I have only judged Public Forum twice but I know the basic terminology, have watched multiple videos, and am aware of basic judgecraft. That said, the "Policy" level techniques and details are fussy for me.

Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a sophomore at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.

I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.

Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.

I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.

Returning to in person debate norms:

• You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable
• Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire
• During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying

Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk

I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

Coach for 20 years- judged all events. Important- link of claims back to value structure, moderate speaking pace is very much appreciated. I flow rounds and use the flow to guide my decision but do not drop debaters just for not extending all arguments cleanly. I like to hear logical fallacies called out as much as I like to hear logic employed in a round.

For a good debater, I look for the following:

1. understanding the rules: including time limits, the structure of speeches, etc.

2. content of the presentation: the strength, relevance, and accuracy of the arguments presented

3. style: the clarity, persuasiveness, and engagement of the speakers

3. strategy: how the arguments are organized, how well debaters respond to their opponents, and their ability to anticipate and address counter-arguments.

Hello, I'm Manisha Chauhan-Patel, a parent judge looking forward to hearing about the upcoming Speech & Debate Tournament.

When judging, I'm looking for clear messages and persuasive information that justifies your side of the argument. I would especially like you to be polite when addressing each other and be timely in your responses.

Fast talking (spreading) is not going to cut it, I would like you to speak openly and succinctly about the subject matter.

I will base your points on the following:

> professionalism

> research

> attitude

> arguments for/against

> empathetic

I'm keen to hear your side of the argument and will do my best to judge transparently as possible. Good luck!

Hey, I'm Raiyan! I debated for 2 years (2021-2023) in PF for BASIS Chandler, qualled to both nats and gtoc 2x. I now am a PF coach at Durham Academy and a freshman at Duke.

Email: raiyanc2005@gmail.com

TDLR: regular flow judge, down to evaluate anything but I do prefer substance rounds.

General Stuff:

tech>truth. This means I will evaluate responses purely off the flow and how contested they are in the round. However, you still need to give me clear warranting and internal links for me to vote off an argument. I will be hesitant to vote on squirrely arguments if you blippily extend them.

My job as a judge is not to impose my views on debate to you, but rather adapt to your style of debate. As a debater, I didn't like having to adapt to weird quirks each judge had, so I don't want to replicate that experience for any of y'all.

I'll disclose and try to keep my feedback as constructive as possible. I know how stressful debate can be, so let's keep the round chill and lighthearted.

I can handle speed (just like lmk before your speech if its gonna be 250+ wpm so I can prepare myself) but I unfortunately can't comprehend policy level spreading.

Let's try to keep the round moving at a decent speed, please come to the round pre-flowed and ready to start

How I evaluate arguments:

I look to who wins the weighing, then I look to that argument and see who is winning that argument. However, if there is a scenario where team A is winning the weighing but has a really muddled link to the point where it go either way if they still have access to their link and Team B has a much cleaner link but is losing the weighing I'll vote for Team B.

Procedural things I assume about the round:

Frontline in second rebuttal, otherwise it's conceded

Make sure to extend in summary and final, otherwise I can't vote for your argument, this applies for defense and offense

You can't read new offense/defense in summary

However, If a team makes a new implication in summary (i.e. cross applying a conceded response on c2 to c1) I grant the opposing team the chance to make a new frontline

Make sure to weigh, you can only make new weighing in first final if it's responding to weighing from second summary, 2nd final is too late

If a team reads a turn on c1, it goes conceded and they want to cross-apply/re-implicate the turn to another contention, they must do so in summary, not for the first time in final focus.

Speaker Scores:

I start at 28, itll go up or down based on stuff like strategy, fluency, good implications, not extending thru ink, etc.

I’ll give boosts for quick evidence delivery. I have a lot of respect for teams that put in the work, have good cards cut, and are ready to send them over quickly while keeping their docs organized. I’ll also doc points for showing up late (1 point for every minute) without notice (if you have a legitimate reason for being late please email me). This is just so we can keep the rounds going as fast as possible, and prevent delays.

