As a Public Forum (PF) debater, my primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made by both teams and determine which side presented the most convincing case. In order to help me make an informed decision, I expect debaters to adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Clarity: Debaters should speak clearly and at a reasonable pace so that all arguments can be heard and understood. Debaters who mumble, speak too quickly, or are difficult to understand will be at a disadvantage.

2. Organization: Debaters should structure their arguments in a logical and coherent manner. Each argument should have a clear thesis statement and be supported by evidence and reasoning. Debaters who are disorganized or fail to make clear arguments will struggle to persuade me.

3. Evidence: Debaters should support their arguments with evidence from credible sources. Debaters who use unreliable or biased sources will be at a disadvantage.

4. Rebuttal: Debaters should address their opponents' arguments directly and provide effective rebuttals. Debaters who fail to address their opponents' arguments or who simply restate their own arguments without addressing their opponents' points will be at a disadvantage.

5. Clashing: Debaters should engage in productive clash with their opponents. This means responding to arguments made by the other team and directly challenging their opponents' claims. Debaters who fail to engage in productive clash will be at a disadvantage.

6. Ethics: Debaters should adhere to the highest ethical standards. This means avoiding personal attacks, being respectful of their opponents, and representing their arguments fairly. Debaters who engage in unethical behavior will be penalized.

By following these guidelines, debaters can help me evaluate their arguments effectively and make an informed decision. I will be looking for the team that presents the most persuasive case and supports their arguments with the best evidence and reasoning.

if you want to win just be better

I am a new parent judge. ????

pf at leland

add me to email chain: heatherchang16@gmail.com

flow, tech>truth

pf:

look at jeannine yu paradigm, i agree with basically everything

anything you want to be evaluated has to be in a speech

• i only look at evidence if a team points it out
• if something's in cross, it needs to be in your speech for me to flow it

don't be rude during cross

time yourself

have fun and ask me any questions before round!

bring me boba for 30 speaks

not pf:

treat me like a lay

First and foremost, it is crucial to establish a shared understanding of the topic at hand. Before any meaningful debate can take place, we must ensure that all parties involved have a clear and accurate understanding of the subject matter. This includes a thorough examination of key terms and concepts, as well as an exploration of the historical and cultural context in which the issue has arisen.

Once a shared understanding has been established, it is important to engage in active listening and respectful dialogue. Debating is not about winning or losing, but about exchanging ideas and perspectives in a constructive and meaningful way. It is essential to approach debate with a spirit of intellectual humility, recognizing that we all have something to learn from one another.

Of course, no debate can be truly meaningful without a careful analysis of evidence. As such, it is essential to approach the topic at hand with a critical eye, evaluating the quality and reliability of the evidence presented. This may involve examining empirical research, analyzing statistical data, or reviewing historical documents and texts.

Furthermore, I believe that it is essential to approach debate with a multidisciplinary perspective. Many of the most pressing issues of our time require insights from a wide range of fields, including economics, sociology, psychology, and political science. As such, it is essential to engage with a diverse array of viewpoints and disciplines in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.

In conclusion, I believe that debate is a crucial component of intellectual discourse, and that it has the power to promote critical thinking, intellectual humility, and the pursuit of truth. As such, I urge all participants to approach this debate with an open mind, a commitment to respectful dialogue, and a willingness to engage in rigorous analysis of evidence from a multidisciplinary perspective.

but... I will take account into my ballot if you talk about the bee movie or finding Nemo. It will heavily boost your ballot because I like to see the creative way they are incorporated into speeches. If you didn't watch either of these make a random joke in your speech but I will dock points if it isn't funny. I want to be addressed as either Judge or Supreme Ruler

Policy: I enjoy clash. Once your time is up IT IS UP don't say anything after the 8 minutes including "Therefore I urge affirmative vote". EXTEND IMPACTS

PF: Little experience but remember evidence claims are better than analysis (at least for me). Once time is up stop your speech. EXTEND IMPACTS

