Background: I am a former PF debater and current PF coach at Phillipsburg High School. I have over a decade of experience in all debate and speech events.

PF Paradigm:

Email Chains: I don't want to be a part of email/evidence chains, I trust you all to present/use your evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of back and forth on specific evidence throughout the whole round I might call for it after the round especially if it will impact my decision but I prefer not to.

Progressive Debate: I am a more traditional PF debate judge who focuses majorly on clash, substantial weighing, and topical arguments. I am not a fan of progressive debate so please no Theory/Ks. If that is what you want to run you probably won't get picked up by me. When it comes to tech over truth I'm moderate, use your best judgment. Links should be explicit, and super long unwieldly link chains often become too tedious and I won't always buy them.

Speed: When it comes to speed I can handle a little bit but no spreading in PF, please. If you want to send a speech doc then you are probably going to speak too fast and I am not going to read it. Present your case articulately and clearly, PF is not policy or LD.

Weighing: Comparative weighing and good impacts are super important. Also, be super explicit, don't just say things like "we win off magnitude and probability" tell me exactly what your impacts are "we win on magnitude because we help 327 million more residents blah blah.." again please just be explicit. Just a note, when it comes to weighing probability is very important to me. I will almost never weigh on a low probability huge magnitude impact i.e. nuclear war/extinction.

I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, impact driven debates, and good weighing.

Other notes:

• Frontlining is a must in second rebuttal
• Please spell things out clearly: links, turns, especially extensions ex: Don't just say "Extend Connor 22" say "Extend Connor 22 which says a 3% increase blah blah..." Being more explicit is always better.
• Signposting is important, please please please do it. I don't like messy debates and I want to know exactly where we are on the flow.
• I don't flow CX but if a good point is made and you bring it back up in speech I will listen. Also be respectful in CX.
• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you.

LD Paradigm:

I would also identify as a traditional LD judge who is very open to well-thought-out and engaging arguments. My background is PF and I tend to judge LD on the traditional circuit. I will evaluate the round in the best way you present to me and I really appreciate strong values, VC, and FRs in the round. When it comes to things like disads and kritiks I think that if they are well done and add to the debate in a substantive way that is fine. I tend to not love theory debates because I often view them as a timesuck and see that they take away from the debate a lot. One other thing is that I do look toward more realistic impacts bc of my PF background. Impact calc is very important but if there are massive unrealistic logical jumps I am not going to buy it i.e. impacting on nuclear war/extinction in a round concerning animal rights. Lastly, when it comes to speed I can handle a little bit of it but I prefer slower cases so I can more thoroughly flow and pay attention better.

In general I'm looking for good communication and persuasiveness and I appreciate competing on substance rather than technicalities. I am not a tech judge, but I do follow the flow and I find creative arguments and frameworks fun. I especially appreciate careful and precise articulation of ideas, strong understanding of the issues, eloquent speech, and clear signposting. I expect faithful representation of the meaning of sources used as evidence and have been known to ask to see sources. Please speak clearly and don't spread.

I am a parent judge, not too familiar with debate terminology. Do not spread. Speak slower and explain your points throughout your case.

Parent judge.

Please talk at moderate speed and make sure your arguments are clear. If I don't understand you, I won't be able to judge you. Be respectful.

For link chains, add luigi.auquilla@gmail.com

Current policy debater at NYU. Did public forum through high school.

I prefer a clear link story. Clearly articulate your arguments, clearly frame your methodology, and make sure to cover all arguments made by the opponent. I want to hear good analysis on the ev, not just dropping stats and hoping that covers your basis.

Should be obvious, but be civil and respectful to each other in round.

Strath Haven '23, PF 4 years

Add me to email chain: justinbi2004@gmail.com

Standard flow judge

• Real extensions, not just "extend ____ card"
• Compare evidence
• Collapse
• Weigh please
• Cross is binding
• Limited familiarity with prog
• If you're going fast, send a doc
• Don’t steal prep, I’ll keep track
• Preflow before round if possible

Ask questions if you have any, and have fun!

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD and PF so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD and PF not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen , voted on , for a reason.

