Background:

Adlai E. Stevenson (IL) '23| Pronouns: he/him | Email:calamariye@gmail.com

Previously competed in PF for two years and LD for one with a little bit of experience in Congress. Currently a college student studying political science and economics.

Novice: Be nice and try your best, I'm ideally looking at how you frontline, extend, collapse, weigh, and crystallize ^-^. Have fun, no ad hominem attacks, be polite and don't stress/worry too much about speaking points, I generally give an average of a 28, round strategy + clarity + creativity will raise speaks.

Round Details:

Set up an email chain and send a card doc before each speech where you read new evidence. pdf/word good; Google docs okay.

I'm fine with decent speed, but if you're really unclear your speaks will probably tank. With that said, you must slow down if your opponents call "clear."

Yes, extend, but it's not a big deal to me. You don't need to extend card names. I just want to know what link(s) and impact(s) you're going for.

Judging Philosophy:

Ethics>Tech>Truth. Debate is a strategy game, but it should be fair. As a default, my ballot will come down to whichever team can show me the strongest link to the most important impact. You can read any argument in front of me with the caveat that poorly warranted arguments can get poorly warranted responses.

With that said, there are some things I'll always intervene against:

1. Bigotry - Saying anything overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. will be an automatic drop for obvious reasons.
2. Evidence Ethics- Distorting, fabricating, or clipping evidence is a drop. I don't actively monitor the doc and check every card, so it'll mainly be up to the debaters to point out any abuse.
3. Abusive Tactics - Includes but isn't limited to not slowing down after being told "clear," going egregiously overtime, reading new arguments in the back half, being unnecessarily rude to your opponents, etc. I won't drop you for something minor, but I'll definitely drop the arg or tank speaks.

(Borrowed from Michael Kirylau)

Speaks:

I don't agree with the philosophy of how speaks are generally graded. Personally, speaks will be determined by your strategy and signposting (as well as anything else mentioned here). locals avg = 28, nats avg = 28.5

Everything Else:

-- very little experience judging progressive debate (completely flay)

-- If no offense by final focus I will presume w coinflip or both teams can postround for 30 seconds (I'll ask you)

-- If you have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me

Hey! My name is Alex and I am a Varsity Debater. I have significant experience in PF, including being a quarterfinalist in the IHSA state tournament last spring.

Make it easy for me to flow and follow all of your arguments. Also, make sure to flow your ideas through all of your speeches. If your points get dropped, I may be unable to vote on it. I will choose a winner based on the voter's issues that are presented to me and how you can refute arguments while crystalizing your points.

Happy debating!

I’m a current senior in high school and have been debating PF all four years.

I prefer voters as it helps me establish the biggest points of clash, but at the end of the day do what’s most comfortable for you.

Weighing is so important when I’m making my decision as it gives me the cleanest place to vote. The more you tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponents’, the less thinking I have to put into my decision (write my ballot for me).

I don’t flow cross but I will listen in at times. If there are any important points made within that time, clarify them during the next speech so I can flow them through.

Keep things interesting ! I enjoy banter (respectfully)/interesting taglines. It helps energize the round and keeps things entertaining.

Speed’s not an issue unless it’s 1.) resulting in you stumbling often or 2.) obvious you’re speaking with intent to confuse your opponents. I’ll usually just stop flowing if I feel I can’t understand you.

I’ll always keep track of time for you, but make sure you are keeping count as well in case I screw up or for some reason forget to start my clock.

+.5 speakers if you can guess my favorite band

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

Hello! My name is Harris Dorgan. I'm judging for University High School, where I did PF debate for 4 years.

For my overall philosophy on debate, I tend to let teams debate how they are prepared to debate,so things such as your decision to frontline is up to you. Also, I judge on my flow, so flow your responses through rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Below, I have some points on other elements of debate.

Speed of delivery: As mentioned before, I did PF for 4 years so I can handle speed but I prefer clarity over quantity of arguments.

