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.

Strath Haven '23

4 years PF

Email chain: justinbi2004@gmail.com

Standard flow judge

I'd advise against spreading. I flow on paper and don't want to flow off docs

Overexplain things in back half even if they're obvious to you

Real extensions pls

Preflow before round

Limited familiarity with prog

Don't steal prep

Happy to elaborate on anything before round, have fun!

I’m a parent judge since 2020, with no debating experience of my own. I'm looking forward to seeing you debate.

The clarity of your arguments will be the most important thing. Make sure that I can understand the structure you're following. The terms of art that you use in discussing debate among yourselves are probably less familiar to me, so plain language at a reasonable speed is best. I’m not likely to vote on something that doesn’t make any sense to me.

Impacts are what matter, and not the amount of arguments. Make sure everything you want me to vote for is extended, and important moments in crossfire are explained in speeches.

I will try to keep track of time including prep, but please make sure to do so as well.

Please keep in mind that in a virtual debate, true crosstalk in a crossfire usually means that I can't hear either speaker, so do your best to allow your opponent to finish before responding.

Have fun, try to come out of the round smiling.

Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '25 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

VARSITY PF:

TL;DR: I was a circuit debater in high school, but I haven't debated for 3 years. I know how to flow rounds, but I find that teams have the most success with me when they debate flay. 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.

- 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 reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory.

- Weighing should be done early.

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

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

- I'm a pretty liberal guy but I'm not a big fan of teams who run random leftist academic theory for a ballot.

---

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.

---

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

---

BQ:

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

I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.

I've judged policy since the 1980s, LD and PF since around 2009.

In PF: I don't even like paradigms because I think your job should be to present a case that would work before an ordinary lay audience. If you want paradigms and jargon and spreads and goofy stylized arguments, you can do policy. Anyway, I want to be convinced about the overall merits of the resolution, and I want you talk like you are a regular person speaking to a regular audience. I can and do flow, but I don't want you to go so fast that I can't follow you (you bear the risk). I will look at the big picture, not technicalities, in deciding who wins.

Certified PA Social Studies teacher for 10 years now. 5 of which I have taught Government and Economics. 2020 is my first year participating in Speech and Debate and I'm eager to continue to learn more. I do prefer a moderate pace when speaking rather than a speedy rate since I would rather hear your argument than judge based on how many words you can get in within the timeframe. Follow the guides below for a sense of what I look for!

1. Be consistent in your debate. Beginning, End, and throughout your counters/rebuttals. Build your story/argument and do not deviate, Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through extending both warrants and impacts.

2. Be respectful: Exercise good judgment. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unkind, offensive or rude (eye rolling or voice tone) I will not give you high speaker points

3. PF specifically: I enjoy politics and can follow the argument pretty well however I am not passionate about "technical debates, and I'm really not into theory. Public forum is meant to engage with the common person. This is not an event that should turn into policy debate.... Recapping the argument, clarifying definitions and words, and ultimately, please have a conversational tone while you convince me that you should win the round.

4. This will never determine a debate alone, however, I always love when I see students not use a computer. I understand the necessity at times, but in our current AI world, I'm really not interested in hearing chat GPT being recited. You are the debater not the AI bot. Seeing students with paper and pen always proves its their own construction and work, not the digital brain on your computer screen..

Speaker Point Scale (stolen from Deven Cooper but edited for me)

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent. This means expert explanation of arguments

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent. Explanation of arguments are of great quality.

28.4 - 28.9: Solid speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal. acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality.

28 - 28.3: good speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are mid!

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal. acronym. Not that good of explanation of arguments.

< 27: Really should practice and work to prepare better for the future. on all the above weights.

A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.

Debate is about how you present your research and analysis work. It is about the quality of you work, not the quantity, nor how fast you can speak. If you try to jam 10 arguments with 20 sources within 4 minutes of time, I probably will not be able to follow your thought.

So

1. State your point clearly
2. Give data/source directly support your point
3. Provide a clear link between your source and point
4. Finish with a firm conclusion

EXPERIENCE:

I am currently a civil rights trial attorney practicing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Federal Courts. Throughout my career, I have sat as an arbitrator in hundreds of cases.

I am a traditional speech and debate judge.

GENERAL PREFERENCES:

-Quality is more important than quantity.