Repeat: Debate the resolution

One more time: Debate the resolution

Content Warning, I can be sarcastic, below was written with seriousness and some fun in mind =)

So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating, stop, breathe, take another breath, and slow down, you will need to since you just dropped those points or contentions - you may even see me put my pen or pencil down as an indicator. Have you ever wondered what those breathing exercises got you? Do they help with a college or job interview? If you ever do speak that quickly during an interview can you please record and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)

If using a K in LD or PF - well at this point you can assume I am not the biggest fan unless I am judging a policy round. The biggest concern, besides taking you off the resolution, is that most debaters do not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that side steps the resolution, please see above. I may be amiss on this aspect, but are there any positive K's, like one that shows why picnics and puppies are amazing!

So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Impact, road maps, in LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is LD or PF, not policy !

I have around five years of debate experience. I mainly look at weighing impacts. Please be sure to speak clearly.

I am a lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

I have judged several local county and more than 10 regional/national (online and in-person) tournaments over the past two years. With that being said, I am still a parent (lay) judge. My paradigm consists of the following:

1. If you spread anywhere near 200 words per minute, I will, at a minimum, need your case(s) to follow along. If you spread too fast, I will not be able to capture everything and it is highly likely that will impact both your team and speaker point scores;

2. As a lay judge, I do not accept any theory cases, which I hope is common knowledge. In the rare situation a theory case is provided, I will immediately drop your team. For PF, I believe everyone should argue the resolution because the teams worked so hard on their respective cases. Regardless, I understand that theory cases do have their merits, but please save those cases for tech judges;

3. When presenting your case, please clearly state out your contentions so I can properly flow the debate. It is sometimes easy miss your contention if it is not clearly stated;

4. My decision will ultimately be decided by weight the impacts, magnitude, and scope. As I am not a tech judge (yet), I will be looking for valid warrants (please do not go too far down the warrant rabbit hole) and will do my best to follow link chains accordingly;

5. Please ensure that evidence is accurate and properly represented. Also, please make sure that your evidence is from reputable sources and not fabricated/from fabricated sources. I prefer truth over tech;

6. Any/all discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in an immediate disqualification. Please be respectful of everyone at all times;

7. I will do my best to explain my RFD at the end of each debate round (unless the tournament specifies otherwise). I understand that everyone wants to win, but since this is a competition between two teams; only one can win the round. Instead of taking it negatively, please try to learn from the experience and leverage any/all feedback. My feedback may not help with tech decisions, but the feedback could be useful with other lay judges; and

8. Have fun, make new friends/friendly rivals, build relationships, and cherish all of your experiences.

As Albert Einstein said, "The only source of knowledge is experience."

e-Mail for cases/evidence: davcho64@hotmail.com

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I have experience in PF debate of all levels (as a debater myself) so feel free to speak at a speed that is faster than what you would normally do for parent judges. Slight caveat, while I do flow this isn’t an excuse to speak so fast you need to take 5 quick breaths in 25 seconds nor is it an excuse to believe that I will flow your arguments for you. I understand the need to collapse arguments and evidence but if you do, at least make reference to that the fact you stated that evidence (either in Summary or Final Focus). Overall, I value strong Rebuttals and 2nd Cross Fires more than anything else. 9/10 debates I judge are won or lost between the Rebuttal and the Summary. Usually I weigh on clashing impacts that still remain at the end of the debate.

I'm currently the Riparian Program Manager for an accredited land trust and environmental non-profit, Clearwater Conservancy. I previously worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a regulatory biologist and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered Species Biologist. I'm also a Certified Ophthalmic Technician and worked alongside an ophthalmologist for several years. This is my fourth year judging public forum. I appreciate factual evidence and well supported arguments that logically back up your impact statement. Please remain respectful while debating, and speak clearly. Email for evidence sharing: jkdombroskie@gmail.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

3L at NYU Law. Competed in PF all throughout high school and have worked in tournament administration + occasional VPF judging since then.

A few ground rules:

• This is a safe space -- I absolutely will NOT tolerate any disrespect towards me, your opponents, or anyone else. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, sexism, homophobia, other discrimination, general bullying and/or rudeness, and so on. Be nice and be a decent person. It is disappointing that this actually has to be said.
• I will not intervene in the round unless specifically asked to (or there is something I need to address re: above rule, evidence, etc).
• HAVE FUN!! or at least do your best? Make this fun for YOU and ME. This isn't supposed to be a chore; passion, humor, and general enjoyment will be appreciated and will reflect in your speaks.