LD: Not much experience but will try to flow

Parli: Never judged or know rules so explain in depth

hey, i'm ben! (he/him)

i'm a policy debater (2N) at leland (2A'd like two times ever). i have almost no judging experience (except a middle school PF tournament and i don't think that qualifies for much). for speech events — I've done info/expos and duo :)
email - lelandhsdebate@gmail.com ('hs' stands for han shih, not high-school) and lelanddebatedocs@googlegroups.com

general
- tech > truth (usually)
- be clear — spreading is ok
- time your own prep
- done a lot of lay debate (w stock issues) — if I'm in a panel u can treat me like a parent judge

for flusters:

don't have a really deep understanding of other debate events so almost treat me like a parent judge

in general:

- clear warrants backed w/evidence

- make sure you know your ev or else that tells me you don't know what args you're really running for lmao

- weigh out your impacts & basically write my ballot out for me

- no spreading-- i wont be able to understand

- pls don't be ableist, homophobic or that sort or else i will tank ur speaks

other than that, have fun :)

Treat me like a parent judge for any event other than policy; I have no idea what your event is and how to judge it. Thus, judge instruction, especially in the rebuttals for debate ("write my ballot for me") + clear & articulate speaking & presentational skills (for any event) will be key to obtaining the W from me as your judge

For policy---Circuit or lay debate is fine with me

Lay: Speak clearly, use gestures, and maintain eye contact. Also, cx is very important for me when judging lay debates. Rebuttal speeches should have a lot of judge instructions and "simplification of arguments" so there is a clear stock issue / argument to vote off.

Circuit: Any arguments, policy or kritikal are ok, though I prefer judging Policy OFF debates. I am also not very familiar with K-AFF & k v k debates and I definitely dislike tricks / troll arguments (unless its a troll round lol). Again, rebuttal speeches should boil down to one or 2 OFF for the neg / one or 2 scenarios for the aff, with impact calc, highlighting concessions, and summarizing arguments.

This goes for all events---Do not be disrespectful or condescending towards any of your opponents (that includes but not limited to misogynistic, homophobic, racist, demeaning behavior). Any such behavior will merit a vote for the opposing side.

Pf at Leland High School with Sterling Xie.

Basic things:

-Preflow before round, do NOT be like Sterling.

-No progressive arguments unless there's a major violation(i.e. -isms).

-I flow so speaking fast is ok unless you start spreading then I'll start missing points.

-Don't extend through ink, I won't evaluate any argument that is brought up in final focus unless it's in summary.

-Only arguments that are extended through final focus will be evaluated.

-If you drop something, it is considered dropped.

Cross:

-Most important thing: do not be mean or abusive

-if you concede something during cross then it is considered dropped

Speech:

-Please, please, please weigh! Don't just say something like "We outweigh cuz our impact is bigger than theirs", add warranting.

Let sterling be your example: if you don't weigh, you drop your outround.

-I really don't want to time y'all so you guys should time yourself and each other; the grace period is 10 seconds.

-Feel free to run any kinds of argument as long as it's not racist, sexist, etc.

-My average speaks are 28.7, and if you're funny/a good speaker, 29 or above.

Evidence:

-Paraphrasing is ok as long as you're not misconstruing evidence real hard and/or basically making things up.

-Tell me to call for cards if there are specific ones you want me to see.

-Cut all your cards fully, DO NOT just give me a link(like what Sterling always do); I will be very very annoyed.

Have fun!

- experience in ld & parli

- i have small brain => pls do not be confusing

- have fun. if u don't have fun, i'll give u 20 speaks. :)

ty <3

I've done PF for one year, Parli for another, and LD for a very, very brief amount of time. Treat me like a Flay judge. Debate should be fun, so if you can make me or your opponents laugh, I'll give you +1 speaks. kpop reference for +0.3 speaks.

Important notes

If you want an email chain, add me to it but I will only look at it if you call misconstrued evidence.

A lot of new debaters forget to signpost, and if I don't know what to flow I won't be able to vote for you.

Defense is NOT sticky, meaning that you must extend your responses in all your speeches for me to consider it

When weighing, weigh comparatively. Tell me why your impact wins over your opponents. Don't just say you win on magnitude. I don't want to hear "my number is bigger than theirs so we win"

Frontlining should be in the speech right after.