Format of summary speeches: I don't have any specific preferences other than that I like to see a clear structure. I don't necessarily care what that structure is, as long as I can see and understand the structure you choose.

Extension of arguments into later speeches: If a brand new argument is brought up in 2nd summary or later, I will not weigh it.

Argument vs style: I value argument and style equally.

Hi! I am Alison, and I am so excited to hear you all debate! I am a college student majoring in English Education. While this is my first time judging, and I am new to debate, I do have a strong understanding of argumentation. Again, looking forward to the rounds!

Public Forum

Name: Sarah Greenswag

School Affiliation: Libertyville High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

some tips for success in-round:

-assume i have no previous knowledge of topic, tabula rasa but please no bigoted arguments

- keep time

- comparative weighing: tell me why I should prefer your args over theirs. use weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, etc)

- rhetoric/truth can be impactful when used to strengthen existing cards and impacts, just make sure you thoroughly explain why it's substantial

- signposting: mention which contention or argument you're on when talking about it

- i don't flow cx but i will be listening: if you have a point, make sure you bring up in your next speech

- identify clash points and address them

- have links and impacts: explain how you get to your impacts, strength of link >>> big impacts, but if you have both go for it

Hello debaters! My name is Ms. Hafner, I am from Hinsdale Central, and I have two years of public forum debate experience.

My biggest request from all of you is that you speak clearly--for me, this entire activity is about communication. You have all worked so hard preparing your cases that I would hate to miss something.

In the summary and final focus speeches, I would prefer you to cover the most important points that I should be voting off of, no need to include every point mentioned throughout the round. Make it very clear to me which arguments I am casting my ballot for and what those impacts are.

Any argument you want weighed should be extended through both of the final speeches. I will not vote off an argument first introduced in grand cross or final focus.

I flow all speeches except cross fire. If you do make a good point in cross fire, be sure to emphasize it in later speeches.

I also believe that the presentation of the arguments are just as important as the arguments themselves. Having a convincing and compelling tone is in your best interest.

If you are speaking second, the second speaker must frontline (addressing the opponent's attacks on their case in rebuttal).

Be respectful of each other at all times, be organized, and have fun!

Hello! I am a Special Education Teacher and started judging for debate last year. As a judge, I prefer and value clarity in the round. Please do my work for me as much as you can; tell me what to vote on, why I should vote for you, and why you win. You have far more knowledge on your debate topics than we do, so please take time to clarify your arguments for your audience (your judges). Being too complicated or detailed only makes it more difficult to keep up and flow!

I flow through the cross and pay very close attention to it.

I want everyone to have fun and be respectful to each other during the round. I'll be engaged if you are!

Good Luck! :)

Hi I’m a senior at HF. I vote based off what’s on my flow and I don’t flow cross so if you want it on my flow please bring it up in speech. Be polite and respectful to your opponents at all times. When it comes to your speech delivery, I value clarity over speed. Make sure that you properly cite your evidence and statistics to keep the debate fair and honest. However, if you make a reference during your speeches to historical events, basic information, or economic theory, I will accept that as a form of "background knowledge" and a citation to a particular source is not necessarily required. I would highly encourage you all to make your responses easier to follow by signposting (AKA signaling which contention and subpoint you are responding to) and structuring your speeches, specifically your rebuttal, as a line-by-line refutation of the points made by your opponent. I would recommend that your summary speech consolidates the reasons why you won the round by grouping your points into voter issue(s), and that these voter issues are extended into the final focus. Make sure you present compelling impacts and use weighing mechanisms to explain how your impacts are more important than your opponents'.