Your arguments:

• I look for you to honor the purpose of the event -- your arguments should be clear, organized, and understandable by "laypeople." Treat me as if I am a generally informed citizen in a "public forum" and you are trying to persuade me as such.
• Corollary to the above: I dislike theory and meta-debate. I REALLY dislike spreading. I feel that these take away from the spirit of the event.This means: I will NOT consider Ks.
• SIGNPOST: this is VERY important for me. If I can't tell which responses go to which points, you will not be happy. I need an organized flow to adequately judge the round.
• COMMON SENSE: Your impacts, and your arguments in general, also need to have common sense, and I will not consider your argument or your impact if it is ridiculous (e.g. some impacts that I found to be ridiculous: student loan forgiveness will cause "80 million people to die imminently" or will lead "North Korea and Russia to invade the US")
• LOGIC AND WARRANTS: a critical piece of this exercise is the art of logic and argumentation. Mere existence of a card isn't enough. This means: 1) don't just read me 30 cards -- add on some logic and a decent explanation of how the card fits in with your argument, 2) tell me why things happen, not just that they do.
• WEIGHING: You NEED to weigh, tell me what's important and what I should be focusing on in the round.

More specific preferences:

• SUMMARY + FINAL FOCUS: PLEASE give me voters. Make this easy for me.
• EVIDENCE: do not make up, misrepresent, or mess around at all with this. The sanctity of evidence is important, and this is non-negotiable for me. This means you need to have CONTEXT and the FULL SOURCE available. I reserve the right to ask to see a card. If I see a card that does not actually say what you say it does, I'm crossing out that card -- if your argument is resting on that, *shrug* too bad
• CONSISTENCY: extend your arguments through ALL speeches (not necessary in rebuttal) if you want me to consider them.
• CX: I won't flow cross. Make sure to bring up something that was said in a speech if you want me to consider it.

Hi Debater,

I am looking forward to judging. I am a new judge for PF and would appreciate if the presentation is clear to assist me in doing the judging.

Appreciate the help.

Thanks

Nehal

I'm a flay parent judge. This is my second year judging PF. In high school I did speech and went to nationals in extemp. But I did not do debate. Expect me to vote on the flow. Make sure your warranting is clear. Because public forum debate is meant to be substantive and understandable to laypeople, I do not look favorably on progressive arguments or debate jargon.

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

I prioritize the clarity and structure of the case. Be clear when defining terms that will be the basis for values, criteria and considerations. Particularly if using jargon, but even when using “lay terms”, if there is any ambiguity in how the term could be interpreted, be clear about the definition you will use. If you choose to use spreading, be aware that the speed of speech might make it more challenging for me to identify the key components of your case.

For LD and Congress, prioritize the Considerations that best support the connection from your Criterion to your Value - the quality of your case is not primarily based on its density or overly complex flow.

For Big Questions, arguments that create a coherent perspective grounded in one or two philosophies, theoretical frameworks, etc. are seen as stronger than a series of clear, but disconnected claims with evidence. Making the more “complex” argument clearly is a challenge, but creates synergy among the pieces for a “greater whole than the sum of the parts.”

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

Varsity PF (JV/Novice/Middle School is Below):

TL;DR: Standard flow judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- LOCAL CIRCUIT: Disclo and parahrasing theory are not norms, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since local circuits tend to have much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. It is much easier to make rule changes in the local circuit. Thus, I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). I don't think second case ever needs to interact with first case, even in progressive debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. That said, prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

- Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Weighing should be done early. Don't wait until final focus. Metaweigh, too.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No sticky defense.

- I don't flow author names.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- If I have no offense on the flow, I default to the team that would win if I were a lay judge.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..." or "Douthat says..."

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

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

I judge based on the quality of arguments that you advance on behalf of the resolution. That means you clearly state your claims, provide reputable evidence in support of those claims, and drive home the implications of your claims. Your arguments should be well-developed and category-relevant. Rarely do I find Kritiks persuasive.

Keep in mind that in public forum, the goal is for you to make arguments that are persuasive to a “citizen judge” or lay person. Thus, you should speak deliberately (at a reasonable pace) and clearly, avoid jargon, and demonstrate the logical connections between your evidence and claims, and the resolution. Style/delivery are important considerations but I am most interested in and persuaded by the quality of your arguments and evidence.

