I am a lay judge who is comfortable with novice debaters. I prefer clear and organized arguments. Please include me on any email chains you set up!

Here are my preferences:

1. Signposting and taglines are a must! Make it easyto flow.

2. No fast or progressive cases!

3. I will vote off the flow but am not a strictly "tech" judge. I will not flow the Cross

4. If you ask for evidence it will be shared on YOUR prep time, not your opponents.

5. I ask that everybody time speeches and that your phone alarm make noise so that we all know the speech is done.

6. I expect clean, polite, and logical arguments. I am not looking for just the largest impact but for a team that makes a clear and clean link chain to a clear and linked impact that matters. I will also take into account team balance, delivery, and overall preparation.

7. Overall, BE NICE- civil discourse is what I want to see. Thank you!

Did PF for 4 years. Flay -

I want mechanization of every link chain in every speech that you are extending it. I will not weigh sloppily extended arguments i.e X hurts the economy which leads to recession which leads to 100 million people dead globally. You have to warrant out and mechanize every step of that link chain or I am not gonna buy it.

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

No prog arguments I can't judge it

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
. PDFs for speech docs
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) rohana@princeton.edu to the email chain.

PF Coach @ The Potomac School,

W&M '24,GMU '22 (debated (policy) 4 yrs in HS & 4 yrs at GMU)

Put me on your email chain marybeth.armstrong18@gmail.com

PF

Flow judge, tell me how to evaluate the round

Here are a few thoughts:

1. I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. You will probably be rewarded if you just send cases/rebuttal docs before each speech because I will less annoyed. If you are asking for opponents to write out/send analytics, you are self reporting, I know you aren't flowing.

2. Links and impacts need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus. Please do not tagline extend your argument, do some comparative analysis in regard to your opponents arguments. Please go beyond just extending author names as well - most of the time I don’t really flow authors unless it matters.

3. Tech > Truth

4. I don’t flow cross, but I am listening. If something important happens in cross it NEEDS to be in your speech.

5. Theory: I am comfortable evaluating theory, although it super aggravates me when debaters read theory on teams that clearly wont know how to answer it just because they think it is an easy ballot, I will tank speaks for this. Either way, theory is just another argument I will evaluate on the flow, so make sure you are doing line-by-line, just like you would on any other argument. However, generally I think disclosure is beneficial and CWs are good when they are actually needed.

6. Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. I think there are ways to run them and be effective, but I think it is extremely hard given the time constraints of PF. I hate link of omissions though. pls stop

Policy

*UPDATE for Wake 2022*

I have not researched/coached at all on the personhood topic so pls do not assume that I knowthings.

Online things - pls slow down a lil - I already flow on paper and if you are flying through analytics online there is a good chance I wont catch some stuff

TLDR: I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.

Policy v Policy

Cards: I will read them to answer questions about my flow or to compare the quality of evidence of well debated arguments (this is not an excuse for poor explanation) .

T: The standards I prefer and find most persuasive are limits/ground and real world context. I default to competing interpretations if no other metric is given. However, I err aff if I think your interp is reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp is slightly better. Otherwise, just defend your interp is a good vision of the topic.

Theory

I am generally fine with unlimited condo. However, will be much more inclined to vote on condo if your vision of unlimited condo is 7 counterplans in the 1NC with no solvency advocates. Fail to see how that is a) strategic or b) educational. I will certainly vote on condo if it is dropped or won tho.

I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends.

99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

K v Policy Affs

Specificity of links go a long way. This doesn't mean your evidence has to be exactly about the plan but applying your theory to the aff in a way that takes out solvency will do a world of good for you. Please remember I haven't done research on this topic, so good explanations will be to your benefit.

Make sure the alt does something to resolve your links/impacts + aff offense OR you have FW that eliminates aff offense. (Having an alt in the 2NR is definitely to your benefit in these debates, I am less likely to err neg even if you win a link to the aff without some resolution).

However, I probably tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff, key to fairness, etc are all arguments I tend to find persuasive. I also think a well developed argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will go a long way.

Good impact framing is essential in the majority of these debates. For the aff - be careful here, even if you win case outweighs, the neg can still win a link turns case arg and you will lose.

Contextual line-by-line debates are better than super long overviews. I will not make cross-applications for you.

K Affs v Policy

K Affs should probably have some relation to the resolution. They should also probablydo somethingto resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. If it isn't doing something, I need an extremely good explanation for why. TLDR: if I don’t know what the aff does after the CX of the 1AC, you are going to have a v hard time the rest of the round.

Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Fairness is an impact. However, go for whatever version of FW you are best at. In the same vain as some of the stuff above, being contextual to the aff is critical. If you make no reference to the aff especially in the latter half of the debate, it will be hard to win my ballot.

Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like & why that vision is better. Or if the negative team does not have a superb counterinterp - impact turn the affs model of debate.