-Substance over style.

-Be organized—provide road maps.

-I prefer clear, eloquent presentations of the issues in a round.

-Speed is acceptable, but only if clear and concise.

-Direct simple language instead of jargon.

FOR DI/HI:

I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world you are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as necessary to effectively tell the story.

I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal.

I like blocking and movement that is used to enhance the story.

I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other.

For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece if it is within the rules.

I don't have any issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

FOR LD/PF/PolicyD/ParliD:

Theory has its place in the right argument, but I prefer you go for substance over theory.

I would rather hear a few cogent arguments, than many quick snippets.

I am fine with speed. I am not fine with spreading by reading paragraph after paragraph at a top speed with zero regard for clarity. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate.

I love cross-examination. I pay special attention to it and think it is strategically valuable.

Make sure to clash with your adversary's arguments and point out dropped arguments. Be specific with your extensions, and remind me why I should care.

Sum up with voting issues, persuasion at the end can secure a win.

FOR CONGRESS:

I look for a healthy combination of entertaining and professional.

Entertaining can look like a lot of different things- from good humor to presenting statistics in a way that keeps me engaged. I really like it when a speech is well organized and gives proper time to each point that is being made. I value clash a lot in congress because that is what makes it interesting past the third speech on a topic. It is very impressive to me if you can prove that you have been paying attention the whole round and have done the research to prove others wrong. Please make sure your clash is professional and doesn't seem aggressive or turn it into a personal attack.

Good luck and have fun!

This is my third year of judging. I prefer to keep rounds traditional (paper flow, no spreading, etc). I am looking for clear and concise arguments for debate. I appreciate when you keep your arguments logical and well-framed. Aim for clarity, not speed.

As for speech, I am looking for an engaging delivery and an organized, compelling selection of piece and topic.

I’m a parent judge for Dallastown.
I don’t have a sitting/standing preference, you can self-time, and I’m good with off-time road maps.
Evidence is always a good thing. Make sure that you leave time for voting issues in your last speeches. I like to see comparative analysis.

I'm a parent judge, so please don't use too much debate-y jargon.

Arguments need to have a clear explanation, and if your explanations aren't logical you are likely going to lose. Public forum should be PUBLIC, so no spreading or super techy arguments please. No prog debate please.

Please focus on why you win your arguments before why your opponents lose theirs. Make it as easy for me to see why you should win the debate, not just why your opponent shouldn't.

If you're being extremely rude to me or your opponent I have no problem bringing speaker points to below 25. Being firm is fine- being openly racist, homophobic, sexist, or aggressive, etc is not. Questions are fine, but if you find yourself pointlessly arguing, you've already lost. Kindness is key, be nice to your opponents.

I do take notes but in general I vote based off clash, clarity of speech/arguments and who won from a logical perspectives.

Now that I'm over the scary stuff remember to have fun! As long as everyone is respectful we'll have a good time. Take some deep breaths and try your best :)

A little bit about me: I'm a vet with a master in pharmaceutical sciences from the University of Florida, and a master in laboratory animal medicine from Penn State as well as a doctorate in vet medicine from UPENN.

I expect competitors tobe clear and concise. Try not to use any debate jargon or highly sophisticated wording. Maintain a good pace and do not go too fast. Be polite to the opponents.

Jeremy Samek

I participated in policy debate for three years as a college student at Liberty University many years ago.

2023-24 is my first season as a high school speech and debate coach.

I am a debate parent.

I've been judging JV Public Forum for a year and am a lay judge. I deeply appreciate clarity of argument and for debaters to speak slowly enough that I can understand what is being said and follow the connections made.

I usually don't have a lot of topic knowledge. So, be sure to implicate everything, have a clear collapsing strategy, and really explain your points well.

Be sure to extend EVERY part of offense/defense you're going for in back half.

No prog, no spreading.

Crossfire plays a role in my decision.

Lastly, the debate space should be inclusive and fun. Be assertive, not aggressive, don't mock your opponents, etc.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

A final note on LD - Lincoln Douglas is styled on an election debate - you are trying to get elected, persuade the judge to vote for you - you are not trying to cram in as many words as you can in hopes that one of them might give you the win, if only you speak so fast your opponent can't physically flow your speech.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contention cards are dropped, slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.