Please engage one another respectfully and respond directly to your opponents’ claims and evidence. Ad hominem attacks, grandstanding, and condescending remarks are not appropriate. Good debates, grounded in classical rhetoric, explore relevant claims and evidence, and empower the audience to make an informed decision.

My Background: More than 25 years of teaching argumentation, persuasion, and public speaking at the undergraduate level, a Ph.D. in communication and rhetoric, and a research focus on the implications of argumentation on public policy. I have been actively judging on local and national circuits since 2021.

I am a lay judge. I am a volunteer parent of a high schooler and this is my first year judging - I've done a few tournaments.

I will evaluate on general cohesion of arguments, clarity, and engaging /respectful demeanor. Please keep your own time and signal to me when your opponent goes over on time. I don’t like when speakers go over.

No need to email me evidence. I may call for it.

I can handle a bit of speed but only if you give excellent framing and clear organization of arguments and keep things going in order. If you are going fast and you hop around, you will likely lose me.

Please make it super clear when any contentions are dropped by you and/or your opponent.

I appreciate a clear explanation of why you should win in the final focus. And while I’m not a tech judge I like hearing the most singular reason why you should win on a pure tech basis. Ultimately I’m a lay judge and will do my best to judge objectively without regard for my personal views on any arguments.

I also really appreciate if the team speaking first sits to my left. It just helps me in how I take notes in my spreadsheet. Thank you!

Please speak loudly so that every one in the room can hear clearly.

Please speak with normal conversational speed. If you speak too fast, I won't be able to have good notes for my ballot.

Please try to maintain good eye contact, but not read off from your screens. Debate is a human interaction.

Please be very structured and organized with your contentions.

Enjoy, improve, and have fun!

Hi! My name is Ashok Kasarla (he/him) and I am the parent of a freshman and junior at Ridge High School . I judge both LD and PF.

General Notes:

• Treat me as your average lay judge. I am well versed on current events, but I probably don’t know the details of the current debate topic, so assume I don’t know anything about the topic.

• I cannot handle speed. Do not speak fast, rather, always speak at a conversational speed. The faster you are, the more likely I am to miss an argument/point/piece of evidence.

• I will take notes during the round, but given that I don’t do debate, I won’t be that detailed on the flow, so please tell me which argument you are on, and just be clear in general.

• I pay attention to presentation, delivery, how you interact with your arguments and your opponent’s arguments, and how you build the narrative of your case.

• Always be polite to your opponents during the round. I will dock speaks/drop you if you are rude or discriminatory towards your opponents.

• Please keep your own time and keep track of your opponent’s time.

• I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.

How I evaluate the round:

• I will vote for the team I believe has persuaded me the most.

• It is extremely important you explain your argument clearly, and why your argument is the most important in the round.

• Debate jargon means nothing to me!

I am a parent judge who competed quite a bit in speech and debate. I am also a trained trial lawyer. I appreciate clear arguments with delivery that shows me that you're actually trying to persuade.

I want to know that you understand your argument and your opponent's, and I value clarity of thought over a battle of the cards. I will weigh experts as needed, though, so give me a reason why your expert is better than theirs. Weigh the arguments, and be explicit. I do prioritize arguments: if you win the central argument, you will almost certainly win the round. Make sure you know what the central argument is.

I love a clever turn. It's one of my favorite things.

I can handle speed but ask you to keep it clear. I am also slightly hard of hearing and ask you to keep your voice up. I will tell you if I can't hear you.

Be civil, even during CX. I won't give the round to an underdog, but it will hurt your speaker points if you're rude to one.

I will absolutely never tolerate racist, homophobic, classist, misogynistic, or other arguments based in hate and ignorance rather than logic and compassion.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution/topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. As for speed, can flow very well, however, if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, or whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, or five colleges at once, no, no you do not do that, you pick the one of the highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds.

Please respect each other and have a great debate.

I have been a coach for about 12 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. This is especially important in this virtual world, when certain computer microphones struggle to keep up with you. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

I'm a lay judge.

I judge based on the logic of the arguments, evidence and the impact - and how effectively you are able to rebutt/defend contentions.

I'm NOT up on all the tech, so trying to sell me on the tech reasons why I should vote one way or the other may not be of much use.

If you are going to talk fast, you may want to send the doc ahead of time to me email ganesh.letchumanan@gmail.com. Otherwise, you risk me missing large parts of your case (see line 1 of my paradigm). Spreading is likely not going to help you.