K v K

If you find me in these debates, make the debate simple for me. Clear contextual explanations are going to go a long way. Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

hey!! im elle (she/her pronouns) and i did pf national circuit for 4 years at oakwood (partnered w/ sylvie turk :))

***my email is elleballe1@gmail.com - please lmk if you have any questions before round and add me to any email chains/ev sharing docs

-- penn update -- if you're flight 2, please be ready to go as soon as flight 1 leaves so we can keep the tournament running smoothly

general prefs (pf):

- i'm ok with any speed as long as you talk clearly, i'll never be unhappy with a speech doc

- pleasepleaseplease have evidence cut properly. if the other team just sends a link or misrepresents their evidence, point it out in a speech and i'll cross it off the flow and drop their speaks.

- WEIGH!!!!! the easiest path to my ballot is to collapse on one of your contentions and tell me what to vote off of and why in comparison to your opponent's strongest arguments. i want to know exactly where you're winning and why - do the work for me so i make a fair decision

- tech > truth: i like theory and ks, i ran both as a debater & i'll basically evaluate anything - make sure progressive stuff is warranted and if it's super techy, don't run it against a novice team; i'll evaluate any args as well (entertain me !!) but they need to have decent warrants and my threshold for responses will be lower the more frivolous they are

- signposting is super important. i'll flow the whole round so tell me clearly where to write down your arguments so i don't miss anything (i won't flow cross though so if you want something that was said to go on my flow, bring it up in the next speech)

- you have to extend the same arguments in summary and final. anything that's in final had to have been in summary for me to evaluate it. i won't weigh something that was dropped in summary bc defense isn't sticky lol. on that, i'm fine with new implications in second summary but new responses are only ok in first summary

- if you want me to look at a card , ask me - i won't call for anything of my own volition

- i'll time - once you go 30 seconds over i'll put my pen down (evidence/prep ethics are really problematic in pf and i don't want to worsen that)

- if you're sexist/racist/homophobic/ableist etc i won't hesitate to drop you. be respectful to your opponents and make sure the debate stays productive and beneficial to everyone

• +.5 speaks if you send a speech doc with all your (properly) cut cards before the round

if you have any other questions before or after the round (i'm chill with respectful post-rounding) don't hesitate to ask !!!

Hi, I'm Owen Brent-Levenstein (he/him). I've debated PF for Durham on the local and national circuit for 4 years.

*Paradigm copied from Peter Crowley

TLDR:

I am a flow judge who doesn't like speed or progressive arguments. Run any substance argument you want I think wacky arguments make the round more fun. That being said, everything needs warrants for me to vote on it.

Some Specifics:

1. Speed. I am not the judge to spread your 1000 word case in front of. I do not think speed is good for the activity, but more importantly for you, I can't follow it very well. Going above about 200 wpm risks me missing arguments, warrants, etc. I won't flow off your doc, that isn't debate.
2. Warrants. A terrible recent trend in PF is the disappearance warrants. I need clear warrants for any argument— offense or defense— that you want me to evaluate. If an argument does not have a warrant when it is first read and when it is extended, I will not evaluate it even if it is completely dropped. "They conceded it" is not a warrant.
3. Extensions. I need a clear link story (with warrants) extended in summary and final focus for any offense you want me to vote on. If an argument is not extended in both summary and final focus, I will not vote on it. Extending case while frontlining is sometimes a little hard to follow, so I'd prefer if you just extended before or after addressing responses.
4. Weighing. Weighing is the most important part of debate. It must be comparative, showing why your impact comes before your opponents. Strength of link and probability weighing are both a little dicey, but if explained well I could potentially vote off them. If there are multiple weighing mechanisms in a round, please meta-weigh, it makes my job a lot easier.
5. Progressive Arguments. Frameworks are fine. I won't evaluate K's and I will only vote for theory to check legitimate in-round abuses. Even then, I probably won't evaluate theory very well so it's risky. Some shells I won't vote off of include disclosure, paraphrase, and any friv theory. I will vote off of shells about content warnings, spreading, and horribly misconstrued / made up evidence. The only exception to this theory policy is if both teams agree to have a progressive debate before the round starts, in which case please let me know so I can get extra paper/spreadsheets ready.
6. Cross. I don't flow cross or really care about it at all. Shouting over each other will go a long ways in tanking your speaks.
7. Evidence. Ideally you'll have all your cards available and quickly accessible and at the very least have a link to an article and the quote. I will only call for evidence if told to. If it is badly misrepresented, I'll doc speaks and won't evaluate it.
8. 2nd rebuttal should frontline any offense you want to go for as well as any turns.
9. I don't like doc bots. If you are reading off of a doc past rebuttal it will hurt your speaks.
10. Don't be _ist or discriminatory. I'll drop you with the lowest possible speaker points.
11. Have fun. If you are having fun debating, I'll probably be having more fun as a judge which will help your speaks. And just generally happiness and fun are good things.
12. If you have any questions about any arguments you want to run or anything in my paradigm please ask me it will be better for both of us.

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

Hi! I'm Jonathan. I debated PF for Taipei American and Worlds for Team Taiwan. Currently an assistant coach for Taipei American.

chenjonathan717@gmail.com is the best email for an email chain.