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 6 years

General:

- keep speed within reason; if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll put my pen down and look at you until you slow down

- I judge off the flow, lay everything out for me, I won’t make any assumptions or connections for you

- arguments need to be extended throughout the round; if something gets dropped and doesn’t make it to the end of the round, I won’t vote based on it

- give me clear voting issues, I don’t care who won more arguments, tell me why the things you won mean that you should win the round, weigh clearly for me, tell me why I should care about the arguments you won, why do they matter

- I don’t flow cross; if something important comes out make sure you bring it up in a later speech so it ends up on my flow

- keep track of your own time and prep time, if you opponent is going way over, let me know

- treat me like I know absolutely nothing about the topic, I haven’t done any of the research you have

LD:

- I don’t care who wins framework, just make sure you weigh under whichever framework is agreed on

- I don’t like pointless framework debate, if your frameworks are compatible, like justice vs morality, just collapse and move on instead of wasting time arguing which is better

PF:

- If you’re speaking first, it doesn't make sense to go back and defend your case before you opponent’s rebuttal

- the round should funnel down; your constructive and rebuttal focus on the line by line, by the summary you should pick voting issues and address the line by line arguments that tie into them, in final focus I don’t want any line by line arguments, focus entirely on the voting issues for the round and weighing them

- no line by line in final focus, it’s too late for that

I’m a flow judge, but will not flow cross. I prefer your points to be made as clear as possible throughout the round; please clarify yourself whenever needed. Show respect to your opponents.

Excited to see you debate!

I am very heavy on framework and etiquette. During the round, debaters should be flowing, and cooperating with their partner. Cases and Rebuttals have to be factually correct, with little to no personal opinion. Decisions are based on framework and preparation.

I expect debaters to be respectful to each other. There should be no snarky comments, or disrespectful behavior towards their opponents or judge. This also includes being on phones unless it is a stop watch. Communication between partners when prep time is NOT taken is not allowed. Points will be deducted if the debaters do not follow courtesy norms, mainly standing/facing the judge when talking, ensuring that everyone is ready and letting the judge know when to start the timer. Going over time can deduct points depending on severity.

For speaking, do not yell, or speak at such a fast rate that you mush your words together. I understand you are trying to get enough information out, but I cannot understand the information if you are slurring your words. You should be confident and clear reading your case. As well as keeping your body motions calm and collected.

Overall, the round should be fun and a polite argument between each other!

Hey everyone! Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best!

1. Clarity over speed - economy of language that allows you to be concise while still making your points will go further in my book than reading something as fast as you can. However, if you’d like to use speed or need to do so, I will probably be able to follow just fine.

2. Logic and reasoning - from the very beginning with your case itself, you should be defining and defending the connections (with evidence) between affirming or negating the resolution and the argument you are making. If the links themselves are weak, it matters less to me how significant your impacts are (ie don't drone on about how detrimental (blank) is if you haven't established that your position leads to/worsens/mitigates/prevents that thing).

3. Two worlds analysis - I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

4. Engage with your opponents' arguments - Name the pieces you both agree on and use shared stances to then dig deeper on areas of clash, trying to persuade the judge why a similar argument works more in your favor than in your opponents. This should mean that the longer the round goes on, speeches feel more and more representative of engagement happening in the round (and less canned or pre-prepared).

5. Use CX strategically! It is of course important to ask for clarification when necessary, but I love to see a strategic set of questions that feels purposeful and can then be referenced later in the round.

6. Extensions - My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for. You do not need to extend evidence, just your claim and warrant. They can be paraphrased. You also cannot just extend some arbitrary number for your impact. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

7. Signposting and organization - I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

8. As in frisbee, the #1 rule of debate should be "spirit of the game" - be respectful of yourselves, each other, your judge, and have fun!

Student judge :)

Speaking-wise, I'm fine with flowing for faster speakers, but only speak quickly if you're confident in your pronounciation and articulation.

I'd like to see front lining in second rebuttal and first summary, and make sure to signpost when moving through different contentions or voting issues to make it easier for me to keep track of what you're attacking.

Weighing heavily affects which team I ultimately vote for. Make sure to use comparative weighing when using your weighing mechanisms and tell me why I should vote for your arguments over your opponent's!