I don't flow cross unless you bring it up in a later speech

I can handle speed to some extent, send speech docs because if I can't understand you I can't flow

Progressive Args:

I have very little experience with these so try not to run them, but in the event that you do just tell me how to evaluate them.

I will vote for it if it sounds good.

For Debate:

- I do LD but I don't really know other events too well

- Please don't spread

- Be kind to your competitor

- Explain any event specific or topic specific definitions

- Just because you give 50 refutations to an opponent's contention doesn't mean I will flow all of that

- All arguments has responses, just because you refuted a statement doesn't mean you won

For Speech:

- Speak clearly(obviously)

- Let me know what your topic is before we start

- Please make sure that your mic and camera work fine, I will let you know if your internet cuts out or anything, don't worry too much about it :)

- Also don't worry about controversial topics or takes, I will ensure that I have no personal bias towards any topic

New judge, I understand Policy terms, but be clear with terms in other debate events

Looking for a good debate where the resolution is clear, and there is good, strong evidence and analytics coming from both sides.

Don't run too circuit-y arguments without outlining everything clearly so that I am able to follow and understand links

(they/them)

Hey all! don't forget that Barack Obama loves you all. you all will do great! don't be too nervous <3

hiiii

please be nice

Hi!

My background: Currently in 4th year competing in parliamentary debate for Leland High School.

Please navigate to your debate below.

Parli:

- I vote for the team who best upholds the agreed weighing mechanism or value(for value resolutions). Your arguments must tie back into this. Essentially, if you show me why you uphold the weighing mech better than your opponents, you win.

- Use quality evidence and argumentation

- Refute all of your opponents points. Don't drop points ever(Only exception is if your opponents are spreading).

- Signpost!

- Explain your impacts! This is one of the most crucial points in the debate and can win you my vote.

- You must explain why you win the debate during voter issues. I highly encourage you to use a two world analysis and emphasize your impacts. However, it is up to you to decide how you want to do this but remember this is where you can show me why I should vote for you!

- Theory: I am not much acquainted to it- so please explain it very well if you run it. If you decide to do this, be warned that I will probably vote against you unless you explain it thoroughly as you would to a parent judge. 

- No Ks. Once again I heavily prefer on case debate. I believe Ks are unfair to opponents who are not very experienced debaters, and will vote against you for this reason if you decide to run them.

- No spreading. it is hard for me to follow and completely unfair to your opponents. If your opponents are speaking too fast for you, please explain this to them at some point in the debate or I will NOT consider your opponents to be spreading. If you are speaking too fast for me, I will stop you and ask you to speak slower(I usually follow average lay debating speed so as long as your not speaking so that you are out of breath, I should be able to follow). If your opponents or I tell you to speak slower, please follow the request or I will not flow your case out of fairness.

- Be Respectful at all times! Any racist, sexist, or other derogatory comments are not tolerated. Any sort of misbehavior will lose you the round.

PF/LD/Policy:

I have never done any of these debates so treat me as a parent judge. I encourage you to read the parli section and find if anything pertains to your event. Argumentation, organization, and impacts are key to winning my vote. Please be respectful, derogatory comments or misbehavior will lose you the round.

Good Luck and I look forward to see you soon!

Hi, I'm Allison!

I did PF for four years in high school

overall:

1. I'm pretty okay with speed but please don't spread like policy to the point where I can't understand. If I can't catch what you're saying it will be sad.

2. Please be respectful esp in cross! I don't take being rude lightly, ex. if you are more experienced and older, don't pick on a novice team.

3. Off time roadmaps are nice but keep in short and tell me where you start. If you say you're going to start on offense please actually follow it so I can flow better.

content:

1. Please collapse. In FF giving me one or two really strong flushed out arguments is a lot better (most if not all the time) than extending three blippy contentions or six different pieces of offense.

2. When weighing make sure it is comparative. Saying "we outweigh on probability" is not good enough without explaining. If you and your opponents have two different weighing mechanisms, then you need to start meta-weighing.