Dont tell me you won. Tell me how,

Hello! I am an English teacher at The Bronx High School of Science. I have been a high school teacher for 11+ years, and I was a college argumentative writing instructor for 17 years.

I was not a debater myself in high school or college and I have not had extensive experience as a debate judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. Clarity > Speed

I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents.

I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be stronger than the arguments made by their opponents.

Please do not spread and run only topical arguments.

Please remember: I will not be able to track your argument carefully if you speak more quickly than at a conversational pace.

I look forward to hearing you debate, and I wish you all a wonderful debate tournament!

My name is Elena. I did one and a half years of policy in college. email: eli917195@gmail.com

Please be respectful to your opponents.

I value clarity over speed. If you spread really fast without signposts, I can't guarantee you that I will flow everything you say. I also prefer that you send me your speech docs in case I need to check anything.

I value framing. You need to tell me how to view the round, what I should prioritize, and why, and I will do so accordingly.

I will vote on "impact outweighs" most of the time if you frame it well and provide warrants.

I coach PF at Phillipsburg High School and am a pretty standard PF judge. I make my decisions based on weighing, rhetoric, topical arguments and argumentative structure.

PF Paradigm:

Email Chains: Do not include me on any email/evidence chains, I trust and expect you to present any evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of argument on a specific piece of evidence (or more) I will ask for that card and evaluate it .

Progressive Debate: I’ll never drop anyone based solely on their case (unless it is offensive or otherwise egregious) but I will say that running theory or a K won’t get you very far with me. I’m open to the idea of a good faith interrogation of the logic of a particular resolution but just I would say don’t do it unless you have something really good.

Weighing: To me, comparative weighing and clear impacts are the bread and butter of debate. Impacts should be explicit and clearly backed up. I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, I care very heavily about impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Other Notes:

• Frontlining in the second rebuttal is crucial.

• Spell out any links, turns and extensions clearly. I don't just want to hear the cards, I need to know what piece of evidence you are using. So don't say "Extend the Johnson card," Say "Extend the Johnson card which says a increase in..."

• Be sure to Signpost. A messy debate makes for a worse decision, so for everyone's sake it's good to know where we are on the flow

• Keep it civil during crossfire and grand crossfire

• I am usually good with speed but if you start spreading, I will stop writing. If you are going too fast i will motion to you to slow down

• I will almost certainly not buy your nuclear war impact unless it is directly related to the resolution

• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you

I am a Flay Judge who has been judging public forum debates. I am an engineer and have been working in this capacity for over 25 years. Participants should produce evidence and data to backup arguments.

It would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to listen to each other and respond to the arguments you are hearing. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful while still showing their arguments to be superior. It is important to me that you explain logically why your impact will happen. It is important to me that you understand the topic and that you try to persuade me that you believe in your argument.

You are in a public forum debate and as a parent and a working professional, I am your public. Even if you have the best collection of data, how you connect with public is vital. Body language, eye contact or connecting with real life examples can sometimes tip the vote in your favor

If both teams are great and as a judge I have a tough decision, one of the deciding factors has been the quality of rebuttal questions. Some of these questions can put the other team on the edge which can work to your advantage. So take good notes, look for those pointers from your opponent and strive for winning that round.

Thank you and good luck!

I'm a parent volunteer judge. I did parliamentary debate in Ireland in the late 1980s — in other words, I know little about contemporary American PF jargon. I've been listening, and I've read the paradigms of fellow judges who have deep and recent PF experience and I'm slowly learning from them! Learning on the job, from judging, from talking to coaches and from talking to my daughter who debates.

So what do I understand? I want to understand you! Speak slowly, I want to follow your argument, and I want to feel like you're having a powerfully felt conversation with your opponents and with me. Don't talk at me, talk with me. Use tone intentionally. I'm your kind but slightly cranky uncle at the Thanksgiving table, you want to persuade me. You can use warmth and humor, as well as clarity and ruthlessness. Give me facts, but give me a point of view.

Lastly, and above all. Listen to your opponent. Really truly listen to them. Don’t talk over each other, but also don’t take a minute to ask your “question”—“don’t take up cross.” Try to understand the very heart of their argument. If you "block" the heart of their argument, you are more likely to win than five little nitpicks. (Yes, I'm learning, I know what "block" means, and heart of the argument is another way, perhaps, of "weighing"—the heart weighs more than five nitpicks..)