I would say I evaluate debates similar to Zayne El-Kaissi Chase Williams and Katheryne Dwyer

Be nice (If I think you're nice your bottom speaks are going to be ~28, if not, your ceiling is also at an ~28)

I have a pretty low tolerance for progressive arguments. Personally, I believe they are only needed to check back in-round abuse. That being said, I won't stop you from running arguments you believe in and I guarantee you that I will flow/try to understand them but no guarantees that I will buy them.

Speed is not preferred but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do (if you're going to spread though I'd appreciate a doc)

I love listening to cross-fire and your speaker points will probably rocket if you make some logical/witty statements -- BUT if you want me to evaluate it please bring it up in speeches.

Tech > Truth (IMPORTANT: Tech > Truth > Lies) -- If you are going to debate against conventional wisdom, be sure to back it up with sufficient evidence + warranting! Also, while this is not required, I love a good narrative debate -- run as many arguments as you want but still have a cohesive story/message that I can enjoy and write about on my RFD. Also for the sake of clash and the sanity of your first speaker, please frontline in second rebuttal!

Defense is not sticky, but you only need to extend dropped arguments through ink. Everything in FF must be in summary unless you're responding to what is new in the first FF (do call them out if done so).

I really like warrant comparisons and indicts. Weighing is cool too but very often teams don't win their warrants and wonder why the judge didn't buy their weighing.

I really really really really like even-if responses, tell me why even if they win their argument I should still vote for you.

Also, don't shy from collapsing on one argument. Final focus is two minutes for a reason, pick your best path to victory, explain it well, and tell me why it is more important than anything else!

Like any other judge, I'm not a big fan of post-rounding but I am more than happy to explain my decision or answer any questions you have about the debate (right after the round or email/text is both fine)! Most importantly, I am very invested in making sure every debate round is a safe space (any -isms will get you an immediate L + the lowest speaks possible), if there is anything I can do as a judge to make sure you feel safe in the round, please let me know anytime!

Good luck have fun!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 debated for a number of years during the late 1980s in policy and extemp. I currently am a college professor that coaches students on effective presentations and evidence based research.
I prefer clear arguments that are well supported by credible sources.
Delays due to unorganized cards are discouraged. Decorum and respect for others is important.

Congress: rehash is discouraged, respect for others is important, balanced debate is always possible, acknowledging other competitors by name when responding or extending arguments is a nice touch.

Platform events will be judged based on--in the order of priority--the originality of the piece; the quality of the delivery, including syntax, diction, and nonverbal communication skills; the content covered in the speech, such as its relevance to current events/personal life; and the significance, deliberate use, and credibility of citations (when applicable). You are more likely to be ranked higher by me if you give a more original speech with poorer delivery than a better-delivered but less original speech.

For interpretation events, you will be ranked higher essentially based on two criteria, again in order of priority: the separation of characters, the flow of the piece, and the ease with which I could tell what is going on; and the significance of the piece, be it personal, comedic, or dramatic. Whichever avenue you choose, do it well (when it comes to dramatic vs. comedic), and I will NOT compare the actual tones of the pieces, only the quality with which you deliver your chosen tone.

PF and other debate events will be judged principally on the complexity of argument and robustness of sourcing, with a secondary emphasis on decorum and quality of delivery. Cross-examination will be factored into my decisions somewhat heavily since you need to be able to defend your argument just as well as you constructed it.

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

About me:

I am the captain of the Appalachian State University Speech and Debate program, and have competed in like,, every standard forensics event under the sun at one point or another. My home base in middle/high school was PF, and now is NPDA/NFA-LD. My true love is interp events, but that is nine times out of ten not why you are here lol

Speechdrop > an email chain if possible, email is at the bottom of my paradigm for chains though

Your case:

TLDR - Run what you want, and show me you know what you’re doing

I’m happy with both trad and progressive rounds. I’m originally from a trad circuit, and I’ll never get bored of a trad round done well. However, as I got to college I found a love for performance and res Ks. You should run whatever kind of case suits you best, as long as you make sure all arguments are well developed (trix are not well developed, fyi).

Disclosure theory is boring and lame, so are T shells made to be kicked, but do what you must.

On T- I am VERY hesitant to vote on the possibility of “abuse” in round, much safer for me if you can warrant and prove from your first speech how topicality will play a role.

PLEASE GIVE ME FRAMEWORKS! I want to know how you are evaluating, and more importantly I want you to tell me how to be evaluating. I enjoy good FW clash but don’t like when I am at the end of a round and neither side really warranted out their framing, or just let 2 counter interps exist all the way until the end. Make it concise, tell me what FW is best, and tell me how you are doing it (or prove how you win both framings to make me very happy).

Tech > truth*. Your link chain needs to exist and be comprehensible but I am certainly willing to believe a lot more in round than I would outside the space as long as it’s not clear misrepresentation of evidence or something to that extent.

Arguments that are in any way discriminatory (ie racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, classist, transphobic, etc) are always going to lose and give you low speaks.