I don't flow crossfire, so if you bring up an argument during cross, you have to reference it in a speech for me to flow it through.Make sure to be respectful and kind to your opponents, especially during cross. Being rude and interrupting your opponents will result in a deduction of speaker points.

Please keep track of your speech and prep time.

Good luck!

TLDR: flow judge, I want to judge a slow-ish round (~200 WPM or less), please collapse and weigh, I like unique arguments and impact turns :)

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

I prefer SpeechDrop over email chain for sharing docs.

Background

I'm a current student at the University of Illinois studying computer science and philosophy. I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). This is my second year judging PF (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style Preferences

I can judge speed assuming you send docs (marked!), but I don't want to unless you're exceptionally clear. I don't like super fast rounds because they encourage debaters to give blippy warrants and lazy weighing.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

For GBX '24: The tournament requires that we use the Tabroom doc share. DO NOT set up an email chain, follow tournament rules, please.

Also per the tournament invitation, "Each round’s decision time deadline is based on the Tabroom pairing start time. If the judge does not enter a decision in tabroom by the decision time, it is within the Tabroom’s power to flip a coin to determine the winner of that debate." DON'T BE LATE, the tournament does intend to enforce this.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years, coaching for LREI, typical flow judge.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- send cases and docs especially if >800 words/200wpm

-- have not judged speedy debate in a hot sec --- 250 wpm MAXIMUM, pref 200 wpm. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- dont roadmap, just tell me where ur starting

-- metaweigh!

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run anything progressive at ur own risk. i havent judged it much and what i have judged has (generally) been quite mid on the good end or very abusive on the bad end. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me how many offs before starting.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like this guy and this guy

Name: Jay Mehta

School Affiliation: Stevenson HS

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- Should be able to understand your argument; avoid mush mouth syndrome

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- Line by line

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please do so

Flowing/note-taking- Not during crossfire

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Equally

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, needs to be extended in both rebuttal and summary

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

I am a current varsity first speaker in public forum debate.

Some things that I like to see are clear speaking, good analysis, and clean voter issues. One thing that is very helpful is signposting. This is when you give me a clear explanation of where you are on the flow. Additionally, I love to see impact weighing (magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc. )Please do these things and it will make following the debate and my voting much easier. Additionally, tell me the clash points within the round and why you are winning! Show respect for your opponents for the round, you are all doing the same thing here, there isn't any reason to be disrespectful. I will take speaker points off for disrespect if it occurs. Other than that, just show me a good debate. Good luck!

speak clearly enough so everyone in the room can understand you. i'm fine with a little speed but still need to understand what you're saying.

pls pls pls signpost, if i don't know where you are on the flow, i'm simply gonna put my pen down bcs i can't flow if i don't know where i'm supposed to be.

also i don't flow cross, so if something important comes up bring it up in your speech !

weighing and voting issues are super important to me in a round. you need to be able to tell me exactly why i should be voting for you.

Senior at Stevenson with 6 years of debate under my belt from middle school to now (LD, Congress, PF, in that order).

Email for questions post-round and cards: alinaqian0@gmail.com

General:

· I flow on either paper or laptop and will give RFD if allowed by the tournament and all debaters are OK with it.

· Tech > truth (unless blatantly untrue).

· Be clear, speed OK. Average speaks are 28 and will change depending on round strategy / delivery.

Round strategy > Speaking abilities

· Please implicate and weigh — if you have extra time in rebuttal I’d like to see weighing too.

· Signpost before and during speeches, especially if you’re cross applying / overview

· I like clash!

· I listen to cross but won’t vote on it, if anything important happens please bring it up in a subsequent speech. Remember cross is sticky!

· Content warnings are cool! Treat your opponents with respect!

· Don’t bring up new evidence in second summary. I’m a stickler for this.

· Don’t say your opponents dropped something they didn’t. If this happens, I will know and will drop speaks.