One last thing—my day job is as an executive and leadership coach. In that capacity I work a lot with leaders of large organizations, often helping with public speaking and executive presence. Show leadership, gravitas, charisma and presence out there!

Truly the last thing: a debater told me I should say, Truth over tech. Though her coach pointed out that’d be pretty obvious from the above.

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

As a traditional judge, I like to see a round that follows the actual topic / resolution. Arguments that are too progressive undermine why we are even here debating. Please be courteous, respect the time allotted, and road map as you go. I find it better to have quality vs quantity - so watch the speed in which you spread. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate

17+ years as competitor and coach in Texas and New Jersey

Spreading - I am fine with spreading as long as you can be understood. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it's to deliver as much material as possible within the time limit. Articulation and enunciation are key. If you aren't doing vocal warm-ups before the round, you probably aren't ready to spread.

Case sharing - I do not give my email for case sharing. Unless there is something specifically mentioned in the debate that I need to read, my job is not to read your case to understand it. You should deliver your case in a manner that is comprehensible without having to be read. That is the art of debate; this isn't just about reading, it's about presentation.

Sportsmanship - Part of being a good debater includes the time when you are not speaking. Be aware the round starts the minute you enter the room. Carry yourself with professionalism and respect.

Iam a parent judge. It is important you go slowly and explain your arguments clearly.

make sure you argue on points and make it objective, show me the impacts

calm composure, don’t be over aggressive

Preferably no spreading, keep it simple

Parent judge. Please speak clearly. Don't spread.

Prefer well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning, crossfire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Truth>Tech

Arguments need to be extended effectively. Prioritize, and weigh.

Clarity, Evidence, and Courtesy go a long way.

Good luck!

Hello all! I'm Shyla Sarkar and am currently a first year at Northeastern University. I've done PF for a little over five years--

• My primary ground for judging is based on impacts, please weigh
• I also place importance on rebuttal and summary speeches
• Speak clearly and articulate your sentences, be respectful
• I will time, but please keep track as well

Good luck!

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

Jessie Tai (she/her)

Hi everyone! My name is Jessie, and I compete in policy debate at NYU.

For policy and PF, I value both thorough answers and persuasion. You should be explaining to me how your warrants engage with/are better than those of your opponents, then contextualizing the line by line into the broader story of the debate. Your articulation of arguments and framing of how I should evaluate them will make or break the round.

I have no problem with spreading if you are signposting and speaking clearly. Add me to speech doc: jessica.tai@nyu.edu

Please be respectful and mindful of your language!!!

Hello everyone! I am Samaya Talluru (she/her) and currently am a first year student at the University of Maryland. I am a Business major and have done PF for four years. I was captain of my PF team for 2 years.

What I would like to see in you round:

• Strong impact weighing
• Be articulate and project (sounding confident really helps)
• Keep time yourself
• Be professional and kind
• I also rely my decision mainly on the points stated in constructive and the rebuttal. I will also determine my decision on the flow of the grand cross.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Have fun!!!

Parent judge for Germantown Friends School with two years of experience

Speak confidently and clearly. We ought to all be grateful for having the opportunity to participate in debate. As long as everyone is comfortable, enthusiasm is acceptable. Consider yourself a future leader who is interested in every subject being discussed and argued here. These choices may have the biggest effects on society. It's the reason we're here.

Whether you win or lose doesn't really matter. We can see the world from both sides because of the debate.

My name is RJ Tischler, and I've been volunteering as a judge for speech & debate since 2016. Consider me a lay judge with a lot of experience — I’ve heard that the term “fl-ay” matches my judging style.

For debate:

Clarity is key.

Don't speak too fast (aka, no spreading. Aim for ~200 WPM or fewer).

Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me.

Explicitly state what your voters are.

Not very familiar with kritiks/theory, but willing to hear them.

If you'd like, feel free to send me your case to read along: email rtischler@phillyasap.org

(JV/Novice debate)
Prioritize clash. That is the purpose of a debate. I am not inclined to buy arguments that "the opponents didn't respond" to contentions that you neglected to revisit & therefore didn't result in clash. If your opponent truly doesn't respond to an important contention, be sure to point that out in rebuttal or crossfire. Don't wait until summary (in PF).