In-round:

Debate jargon is appropriate and has its place, try your best to explain as you go for accessibility but in a crunch know that I am with you.

Off-time roadmaps are fine with me, but make sure you are using it to tell me the order of your speech, nothing more.

I am a speedy debater and am comfortable with most spreading, but the round should only be going as fast as everyone participating is comfortable with. Never feel bad asking for what you need to understand the round and create better arguments. Also you will see a hit in speaker points if you share your case and rip through 30 pages in 5 minutes without anyone understanding unless they read along, that’s not what this activity is for.

On content warnings: a lot of content that always requires a warning is unnecessary in round anyway, or is simply unnecessary as they are brought up consistently under a given res. Don't give a graphic depiction of violence to get your point across. Using them for things like "feminism" can certainly become trivializing. Exercise good judgment, talk to your coach, use them when necessary.

I won’t flow cross, so make sure to bring up important points in your rebuttals!

Make sure you’re engaging! There are a lot of technicalities in debate, but it is ultimately, fundamentally, a game of persuasion. Good argumentation can always make up for less than stellar speech, but having the best of both worlds can almost guarantee you my undivided attention, and probably the win.

Run fun cases, create good clash, slay your speeches, and over all else, be a nice person. The fastest way to get high speaks from me is to be the person that promotes fairness, accessibility, and kindness in the debate space.

Feel free to ask questions after round or send me an email! I am always happy to talk about forensics. (coltrainzm@appstate.edu)

Hi, I'm Pete (he/him). I debated PF at Durham on the local and national circuit for 4 years.

Update for Cav Invite:

I haven't really thought about debate for many months and I know nothing about the topic, so definitely lean on the lay side especially in earlier rounds. I still have my paradigm down below with my preferences and I'll do by best to judge by it, but I'm pretty rusty so don't be surprised if I make mistakes on the flow. Also please please please ask me if you are unsure about running something neither of us wants to end up in a round I can't follow.

TLDR:

I am a flay judge who doesn't like speed or progressive arguments. Run any substance argument you want I think wacky arguments make the round more fun. That being said, everything needs warrants for me to vote on it.

Some Specifics:

1. Speed. I am not the judge to spread your 1000 word case in front of. I do not think speed is good for the activity, but more importantly for you, I can't follow it very well. Going above about 175 wpm risks me missing arguments, warrants, etc. I won't flow off your doc, that isn't debate.
2. Warrants. A terrible recent trend in PF is the disappearance of warrants. I need clear warrants for any argument— offense or defense— that you want me to evaluate. If an argument does not have a warrant when it is first read and when it is extended, I will not evaluate it even if it is completely dropped. "They conceded it" is not a warrant.
3. Extensions. I need a clear link story (with warrants) extended in summary and final focus for any offense you want me to vote on. If an argument is not extended in both summary and final focus, I will not vote on it. Extending case while frontlining is sometimes a little hard to follow, so I'd prefer if you just extended before or after addressing responses.
4. Weighing. Weighing is the most important part of debate. It must be comparative, showing why your impact comes before your opponents. Strength of link and probability weighing are both a little dicey, but if explained well I could potentially vote off them. If there are multiple weighing mechanisms in a round, please meta-weigh, it makes my job a lot easier.
5. Progressive Arguments. Frameworks are fine. I won't evaluate K's and I will only vote for theory to check legitimate in-round abuses. Even then, I probably won't evaluate theory very well so it's risky. Some shells I won't vote off of include disclosure, paraphrase, and any friv theory. I will vote off of shells about content warnings, spreading, and horribly misconstrued / made up evidence. The only exception to this theory policy is if both teams agree to have a progressive debate before the round starts, in which case please let me know so I can get extra paper/spreadsheets ready.
6. Cross. I don't flow cross or really care about it at all. A little but of humor goes a long ways in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long ways in tanking your speaks.
7. Evidence. Ideally you'll have all your cards available and quickly accessible and at the very least have a link to an article and the quote. I will only call for evidence if told to. If it is badly misrepresented, I'll doc speaks and won't evaluate it.
8. 2nd rebuttal should frontline any offense you want to go for as well as any turns.
9. I don't like doc bots. If you are reading off of a doc past rebuttal it will hurt your speaks. Also if the flow is super messy and I can't figure it out I'll just vote for the team I thought spoke more persuasively.
10. Don't be _ist or discriminatory. I'll drop you with the lowest possible speaker points.
11. Have fun. If you are having fun debating, I'll probably be having more fun as a judge which will help your speaks. And just generally happiness and fun are good things.
12. If you have any questions about any arguments you want to run or anything in my paradigm please ask me it will be better for both of us.

Hi, I'm Chetan Daswani! I graduated from Enloe High School last year and competed in PF throughout high school.

Here are a few things I value in rounds:

1. Comparative analysis: Demonstrate how arguments have clashed throughout the round and why your argument stands at the end. I'll be flowing throughout the round but it always helps for you to make it clear why you've won a certain argument.
2. Weighing: I ultimately vote on overall impacts, so always break the round down into overall impacts (Lives, Money, etc..), and use that to make it clear that I should vote your way.
3. Warranting: I won't always find your argument valid because some professor or paper said so. It's important to have a logical warrant to qualify and support the argument.
4. Speed: I have experience competing in debate, so I don't mind some speed, but please don't spread.