Novice:

· I will keep track of prep time and speech time.

· Don’t spread.

· Defense isn’t sticky, be sure to extend your frontlines and case.

· Use all your prep time! It will only make your speech better!

· Have fun and take risks!

JV/V:

· Keep each other accountable with speech time.

· Collapse and keep extensions a reasonable amount of time. PLEASE DO NOT SAY “VOTER’S ISSUE”.

· Speed OK, but make sure you articulate.

· Link weighing and meta weighting is cool.

· Theory OK, Friv. theory is not. Kritiks OK

· No tricks.

Have fun!

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm am a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that my debate knowledge is still fresh in my head.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! Happy debating!

Hello debaters! My name is Mrs.Ruth, I am from Hinsdale Central, and I have two years of public forum debate experience. I am still very new at this.

My biggest request from you all is that you speak slowly and clearly. You guys have all prepared so much, I would hate to miss important points due to you speeding through them!

In the summary and final focus speeches, I would prefer you to cover the most important points that I should be voting off of; no need to include every point mentioned throughout the round. Make it very clear to me which arguments I am casting my ballot because of, and what those impacts are.

Any argument you want weighed should be extended through both of the final speeches. I will not vote off an argument first introduced in grand cross or final focus.

I flow all speeches except cross fire. If you do make a good point in cross fire, be sure to emphasize it in later speeches.

I also believe that the presentation of the arguments are just as important as the arguments themselves. Employing a compelling tone is in your best interest.

If you are speaking second, the second speaker must frontline (addressing the opponent’s attacks on their case in rebuttal).

With that being said, be respectful and have fun!

Lincoln-Douglas

Name: Lisa Savage

School Affiliation: Benet Academy

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? No

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: 1 year; 4 tournaments

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. No

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.): I prefer conversational because it makes it easier for me to follow along; that said, speed of delivery does not factor into my decision making.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Very important- I prefer the VC to be explicitly stated in the constructive speeches, and the criterion should be a guiding principle that the argument always comes back to and explains.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)- No, but I do prefer a road map to be offered before they begin. I then expect the road map to be followed.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision? Yes- I prefer debaters to explicitly state their voting issues. It shows me that the debaters are able to crystallize both their and their opponent’s argument.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches- Not overly critical; I am judging more based on their value, value criterion, contentions, refutations, and voter’s issues more so than their ability to extend.

Flowing/note-taking- I take notes on everything, including cross examination. That said, the cross examination itself doesn’t weigh heavily in my decision making- I use it more as a way to give feedback to the debaters.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument over style, but style still factors into my decision making. A crisp, clear, confident, and educated speaker makes a difference.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework? I suppose it depends, as sometimes debaters end up agreeing on their values.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? Very important. A debater can have great values, criterion, and contentions, but without the evidence, it’s all for naught, in my opinion.

Any other relevant information (optional)? None.

Hi! I’m so excited to hear you debate! I just have a couple things I wanted to make you aware of!

1. I’m a flow judge, so I would love it if you keep it easy to follow.
2. I will not be flowing cross, so if you want me to remember things from that, bring it up in later speeches.
3. Be kind!

Heyo! I'm Raghav, a Highschool Junior debater. Email me at rsharma2142@gmail.com with any questions.

Novice

Debate can be hard and nerve wracking, but I believe in y'all to do great! Even if you mess up, that's okay, everything is just an opportunity to learn. That being said, here's some things to keep in mind.