TLDR:

email for chains or whatever you may need: etrinh1@swarthmore.edu

-- I will drop you if I think you're being seriously inequitable with malicious intentions.

-- Default to speaker position/team if you don't know your opponent's pronouns (ie, the first neg speaker told us this, aff tries to tell you that, etc).

-- cards with warrants > warrants > cards without warrants (I like logic. Give me the logic and reasoning of your arguments and cards).

-- If you want me to actually evaluate the warranting of a card, then I need you to actually physically say the warranting of the card. I won't accept someone just citing a card and explaining the impacts of the card but not explaining the why or the how.

-- please weigh <3 i start most of my ballots w/ the weighed stuff

-- College debater with no HS debate experience

-- Tabula rasa (I won't fill in warranting, impacting, and weighing for you)

-- Don't communicate with your partner while they're speaking. Whispering/giving notes is fine.

-- Okay with speed, not spreading.

-- Tech over truth 95%-99% of the time.

-- Time yourselves.

-- I only evaluate the flow. I don't care about presentation.

-- cross is goofy. I half-flow cross, cross is generally binding but if you say something in cross you need to say it in a speech for me to credit it.

-- I kind of know how theory and K's work, but not the norms. Education > Fairness, and tell me the violation and punishment pls <3

-- Have the round that you want to have. Do what you need to do to win.

Hi everyone! I'm Eric Trinh (he/him) and currently a fourth year APDA (American Parliamentary) debater for Swarthmore College. I also have some experience in BP (British Parliamentary). I have no experience in high school debate, but I have judged a lot in APDA and BP. I'm going to split this in a couple parts: First, my priors, and some normal paradigm stuff.

As a disclaimer, this paradigm is a vague sense of how I view debate. There may be times where I deviate from my paradigm. If I deviate from my paradigm and I realize I do, I'll make a note of it in my call.

Judge Priors:

1. I'm not used to cards or evidence. I will consider cards, but I will consider warranting and weighing a lot more. Card with a warrant > Warranting > Card without a warrant. If you want me to actually evaluate the warranting of a card, then I need you to actually physically say the warranting of the card. For example, if someone tells me in a speech "it's purple because of the purple properties, as Ross argues," then I will say there's no warranting, even if the team gives me the card. However, if someone tells me "It's purple because blue and red make blue, as Ross argues," then I will credit the argument more.
2. I'm bad at flowing spread. I'm okay with fast speakers, but I wouldn't recommend spreading in front of me.
3. I look at the flow for the most important weighed issue in the round, and I give the win to whoever is winning that issue. If that's a wash, I move on the next weighed issue. If there are no more weighed issues, then I look at unweighed issues based on implicit weighing first, and then just strength of argument. I will do my best to not fill in any warranting, weighing, or impacting for you. The better you weigh, the less I'll intervene.
4. Also, speaking of tabula rasa, if there's a point on the flow that's sitting there that's unwarranted or barely warranted and the other team doesn't push back on it at all, I normally don't throw it away and just say it's true for the round.

Debate Stuff:

Great, with that out of the way, let's get into some other stuff that I think also applies to this format:

Firstly, I am tech > truth (if a team says the sky is purple, and it's not properly contested, then the sky is purple for the round). I sometimes veer into truth, but I think it’s like maybe 5% of the time on really really really clear and obvious things. I mostly judge though accepting whatever you throw at me. I, however, am more than happy to throw away arguments that I deem to be inequitable.

I'm scared of cross, I still don't get how cross works, and I don't think I like cross. Regardless, cross is generally binding, but if you say something in cross, you're going to have to tell me in a speech for me to throw it on my flow. I flow cross a little.

Judge adaptation is important in debate, but also I think judges should do their best to adapt to the round that the debaters want to have. Do what you need to do to win in front of me; I'll live.

I'll probably be looking at my computer most of the time (unless I'm trying to read your lips/better hear you if you're speaking faster), so I likely won't see what you're doing. I don't care about style or presentation of your arguments (although obviously good organization is helpful for me; I won't directly deduct/raise speaks for organization). I only care about the logic and the strength of your arguments.

Please time yourselves, although I will also be timing you.

Please don't communicate with your partner while your partner is actively giving a speech. I don't care what you do while y'all aren't speaking as long as you're respectful to everyone (whispering/talking quietly/giving notes/google doc typing/whatever is okay, as long I can still hear the speaker and it isn't distracting to the speaker).