Overall, just be respectful to your opponents in round, and we'll be all good!

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

Coached (and still coaching LD,PF,CX, CONGRESS, ALL FORMS OF SPEECH) for 18+ years

Jdotson@potomacschool.org email chain (yes)

Welcome to Nat Quals in Richmond!

Public Forum:

Speed

PF should be any speed except high-velocity spewing and spreading. I can still flow any speed. Just send me your doc if you're going to be fast. And at this point, just send me cases anyway.

Evidence and ethics (I am getting very tired of messy cutting and building sentences from nowhere. People need to be calling that out more) So cut your own evidence!

I favor evidence that is current or at least evidence that has not "changed" since published. Cite author, date or if not available source and date.

Watch out for biases.
Most likely know most of the evidence you are using anyway

You do not always need evidence for common sense or common knowledge so just because your opponent says you did not have evidence does not mean you automatically lose.

Flex Prep:

Sure, if we are in TOC and possibly elim rounds, but other times I think sticking to traditional PF is best.

Prep time:

I am not 100% stickler to tenths of a second; but I don't round up. I try to keep good time and remind you. My time is official prep in the round.

Timing cases:

I do NOT need you to hold your timer up when time is up on folks' speeches. I got it. MY time is official. I do not flow after time is up. You are saying stuff that means nothing at that point.

Frameworks

are not 100% needed.

Overviews/Observations/Definitions are also useful. If you know what to do with them; I will vote off of them all especially if they stay on the flow and are not addressed.

Impacts

Use them; impact calculus

Weigh them; meta weighing is helpful

Analyze them

Front lining

Mostly a must... unless your opponents were trash and frontlining was impossible

Cross Fire

Partners If you have to save your partner by talking during the crossfire that is not yours, go ahead. Better to have a round that is saved than a nightmare. But that will ding speaker points.

Also be nice but not passive aggressive. I don't like that. Chummy debate is kind of annoying so if you know each other from camp, or RRs etc, still take the round seriously.

Theory

Not a huge fan, especially when you are abusing it. Disclosure should be reserved for those who are on the wiki or those know are in out rounds. If you use dislco just to win a round, it should be against other teams that would do the same thing to you.

My coach said we can't post on the wiki;Email...text...

copout... disclo will win

Kritiks

I mind if you run a K unless it is clever and used without abusing the resolution, I listen with a slight ear to fem K, queer K, etc.... But if you have a different case that is not a K I would rather hear it. If you get hit with a K, and run stock K blocks and stock K Bad and they say K good... I mean... I just vote off the flow.

GREAT COMMUNICATOR DEBATES

If you are looking at my paradigm, you are probably already a debate student who is used to checking Tab. So I will be quick. Usually, I am a serious flow judge, but I will judge this tournament based on my understanding of the most important elements of the criteria set forth by the Reagan Debates ballot. I used to host the Reagan Debates in the Mid-Atlantic many years ago, where one of my students, Ronald Thompson Jr. qualified to the National Tournament. We traveled to the Reagan Library in 2015, where at Nationals, he made it to quarters. He is a NexGen Leader .

I know what to look for in a winner, just keep confident and do a good job debating and speaking.

other debate formats:

I judged LD years ago so if I am in LD pool I am a traditionalist

I judged CX years ago but I will listen to everything you throw at me

Super speed/Spewing/Spreading beyond recognition does not impress me but if you must, just send case.

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

IE/Speech events: I rank based on performance, clarity, and level of preparation. How does the performer connect to their topic? Does the piece make sense? Does the performer help us understand the story being shown within the piece clearly? Is the performer prepared? Is the piece itself put together/ prepared for this performance? Is it memorized?

Debate: I make decisions based off of clarity, content, and evidence. Does the speaker convey their idea/message clearly? Does the content make sense as a whole? Does the content flow well? Is the evidence a good supporting factor to the aforementioned content? Does the evidence give clear understanding of the content? I do not make my decisions based off speed, however sometimes if a speaker is too fast it is hard for me to catch words or phrases. Speak a little louder if you do speed so that I can make sure I catch as much information as possible.

overall: I just want to see you enjoying your piece/content. I love to see speakers and performers having fun in their rounds! Goodluck!

Greetings, debaters. I'm a parent in my second year of judging debate. It would be helpful if you would:

1. Please ask, "Ready, judge?" before you launch into each speech. (I will be keeping time, too.) Even better would be something like, "Ready, judge, for my four-minute speech (three-minute crossfire)?"

2. Sign post your arguments. "Moving to my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

3. Speak a little slower. Don't spread.

4. Avoid running theory during your arguments.

FInally, please be a good sport and have fun.

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'.

Hello! I’m a second-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about APDA!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

• first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid

• Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

• Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.

• If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

• You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.