Cross can get heated, just don't say stuff like "shut up" or "what are you yapping about" in cross, it's not nice, I might have to drop you

Progressive Debate:

I prefer substance debates, but am open to evaluating any arguments. During high school, I never really read theory/k's but I do understand the basics of both.I believe no RVI's applies only if there is no offense won off the shell. That is too say, even if you read no RVI's the opposing team can still win the round on the theory layer if they read a turn to the shell (e.g. paraphrasing is good against a paraphrasing shell) or win that their competing interp is better.

If you are running a K please run it properly, have good alts, solvency, links, etc. If you are running theory please make sure it is not frivolous. I don't like paraphrasing, and I like disclosure, but again run what at you want, I'm just informing you of any biases I have since it will be fully impossible for me to completely remove those notions.

The two exceptions to my policy of "do whatever you want" is tricks, friv theory, and panel rounds. Unless it's a round robin, please don't consider running them, just so we can have an educational round. To reiterate, I highly encourage teams to not run frivolous theory if this is not a round robin. I think its pretty dumb and a waste of everyone's time. Let's try to actually take something away from this round. If we're in a panel round, and there is a lay judge please don't read any progressive arguments (or at least present them in a lay friendly manner). That said, I'll still evaluate the arguments as if I'm a flow judge.

Miscellaneous:

If this helps, I really liked having Bryce Piotrowski, Pinak Panda, Eli Glickman, Nate Kruger, Anisha Musti, Elliot Beamer, and Wyatt Alpert as a judge when I was debating. I also learned debate from the goat, Lars Deutz, so I’d say my views and perception of debate is very similar to his.

Just have some fun, I know it's cliche but debate can get pretty heated at times. At the end of the day, this is an activity for y'all to learn from. As such, I'll do my best to be as helpful and considerate before and after the round.

I did Lincoln Douglas debate, DI and original oratory in high school.

I am looking for clear delivery, sound reasoning, and credible evidence.

I really don't like yelling or fast talking; to me, debating is about learning how to speak persuasively and become a leader.

Just remember: you are learning an incredible life skill and in the end, who wins doesn't matter. Really, debate tournaments just create an artificially stressful situation so you can practice speaking. It helped me tremendously and I know it will help you too!

My background: I am a registered architect and have my own firm. I have a BFA and BARCH from Rhode Island School of Design :)

Try to speak slowly and show compassion - that will reassure me that you're not a robot overlord :)

Experience:

• Started judging in 2023 and have had the opportunity to judge a few events
• Have had prior experience competing in Speech and Debate events though in a different country

Background:

• Undergrad in Engineering and Graduate degree in Management (MBA)
• Work in one of the largest Financial Services Company as a Vice President
• Lead multiple teams developing Artificial Intelligence based products

What Am I looking for:

• Will appreciate contestant sharing a little background and context before delving deeper into their contentions
• Diving into the argument without the basic context will make it hard to appreciate the additional points you are making
• Try not to be too repetitive – if you feel in your prep or presentation you are repeating your points and are not adding anything new, chances are, I would have observed the same. It diminishes the value of the points you have already made
• I realize you have spent a lot of time preparing and want to convey as much information as possible but I appreciate quality over quantity so please take the time to make your point and potentially highlight a new dimension to the argument instead of rushing and presenting all the ideas you have prepared
• Respect – yes this is a debate and it is important to counter and negate another person’s argument but doing it respectfully both verbally and through body language is something I value

Delivery:

· Being able to deliver content without the use of an aid will be what I value the most. I am fine if you would like to use a notepad, prompt cards or your electronic device for clues or key points. However, I would urge you to avoid reading off from a laptop, phone, iPad, any other electronic device or notepad.

You have put in a lot of prep and getting the opportunity to present at this forum is a gift and privilege. So, please do enjoy your experience and good luck !