Please give me clear voters; don't make me have to do more work!

Default to speaker position/team if you don't know your opponent's pronouns (ie, the first speaker told us this, aff tries to tell you that, etc). I will drop you if I think you're being seriously inequitable with malicious intent.

I don't care about what you're wearing when you debate. Feel free to take off your tie or shoes or something if you're uncomfortable.

offtime roadmaps are fine, just be quick.

Theory (idk, feel free to scroll on if you're not expecting much theory):

I'm not a big theory debater. I do vaguely understand theory, but I don't understand K's as well as I understand general theory. Please handhold me through it, especially for K's -- Give me the standard, violation, punishment, reasons for punishment, and voters plus weighing. With that being said, I also definitely don't know the standard theory shells in PF, so you're going to have to handhold me.

My defaults: RVIs don't exist until you tell me it does. Fairness and education are voters, and education > fairness. I don't have a default punishment. If you don't tell me what I should do in order to punish a team, then I can't do anything with the theory (do I throw away an argument? Do I drop the team? Do I do some other strange punishment? Tell me!). Of course, all of these defaults can be argued away through a round, it’s just this is what happens if I don’t hear arguments.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me or ask me before the round begins. Happy debating!

I'm Sean, any pronouns. I've debated 1 year of JV CEDA Policy debate and I've done about 2.5 years of pf and half a year of Parli. I like to think I'm pretty experienced, I can handle whatever speaking speed, if you're going to go fast just send me a speech doc. My general judging philosophy is that debate is a game, there is no truth value when the round starts. Tell me whatever and I will probably flow it unless it's violent to someone in the debate space.

I love to be included in things, especially things like email chains! sw4641@nyu.edu

I've read/hit pretty much everything, I like Ks quite a bit, especially weirder ones, so run whatever your heart desires.

I like link level debates a lot, and I feel like I see them pretty rarely in pf. Actually interacting with the other team's arguments rather than talking about your own is probably going to be more productive to me and other judges.

When it comes to weighing, I need you to tell me why your impact is better than the other team's, not just why your impact is good. Comparative weighing makes my job as a judge easier. I'm hearing way too many buzzwords like scope and magnitude, let's just cut it with the terms and tell me straight why your impacts matter more than the other team's.

For pf:

Second summary is a little late to be bringing up new responses, I don't weigh these as heavily and I'm really generous for the first final focus frontlining. Other than that, evidence and new stuff in final focus kind of goes out the window for me.

I know y'all are probably not too used to it but please make an email chain and get your opponent and me on it. Evidence ethics are super sketchy in this event and I just do not want to deal with the 20 minutes wasted every round looking and reading for cards. Just send your speech docs, especially if they use evidence, and we'll all be happier.

I appreciate the delivery of the spoken word at a moderate speed. I request that you utilize consideration when engaging with teammates, opponents and judges. Please present your argument in a clear, concise and organized manner. I need you to connect your details to your argument.

I am unble to judge speed reading adequately, therefore more often than not you will lose my vote. Please utilize language to clarify your points and enable your speech to be easily followed.

It is helpful to utilize tag lines, signposts. Roadmaps off - time help to clarify the organization of your presentation for me.

Debates and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I will not be able to cast my vote for it. Debaters must tell me what is importand and why I should cast my vote for their position. Please be clear and concise about what I am considering and emphasize your key points. The impacts of your contentions must be realistic. Your arguments must be clear and plausible. Please present a clear anaylsis of why you should win in the final rebuttal round.

I evaluate your fluency of speech, rate, tone, use of transitions, as well as organization of details. Please view each session as an opportunity to learn and grow. I look forward to the opportunity to learn from you!!!

Lay, argue everything clearly. Respond to all contentions of opponents. Make everything seem simple rather than complex.

Be clear, keep speech pacing consistent and easily understandable. Absolutely no spreading. I will not understand you and cannot give good marks to arguments I do not understand.

Aim for professional, calm and authoritative demeanor. Avoid appearing emotional or angry. Demonstrate your command of the subject by your words rather than your volume or tone.

Be courteous, gracious and respectful to your opponents and all involved.

Please email all evidence during round so i can review the evidence while making my decision if necessary. I would prefer there not be delays at the end of round due to the tight schedules most tournaments have so i need the evidence to be sent throughout the round. email is gwilson6636@gmail.com