• I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round

• Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.

• I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

• I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.

• My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.

• If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

This is my first time judging at a debate tournament and was introduced by a friend who is actively involved with debate. I am currently a graduate student at William and Mary who plans to graduate in the next year or so! I’ve been learning about the process behind debate tournaments and am excited to bring the skills I’ve learned into every round I judge!

I prioritize quality over quantity. Try your best to be concise and avoid “fluff” as that causes me to lose interest and lose your main points when it comes to the end of the round. Also, I want to be able to repeat back what you presented to me, so try to avoid using filler words such as “um” and avoid speaking too quickly. (I speak fast so I know how it feels!)

Please be respectful to your opponents, judges, and anyone else involved. Debate can get intense, but composure is professional. We would hate to see anyone losing speaker points over a situation that can remain controlled (i.e: don’t interrupt and wait your turn to speak).

Lastly, you’re here to do what you’re passionate about so enjoy yourself! As a first time judge, I will try my best to adjust to your style of debate and learn from you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent volunteer and this is my first time judging public forum debate

Please do not use debate jargon

Please keep your delivery slow and clear and summarize your arguments clearly and compare impacts

Provide topical argument only and be respectful during cross

Please paint a picture of what an affirmative world or a negative world looks like

Extend arguments fully and don't bring up new arguments/evidence after second summary

Good Luck!

Hi, my name is Aamer Husain. I graduated last year from Durham Academy and have participated in Public Forum, Extemp, and Informative Speaking.

For Extemp, I value highest a clear and logical argument that utilizes signposting and a variety of sources and analysis. However, it is also very important that you engage me as the audience with delivery, but I will not be impelled to rank you high if I don't buy your argument.

For debate:

no progressive debate - strike me if u plan on doing this.

I don't flow crossfire so anything you want me to flow should come up during speeches.

Here are a few things I like:

1. Warranting and Responsiveness: If you just read cards don't expect to win my ballot. Give me some sort of analysis and warranting behind your arguments. I like clash in round. Make sure that the responses you make are specifically responsive to case. One again, don't just read cards, give me how those cards specifically take out their argument. Also, if I believe your evidence is miscut or you fail to provide sufficient evidence in a card that is central to the argument in question, that argument will not be flowed.

Lastly, in the later speeches, it is not helpful for me if you just say "they concede the turn, or don't acknowledge a delink, etc." If the point is crucial, make sure to reiterate/reexplain the actual turn, delink, disadd, etc. in ur later speeches so I can better understand it in terms of the entire debate.

2. Signposting: Please signpost it helps me flow and gives structure to your speeches.

3. Comparative Analysis: I see that in a lot of rounds two people will have cards saying the opposite things. At that point you need to prove to me why your card is better (warranting, postdating, etc) otherwise you leave it to a 50/50 where I have to decide which card is better.

4. Extensions: Your final focus should just bring up the same topics and cards as summary. New arguments in final focus will not be flowed. If you drop an argument in summary, you concede that argument no matter how bad their argument is.

5. Weighing: Make sure to weigh impacts and links at least in final focus. It is the main way you are going to win my ballot.

6. Be Respectful: There is a difference between being assertive and rude. If you are being disrespectful in any way I will drop you and give you very low speaks. Make sure to have respect for your opponents.

7. Speed: I am good with speed, but not too fast or spreading (200ish words/min is a good benchmark)

-Adapted from Aryan Nair cuz I’m too lazy to write my own

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Ovey Comeaux High School '23, Western Kentucky University '27

For IE/SPEECH EVENTS: I base ranks on passion, performance, and preparation. How much do you connect and care about your topic? How elevated and unique are you as a performer? How relevant and timely is your topic and how well do you understand it, as well as memorization?

Debate Paradigm:

Majority of my decision will be made on Clarity, Content, and Evidence.

How clear is the presentation of your information? How relevant, concise, and impactful is the content of your argument? Does the evidence support the claims and sides of your debate? A competitor who presents information in a way that I can repeat it back to you will, more times than not, get the win.

I am not biased on the medium of debate you take, but do consider how your form on debate contrasts or compares to the opponent. You want to build strong and virtually irrefutable arguments!

Above all: make the round YOURS. Have fun. Speech and Debate is, at its core, about expression, so express yourself. I am nothing but an observer, you are EVERYTHING! Good luck :)

Put me on the chain- Ethan.Jacobs@emory.edu

I debated in PF as different variations of Myers Park BJ on the nat circuit

At the end of the day, I adapt to you- run whatever you think will win. This is especially true at the TOC.

Preferences

In order of how comfortable I am with these types of arguments

1. Trad

2. Theory

3. Topical K

4. Non topical K

5. Tricks/anything not listed (strike me)

Weighing- Weighing is the best way for you to avoid judge intervention. Having a good argument is not enough, it needs to be better than your opponents. Saying “We have the biggest number” is not enough. Why is the biggest number important? I think teams should be creative about link-ins, prereqs etc to avoid being “nuked” out of the round by large impacts. Also, many teams throw evidence out of the window when weighing. I often hear arguments like “The government spends less on climate resilience/infrastructure during recessions so we link in/prereq”. These arguments are a lot more powerful when carded.