3. If you are going for an argument you need to frontline ALL the responses on it. If you don't i'll think you're conceding the defense and will not vote for you on it.

4. Extend warrants and card names but I don't need a card for EVERY little thing. Please fully extend the argument, response, and implication instead of just extending through ink thinking I won't catch it.

5. Second rebuttal must frontline all turns and and at least the argument you are going for

6. First summary only needs to extend defense if it's frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

7. All offense in final needs to be in summary for me to count that in my decision.

8. Cards are obviously better than no cards, but I will be very impressed with good warranted analytics.

9. I'll call for evidence if it's heavily contested in the round and it's important or you mention something like "I strongly urge you to look at this because..." If you horrendously misconstrue evidence and I find out, I may drop you.

10. If you make a good joke or add in a funny saying during cross I will up your speaks.

Please come preflowed and have cut cards ready. Personally, I think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure isn't necessary.

theory:

be warned i am not experienced in theory, t, k's, tricks at all. run them at your own risk because you will lose me

1. i've only mainly heard of disclosure and paraphrase theory

2. don't run friv theory i will drop speaks and most likely I will not evaluate it

Something something win the flow

VBI

I can evaluate everything—I never debated Ks but I find K literature interesting. Prefer substance rounds

Hi everyone! I've done PF for 5 years at Leland High School so I'm pretty comfortable with flowing and technical debate. Add me to the email chain sterlingaxie@gmail.com.

Specific to SVUDL Novice PF:

I'm okay with speed but try to go slower online. On the flow, make sure you collapse by summary and extend in every speech. I won't evaluate anything that isn't extended fully. Weigh by second rebuttal or first summary. Be very clear where you want me to vote and why. Defense isn't sticky (meaning you must extend defense in both summary and final focus). I will vote off the flow unless there's a huge violation (abusive, toxic opponents). I won't flow cross but I'll listen. Tell me it was said in cross if you want to reference it in argumentation.

Comparative weighing (refer below) means you compare the worlds with prerequisite weighing and link-ins, not just "our number is bigger". Magnitude weighing will only be considered if there are no better weighing mechanisms in the round.

If your opponents read new responses in second summary or final focus, you must tell me in your next speech in order for me to cross the response off my flow.

General:

• defense is not sticky—responses must be extended in every speech in order for me to consider it
• comparative weighing in second rebuttal or first summary
• all responses should be well-warranted even if it's just an extension
• all frontlines must be in the immediate next speech
• i can handle speed but send speech docs
• don't be problematic
• i don't flow cross but tell me if there's anything important i should note on my flow
• signpost well and tell me where you are
• speak clearly even if you're going fast so you're comprehensible

Progressive Debate:

• I don't have much experience with progressive arguments so make sure you tell me how to evaluate theory, Ks, etc.

Hi,

Here's my email for the email chain or evidence doc: danielxupublicforum@gmail.com

For PF debate:

I have some PF experience, so I'll be mostly going off of flow and argumentation, not off speaking. I'm not completely a flow judge, so please don't spread your case; make it intelligible and comprehensible for most people

Tech over truth. However, I will vote off good analysis and carded evidence, and whether each argument has clear warrants and makes logical sense.

Timing: Keep track of your own time! Unless you go 30+ seconds overtime, tracking time is the responsibility of both teams, not the judge. I won't be voting off of it.

Extensions: Make sure to extend all your cards and arguments that you want to collapse on through summary and final focus, rebuttal for better consolidation.

Collapsing: Consolidate your arguments and do voters (tell me what is the most important/impactful argument in the round). Most of the time, I just vote off the later speeches.

Frontlines: I expect second rebuttal to frontline. I also don’t believe defense is necessary if you did a good job of it in rebuttal, but a brief mention of it is good enough for me.

Weighing: Please terminalize your impacts, it will be easier for me to submit a ballot at the end.

New Arguments/Responses: Don't do it past 1st summary. If you read it in 2nd summary or final focus, I will not flow it. Disadvantages can be read up to 1st summary, no later than that.

