not a huge fan of speed, especially if you're just reading off a document, you can go a little fast but if it's late at night, early morning or mid-afternoon try to avoid fast speaking

-warrants are more important than impacts, if I don't hear a warrant, I don't care at all if your impact is extended cleanly throughout the round. I prefer logic over an unwarranted piece of evidence. Having an authors name behind an argument doesn't mean anything to me

- I will vote off of logic over an unwarranted probably not credible author.

Also, don't be rude, stand up when speaking beside the grand cross, and have to try to have fun.

if you spread i will bite your ear off and hold your family hostage

max speaks if u guess my favorite sports team or which school i'm at.

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a current senior at 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 to just tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

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

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in 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.