Evidence Exchange-Please send speech docs with evidence before speeches to keep ev exchange timely. For TOC this is especially expected.

Evidence- Know your evidence well. Even if you didn’t cut it you should know exactly what it says and what the implications are. If you don’t have strong evidence, why are you running the argument? I’d rather see strong analytics than cards that are sus

Presentation- Be persuasive. That means use persuasive examples, slow down on important points, and use rhetoric to your advantage. This doesn't mean I'm a fake tech I just want you to be really good at explaining your warrants. I think this makes rounds a lot easier to judge. Also, doc botting is sooooooo lame. I appreciate that you have done a lot of prep, you should read it! But, you should also spend time looking at your flow and using your analytical skills to win rounds.

Speed- I think it is silly to expect judges and opponents to read off of docs, I will not do this. That being said, I much prefer fast debates- spreading is fine and a viable strategy as long as I can flow what you are saying. The burden is on you to be enunciating so I can understand you. I will yell clear once or twice to let you know I cannot understand but after that it is your choice to adapt.

Theory- Feel free to run theory. Please keep these debates organized. I want the shell extended but idc if its word for word. I am most familiar with disclosure and paraphrasing shells, but am fine evaluating anything as long as its not clearly frivolous. I think that debaters don’t think critically about disclosure and would like to see more teams come prepared to defend positions about contact info, round reports etc. I strongly believe that teams should read a CI against shells, RVI's should only be reserved for extremely friv theory. Don’t spread your shell, I have around one theory round every tournament and am usually a bit out of practice flowing these types of arguments so my pen will be slow.

Topical K’s- Feel free to run these arguments, but have very limited knowledge about literature. The most important thing for me is that you make the argument accessible to everyone in the round. If you are reading complicated cards with a lot of jargon, please spend the time to clarify arguments for me and your opponents. If I can tell you are making an effort to make your arguments accessible, I will give you very high speaks. Do not skimp on extensions, every part of the K should be extended with proper warrants to win. Any ROTB is fine with me, but I appreciate it when debaters engage with each other on this issue. You shouldn't need a ROTB that skews the other team out of the round to win. I am most familiar with Security, if you are reading anything else assume I know nothing. I will listen closely in cross but do not flow (if you ask me to I will). Try to not speak too fast, keep in mind that these topics are not my expertise.

Non-Topical K- See most of the “topical K section”, almost all of it applies here. One thing I will add is that it is EXTREMELY important that there is a justification for not reading an argument that is topical. If this is not present in the speech you introduce the K, I consider it a near TKO if the other team calls you out. I don't like unrealistic alts- I think non-topical arguments are most valid when they remind us that things need to be changed in our world and would like to hear your best ideas on how to actually achieve that change. I am also very receptive to vague alts bad arguments.

Post round me if you want- I submit before I give my RFD though.

I am a lay and relatively inexperienced judge. I will listen closely to your arguments and keep my opinion on the resolution out of the debate.

Please refrain from speaking fast or spreading or using any complicated jargon. Keep the volume up and speed low. If you don't see me taking notes, you're probably going too fast.

Signposting is really helpful - "Moving to my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

Please impact your arguments and weigh. I want to do as little mental processing myself as I can, so spell everything out for me. If neither team weighs, I have to weigh the arguments myself, and you might not like the outcome.

Please do not run any progressive argumentation (theory, Ks, etc). I will not be able to follow it.

Please absolutely no discrimination or rude behavior of any kind. That will result in automatic speaker points drops and a loss.

Lastly have fun, as an amateur judge, I will try my best to adjust to your style of debate and learn from you!

I was a PF debater in high school (I graduated in 2020). I'm a flow judge, tech > truth. If there is 0 offense left in the round, I will presume for the team that was more polite in crossfire. If both teams were pretty polite, I'll presume neg. However, if you want to convince me that I should presume first, I am happy to listen to your argument.

I'm a parent judge and new to VPF. Yet, I have PhD in Linguistics and reasoning and coaching is part of my daily work. Below are important things to me as a judge:

1) I'm fine with fast speech but control your breath so that I can hear you.

2) Follow rules and don't be abusive.

-I'll not stop you immediately when you go over time, but it will go against you. Checking and keeping time is your responsibility.

-Do not bring up new contentions/arguments in your summary or final focus. Stay with what you have prepared.

3) Strong evidence is essential, but I believe reasoning and weighing is more important in debate.

4) Be respectful. Let's learn from each other and enjoy it.

I am a first year parent judge and therefore inexperienced and will only be able to judge a Lay Round.

In my short experience I have found that I am looking for the following:

• Well paced, measured, opening arguments, maintained eye contact, clear diction.
• Cohesive crossfire responses
• Good use of language
• Clarity & continuity of reasoning
• Summaries that reflect the issues handled during the debate

Additional thoughts

• Confidence is appealing, over confidence is NOT
• Emphasis and structure go a long way to making a convincing argument

Parent judge here - I look for clear links between arguments and for competitors to fully explain what the legislation will accomplish. I look for good presentation and preparation from all competitors.