• Please speak clearly, I'm okay with you going a bit fast (generally around 225 words per minute is the max you should go) but still always make sure to enunciate and indicate important parts of your speech, speaking of which,
• Signpost! This means say what part of your speech you are on. For example, in a summary I'd say something like "now moving onto my opponents case." Also please signpost before all speeches after first rebuttal, this is called giving an off time roadmap. For example before a second rebuttal, "Judge first I will respond to my opponents claims about my case and then refute their case." This happens outside of your speech time and is there to make it easier for me, which you'd like it to be because then I'd be more likely to vote for you.
• Collapse. By the second half of the round, your speeches get a lot shorter, and you have to do many things at once, so its way too messy to try and hold onto all of your arguments. Pick your best argument from your case to push for in summary and final focus. When you do this it doesn't mean that you conceded your other arguments, just that this argument is the one you want me to focus on and vote on.
• Extend. In order to collapse, you have to extend the argument you're collapsing on in summary, which basically just means to quickly summarize it. If you don't extend in summary, then you have no more case for me to vote on.
• Frontline. After the first rebuttal against your case, make sure to respond to the refutations and explain why they are wrong. This should start in second rebuttal.
• Weigh. Arguably the most important part of round, weighing is when you compare your and your opponents impacts and explain why your impacts are more important than the other side. This could be through magnitude, timeframe, or a multitude of other methods.

On a more general note, I will be giving out speaker points based mostly on strategy and signposting rather than speaking ability, since speaks can often be very biased.

Finally, please be nice in round! Debate is scary and it's made so much worse if everyone is mean to each other. Acting actively exclusionary or bigoted will result in a loss and lowest speaker points. Directly lying about opponents speeches (like saying they conceded something when they didn't) will also lower speaks and I will not fall for it.

That's all the important stuff! If the next part has a lot of words you don't understand don't worry, you'll learn them in due time.

JV/V

• 225 wpm maximum, will say "Clear" if speaking too fast to understand
• Tech > truth
• Haven't ever judged or faced progressive debate so if you run a theory or K, make sure to explain well
• No friv theory or tricks
• Link, impact, and meta weigh
• Collapse, and no voters issues

• Defense is not sticky, extend it

I'm excited to judge y'all! Good luck and have fun!

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

Speaking tempo: Please speak slow enough to allow flow. If I put my pen down, it is because I have stopped my flow.

Public Forum:

Takema White

Rich Township High School

2 year judging PF/ 5 years judging LD

Speed of delivery - Clear delivery, speed is not important, Clear speech and steady pace.

Format of Summary Speeches - line by line

Extension of arguments into later speeches - Repeat the evidence in order to provide additional analysis

Flowing style of note-taking

Argument and style are valued equally.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Final focus

Junior at Libertyville, student judge. I go off flow but please no bigoted arguments. Feel free to ask questions before/after the round.

Please:
Keep time

Please give impacts, clash points, and weighing mechanisms.

Weigh impacts

Be respectful

Signpost/offtime roadmap

Explain how you get to your impacts(Link!)

If you can successfully run nuclear war as your impact i'll give you +2 speaker points.

Good luck :)

It has been over 30 years since I did LD debate. More importantly, my career has been professional advocacy in various contexts.

If a resolution should be affirmed or negated, an effective debater should be able to persuasively explain why to a jury, a legislative body, a board of directors, or to colleagues at a professional conference. If the way that you debate would seem out of place in those contexts, then you may not succeed with me as a judge. If your argument depends on someone being familiar with flows, spreading, dropping contentions, frameworks, cards, counterplans, voters or other weird jargon that is not used in normal or professional conversations, then you may not succeed with me as a judge. You can use those concepts but do so in a way that would make sense in a normal conversation. Lastly, the pace at which you speak and the style in which you speak should also be a pace and style that would make sense in normal conversational contexts.

Here's the bottom line: Make strong arguments, offer relevant rebuttals and do so in a manner that is persuasive and respectful to your opponent. This is "values" debate so let's discuss values - what they are, why they're important, and why your position enhances them. Don't "lose the forest for the trees" -- i.e., get so caught up in various details and technicalities that you neglect the essence of whether a resolution should be affirmed or negated. Do not expect me to keep a "scorecard" or "check boxes." Convince me that youe position is superior to the position of your opponent.