Speaker Points: Aim for an average score of 28.5, considering strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. Scores may vary based on these factors.

Humor Bonus: If you add humor that aligns positively, not at the expense of others, I'll award an extra speaker point.

Final Focus Weight: Utilize the Final Focus as the primary mechanism to explain why your team deserves to win. Summarize your side's key points and bring the debate to a strong conclusion.

Crossfire Etiquette: Emphasize kindness during crossfire interactions.

Argument Quality: Prioritize clearly warranted and well-substantiated arguments supported by evidence. Prefer fewer, well-developed arguments over numerous unsubstantiated ones.

I am a Coach, and I have been judging for close to a decade now. I am a teacher certified in English & Theatre, so my notes can get a bit technical, and come specifically from those perspectives. I tend to make notes and comments as I view, so they follow my flow of thought, and how I understand your developing argument, as your piece/debate progresses.

I have judged almost every event, including judging both speech and debate events at Nationals.

In true teacher and coach fashion, I WANT you to do well. So prove me right!

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank: While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches: Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning: Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum: Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

Roleplay: Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules: Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer: The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitors? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing? Are you cooperating with your teammate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on your team-mate, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Is your value interesting? Is your value criterion an adequate measure of your value? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are you able to use their Value and/or Value Criterion to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Ama Mensah-Boone | They/them pronouns

i debated for durham in public forum for 4 years. i like to think that i'm funny so if you make me laugh in round (like how i quoted hannah montana in my bubble round at states last year) i'll give you 30 speaks.

+1 SPEAKS FOR SENDING YOUR CASE TO ME BEFORE THE ROUND BEGINS. add me on the email chain and include your team code ([school] [you and your teammates last initials], ex. Durham MK is my team) in subject line --> amensahboone@gmail.com

if i'm judging you, feel free to ask me for detailed feedback! the role of judges is not only to evaluate the round but also to help you get better at debating.

Yays

speak confidently. confidence is half being good at debate. fake it until you make it, especially in crossfire. however, be respectful of your opponents, i have a very low tolerance for rudeness in round, especially if it's clear that you're demeaning your opponent. male debaters, be mindful of how you are perceived in the debate space, especially when your opponents are part of the gender minority

(novice only) i will give you higher speaker points if you use all of your speech time!

although i understand a lot about debate, treat me like a parent judge. explain your reasoning clearly. why do your arguments matter in the context of the round?

framework debate is awesome. tell me why to prefer yours over your opponents'. if you don't read a framework, i'm assuming util. your weighing should make sense in the context of framework

i value analytical responses! don't misconstrue evidence, but you are welcome to make counterarguments without 55 cards lined up. walk me through your thinking, and if it's logical, i'll vote on it. if you just read cards in rebuttal and don't warrant, implicate or explain anything, it will be hard for me to convince myself to vote for you

Nays

if i notice any abusive behavior, i will not tolerate it. this includes misgendering, racism and sexism (and any other _ism), which i already experienced plenty of in my debate career. if i don't call it out or notice it right away, all debaters in the round should feel free to do so whenever you want. I WILL PROBABLY GIVE YOU 30 SPEAKS FOR IT. i will eval an IVI if it's done well and not a waste of everyone's time

i will be timing everything, especially prep time. don't go more than over the 10 second grace period i'll give you. it's rude. also, have your evidence ready to send; don't waste everyone's time.

i am not going to let you get away with trying to pull a bait and switch (collapsing on things that weren't extended in the back half). if i hear something new, i'm not voting on it (unless it's in first summary, then i'll consider it)

Tread carefully

i will vote off of my flow and the first thing i'm looking for is weighing. no weighing = no ballot for you! if arguments aren't extended in summary, i won't vote on them even if you bring them up again in final focus. keep track of your defense and offense! extend your warrants as clearly as possible!

i'm a flay debater who thinks flay is the best form of debate. however, there's a 75% chance that i can follow along with tech stuff what you're reading. feel free to read whatever you want, but if there's any technical elements (including T, theory, Ks, etc.) PLEASE send me your doc before the round (and rebuttal doc if necessary) and assume that i don't know the jargon. pf speed is okay, but if you're reading case faster than 235 wpm (950 word case), your speaks will be bad. i strongly believe that spreading is inaccessible and it does not make you a good debater!TLDR: err on the side of caution

i don't really care that much about cross if you don't use it to call out that the other team conceded stuff. save the important stuff for your speeches

finally, debate is supposed to be fun. make it fun for me too.