Plans: No, I will drop them. It's against most PF rules, so if you like plans, switch to Policy debate.

debated pf on the nat circuit from 2020-2024 under Leland YC and Leland LY

email chain: jeannineyu120@gmail.com

flow

tech>truth, tabula rasa

How I evaluate:

1. who is winning the weighing/framing?—I go to their case/other weighed lines of offense
2. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I look to the other case/lines of offense.
3. are they winning offense?—if yes, round is over. if no, I presume to evaluating like a lay judge (which team was more "convincing" lol) unless you tell me otherwise

Must Dos:

-weigh comparatively (the earlier the better!) I will default to the team with weighing even if they only have a marginal amount of access to their offense. my fav weighing mechs were prereqs, impact magnifiers, timeframe metaweighing (i am a huge sucker for going for and weighing conceded turns in summary) if you do impressive weighing/round vision i will give you crazy high speaks

-signpost

-extend everything you want me to vote for in summary and FF (defense is not sticky) do NOT extend through ink, if your opponents do it just call them out, no need to respond to it

-do full link chain extensions, i will be very unwilling to vote on shadow extensions

Progressive:

-not a huge fan of theory, but willing to evaluate reasonable shells for actual abuse (don't make me judge a disclo or paraphrase round please)

-i read only 1 topical K in my senior year with a friend who is a much better K debater than me, i'm willing to evaluate Ks but a) at your own risk b) send me all docs so i can follow along

-tricks and friv = bad speaks

Other:

-I can handle reasonable amounts of speed but prefer you to not go over 200 wpm. send a doc for fast speeches. you must be coherent and actually read what's on the doc for me to flow it

-average speaks 28.5-29.5, goes up or down based on how you debate. higher speaks for paper speeches!

-I'll flow responses that begin before the end of the speech time, anything after I will strike from the flow if the other team calls it out

-to minimize intervention, I only look at evidence if it's indicted in a speech or if anyone asks me to

-bring food for 30s

-don't be mean, rude, or discriminatory

please ask if you have any questions! :))

Hey,

Call me eric or judge, i use he/him pronouns, im a varsity parli main at leland, i know other debate events though! (less of policy lol)

General things:

• more flow than lay

• All debaters should adjust to the slowest preferred pace by the panel of judges

• If you have 1 lay and 2 flows, go lay

• general speaks are around 27.5-28

• I will follow the tournament rules and disclose accordingly if allowed

• tech>truth, will evaluate whatever args you throw at me though you have to explain things clearly if i may not know background.

• I wont call for evidence, it is up to the opponents to question unwarranted and suspicious arguments

• If you dont question it, i will default to believing the evidence as true

• I like to flow on paper, so let me know if you want me to flow on a diff sheet

• i usually wont flow cross, but i will listen to them :D

What I like, thus what you should do:

• Sign postings,

• road maps,

• clear introduction/transition to a different subject,

• EXPLANATIONS AND ELABORATIONS (if you don't explain, I will not buy them),

• A few flushed out contentions instead of like 8 different short contentions with no evidence, explanations, impacts, etc

• clear background info

• Like if topic is war in Jordan or something, I'm sorry... but I'm def not the most knowledgeable about what you are saying if you dont give background info

• theory is like... okay, i guess, not the most well versed in technical debate, but run theory if you explain them well enough with clear impact

What I don't like:

• Any rude, racist, sexist, or discriminatory comments of any sort, I will tell tab if you do any of the things I mentioned here

• Laughing at opponents or even your partner (excluding LD ofc)

• I am okay with spreading I guess, but if either I or the opponent(s) say "slow" or indicate that you are going too fast, then you should slow down.

• The Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated

• Debate is an educational and chill activity and everyone here wants and deserves to learn and grow in a safe and protected environment, if you violate that and prevent that from happening, I will use my powers as a judge (and I don't want to do that to anyone)

Feel free to have a casual conversation with me before/after the round (if I don't have a round to get to) about any of my experience as a debater and I have some interesting stories that I can tell LOL

Good luck and Have fun :D