Hi everyone. My name is Jennifer Barber. My daughter has debated PF Varsity for four years. I was a Certified Financial Planner and have served on many board of directors. Data, facts and figures make sense and have been strategic in decision making for me in my professional and personal life. Speaking speed is not important to me, but clear explanations and numerical facts and data are helpful. Good luck.

This is my first year judging, so please make your points in an organized, easy to follow way. The quality of your thinking and clarity of your communication will impress me. Being disrespectful toward your opponent will not. I am open-minded as long as you support your contentions.

I've been the Speech & Debate Coach at Starr's Mill H.S since 2018. My team only competes in Public Forum and Speech events, so that is where I have the most experience coaching and subsequently judging.

PF:

1. Make good, consistent arguments with clearly stated and explained evidence and you won't have a problem winning the round.
2. For high speaker points, I look for good sportsmanship, confidence, politeness, clear rhetoric, consistent signposting, and timeliness.
3. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
4. Signpost as much as possible (i.e. please reference the argument you are responding to as you go down the flow).
5. I am not a judge for off-the-wall stuff (topicality, kritiks, etc.).
6. Actually summarize in your summaries! No new arguments in final focus. Create the narrative and convince me to vote for you.
7. I do not flow cross, but I have decided rounds on crucial admissions and will take notes "on the side" as need be.

LD:

1. I am a lay judge. I only judge PF or Speech so if I get placed in a LD round, it's usually a one-off.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. I'm not receptive to most counterplans and prefer standard LD cases.
4. Value/Value Criterion will absolutely weigh in my decision.

Please avoid spreading

A clear concise well presented argument is preferred over rapid speech

Hi!

In your debate, please keep in mind the handy acronym IMNFSTEPWR.

If you spread, please send a speech doc.

Make sure everything is warranted. I won't evaluate stuff if you just tell me to extend it.

No completely new arguments in summary or final focus. I won't evaluate them.

Frontline in 2nd response.

Signpost! Make sure I know where you are during your speeches to keep my flow clean.

Try to avoid progressive args - I don't have much experience evaluating them. If you really want to run theory or K's, make sure they're reasonable and you give me a realistic way that it should affect my ballot.

Extend. I won't evaluate anything in final focus that isn't extended in summary.

Please keep your own time and keep me updated on prep.

Weighing should be comparative, don't just give me your numbers, give me theirs. Metaweigh and tell me why your weighing mechanisms should be preferred.

Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. will lose you the round.

When you read your first turn, if you do a spin jump and read "This is a massive 180!" I'll give you +0.5 speaker points.

Hi, my name is Abby Hyken and I’m a varsity debater for the Midtown HS debate team. I've competed in Public Forum for 4 years.

Preferences for PF:

• I like comparative weighing, so tell me what to vote off of. Put your impacts side by side and show me why yours are more significant.
• I can understand pretty fast speaking, but make sure you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I won't flow cross, so if something important comes up make sure to mention it in your next speech.
• Time yourself, but don’t abuse this. I will still be paying attention.
• Excessively calling for cards is one of the most obnoxious things that can happen in a debate round. Call for a card if you really want it, but don't use it as an excuse to steal prep time.
• If your opponents drop something, bring it up, but only if they truly dropped it. I don’t like when teams fib about dropping arguments.
• I don’t really like or understand theory, but I still consider myself a tech>truth judge when it comes to traditional PF tech.

All other events:

• Never judged any other event before, so treat me as you would a lay judge.
• That being said, I obviously understand argumentation more than a parent judge, but I most likely won't be very familiar with your topic.

I am a debate team coach. Please keep your own time. You may speak at whatever speed you are comfortable with but keep in mind that if you speak too quickly your points may be missed. I will be looking at which team was best able to promote their position while negating the opposing position.

I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

Hello! My name is Eden (he/him), and I am a former PF debater from Carrollton High School and a current first year student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!). I debated 3 years on the Georgia and national circuit. I won several GA tournaments and broke at quite a few national tournaments so I'm familiar with lingo and norms.

Add me to email chain: edenlong42@gmail.com

Summary: Tech>Truth. Arguments need to be extended through every speech and evidence must be used to support your speeches. I will always vote off the flow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighing: Please weigh your impacts. If you don't give me a framework I default to util. I'll vote on any framework as long as you win it on the flow. If the link chain is strong and you defend it well I'll vote for your impact.

Theory: I'm willing to vote for theory arguments just make sure you actually win the warranting. I'm not going to vote for you the second you start reading theory just because your opponent doesn't format the argument the way you think they should. Whoever warrants the best gets my vote. RVI's and IVI's are fine.

Disclosure: I'll vote on disclosure at TOC bid tournaments only. I ran it a few times and know how it works. Same theory stuff applies though about warranting. I won't vote on jargon alone. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit. This is not the norm and extremely abusive. The Georgia circuit should be a space for anyone to feel welcome and disclosure only rewards teams who have the resources to run it.

K's:I have less experience with K's than I do with theory so keep that in mind but I am willing to vote on it if you warrant it. I don't have an issue taking debates outside of the topic as long as you prove to me why we should. I enjoy when debaters read K's they truly care about and I think it brings important discussions into our event.

Tricks:I really, really don't like tricks. I think the only time we should take things out of the topic is when we really need to. I hate when debaters want to be lazy and read out tricks to confuse their opponents. If you decide to run friv theory just be prepared for my rfd.

Structure:I think rebuttals need to respond to everything in constructive. I don't want to hear a new response to case in summary and I probably won't flow it. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No new evidence in 2nd summary and final should only extend what's in summary. Don't be abusive in 2nd final.

Evidence: I'll only look at evidence in the chain if you ask me to. Don't be hesitant to call for cards in the round. I don't get judges who are annoyed by this. Please have evidence ready to be sent, I love evidence sharing but I hate ending a round 30 minutes late.

Timing:Don't really care if you go over a little bit just don't be hypocritical. I've gone against way too many teams who go 20 seconds over then start complaining the instant their opponent goes one second over. Don't be that team.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to help you get better so please feel free to ask me any questions about debate or the topic after the round. I'll probably be flowing on computer and I'd be more than willing to send you my flow after the round. Good Luck!

I look for a team that has speakers that are quick to think on their feet, and they have great communication. I want to see confident speakers that are able to create thoroughly constructed responses to there opponent.

I am currently the Vice President of Walton's Speech and Debate team.

Ellie Soh (she/her/hers)

4 years debate (PF), studied Econ and English at Columbia

I enjoy debates that are structured, well-reasoned, and intelligible. Provide clear signposts to make flowing easier for everyone, but I do not want off-time roadmaps. Speed reading will not impress me, and I value clarity over quantity. I also tend to value substance over theory in PF.

I highly appreciate astute questions and responses during the crossfire, but please refrain from long preambles or non-questions. Don't spread in the final focus and tell me what you'd like me to vote on.

Most importantly, we're all here to have a good time so let's practice common courtesy.