I'm Ryan, and I graduated in the Apex Friendship High class of 2023.

I debated PF in high school for two years, but it's been three years since I have competed, so I'm a bit rusty.

I will flow the round. I value logical link chains, the extension of evidence through the round, clear impacts, and most importantly, WEIGHING those impacts (as long as they have not been dropped and then revisited). It is not my job to evaluate which side outweighs the other. You should be the one explaining that to me.

Don't run theory. PF is not the place for that. I will be confused, and you will probably not win the round.

I don't mind if you speak quickly, but your goal should be to make a logical argument, NOT to cram as much information into four minutes as possible. However, if your opponents cannot understand you, then slow down.

This is an educational activity, and I want everyone to feel comfortable and safe in their environment so they can bring their best selves to the round. Be respectful to each other and me. Basic manners go a long way, and then I won't have to dock speaks and we can all go on our merry way.

Pre-flow before rounds!!

Hello, my name is Sam Shi, I debate public forum for Durham Academy and have been for the past 3 years.

Add me to the chain: samuelshi007@gmail.com

Debate should be fun. If everyone is nice, respectful, and chill about the round I will bump your speaks. Feel free to sit or stand for speeches and cross.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way I will drop you.

Read whatever you want but do it clearly, remember to extend, warrant, implicate and weigh.

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. If you do decide to speak fast, do so clearly, and send a doc.

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Tech>Truth. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well.

Defense is NOT sticky, remember to extend everything you want in final in summary as well.

EVERYTHING NEEDS A WARRANT!! If it is not warranted, I can't vote off of it.

Have cut card case docs ready to send in the chain within a minute or else you will use your prep time – this should be something you prepare before round.

Implicate!! If you just say a warrant and I don't know how it helps you I won't know how to vote using it.

Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Without weighing I will have to intervene and you don't want that.

Don't love progressive debate, I prefer substance, but I do have some experience with it. IVIs ok.

Cross: I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Don't be rude. Feel free to skip GCX if everyone agrees—both teams get 1min of prep.

This is my second year as a parent judge. A few things about my judging preferences:

- I value a clear logic flow and argument

- It’s important during a debate to allow the listeners to understand your argument and points, so it’s better to speak slowly and to be heard, rather than quickly (clarity over speed)

• I love a good clash. You’ll get credit for a clear, logical argument, but demonstrating the ability to modify your argument and rebut your opponents’ ACTUAL argument is very important (dynamic arguments are very effective)
• Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

Most important: have fun. The ability to debate is a crucial life skill!

I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge. Please crystallize your points in your final speeches.

I debated for four years in high school and for four years in college in CX/policy debate. I also have judged many high school tournaments in a variety of formats (PF, LD, CX) in the time since I stopped debtaing. I am comfortable with all kinds of arguments, speed, and theory.

Experience:

6 years Policy Debate (Edina High School and Trinity University)

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

Judging (Mostly Policy, LD and Public Forum) since 2011

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments within an offense/defense paradigm. The reasons why your case is good should outweigh the reasons why it is bad or it should outweigh the reasons why the opposing team's case is good.

I do not have any arguments that I will disregard offhand. I try as much as possible to judge based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I really like impact calculus (or weighing), I get annoyed when teams don't make comparative claims between their arguments and their opponents arguments because it leads to me having to intervene in the round.

Shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round, debate is a small community!

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.