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 parent judge, and I always look forward to learning more about the process from coaches, students, and other judges.

Much of my judging perspective comes from my professional background. As a retired arts administrator and advocate at the local and national levels for arts education, I have experience in being persuasive for a cause that I am passionate about. In addition, an extensive performance background, especially dance and musical theatre, has helped to develop my eye for staging and physical expression. Lastly, I have worked as both a professional editor and joined the North Carolina Education Corps as a literacy tutor, together which have honed my expertise with the written and spoken word.

In addition to the Paradigm below for PFD, these are some of things that I expect to see and hear from speech and debate speakers:

·Articulation and volume of speech so that you are clearly heard and understood

·Posture and expression that portray confidence

·Commitment to your cause and performance

·Creativity!

Specific Paradigm for Platform (OO, Info, & Extemp)

Construction of Message: Is your topic clear? Is your stance well articulated? Is your piece well organized and easy to follow? Does your evidence support your claims? Are your 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 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? Do you make good eye contact with the room while you speak? Do you gesture with purpose?

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

Specific Paradigm for Interpretation (DI, HI, DUO, & POI)

Choice and Cutting of Piece: Does your piece have literary weight and merit? Does the cutting of your piece have a logical arc, with a beginning, middle, and end? Is the plot of your piece easy to follow?

Development of Character: Are you able to use both physical and vocal delivery to create a character? Do you convey the emotions and actions of that character clearly to your audience? If there is more than one character in the piece, are they easy to distinguish from one another?

Blocking and Delivery: Are you enunciating and projecting? Are you able to convey the emotion and levels of the scene with your voice? Do you make good eye contact with the room while you speak? Is your blocking interesting, and does it make good use of the space? Do you gesture with purpose?

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

Specific Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are your 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 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 listening to your 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 team-mate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based on 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?

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

I am a lay judge. Please talk slow. I prefer thoughtful arguments over long lists of brief evidence from cards. Speak clearly. Avoid emotional or angry tones. Do not spread. Do not overload your speech with debate jargon. I do appreciate good weighing. I do take notes but I do not flow.

I will ask each team to sit on the side that lines up with my tab room ballot. It helps me to use the right timers. I will try to time you. I mess this up sometimes so time yourselves and opponents time each other. I do not like opponents to set an alarm, simply raise your phone or timer when time is up. An exception to this is if both teams prefer to set alarms. Then that is fine.

I do not judge you on your crossfire so please do not use it as a time to try to sway my opinions. Crossfire is for you to better understand your opponents case so you can address it in your next speeches. Treat it as if I am not listening. Make your case in the next speech.

If you are running an extinction argument be sure it plausible. For example I have a hard time believing affirming or negating health care for all (a LD topic) would lead to nuclear war and thus extinction yet both sides argued it in different rounds. If you opponents run an extension argument that is not plausible do be sure to address it, as it can not just be the judge who thinks it is not plausible.

I evaluate your speaker points on clarity, articulation, appropriate speed, eye contact. So I do sometimes give low speak wins.

Be kind and courteous to your opponents.

I am a non remediated dyslexic so please excuse my short amount of feedback. I will not disclose unless required to by the tournament officials, but I will get my RFD in fast and publish it. If the debate was good I am often still deciding when you walk out. I will talk to you or your coach between rounds (not Flights) to give verbal feedback if you would like.

For speech docs or evidence sharing use jenmize2020@gmail.com

Please do not be late to a round. That puts extra pressure on me as a judge. Please do not tell me you know my daughter before during or after the round. I do not know if that would make me judge you harder or be more lenient and I don't want to find out. I would of course try not to let it sway me in either direction.

warrant

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

---

also, if we can get the round done in under 45 minutes, everyone gets 30 speaks

Hi, I'm Aryan Nair. I competed in PF at Cary Academy for 4 years and I'm now a sophomore at Duke. I would classify myself as a traditional PF judge.

I don't flow crossfire so anything you want me to flow should come up during speeches.

Here are a few things I like:

1. Warranting and Responsiveness: If you just read cards don't expect to win my ballot. Give me some sort of analysis and warranting behind your arguments. I like clash in round. Make sure that the responses you make are specifically responsive to case. Once again, don't just read cards, give me how those cards specifically take out their argument.

2. Signposting: Please signpost it helps me flow and gives structure to your speeches.

3. Comparative Analysis: I see that in a lot of rounds two people will have cards saying the opposite things. At that point you need to prove to me why your card is better (warranting, postdating, etc) otherwise you leave it to a 50/50 where I have to decide which card is better.

4. Extensions: Your final focus should bring up the same topics and cards as your summary. New arguments in final focus will not be flowed. If you drop an argument in summary, you concede that argument no matter how bad their argument is.

5. Weighing: Make sure to weigh impacts and links at least in final focus. It is the main way you are going to win my ballot.

6. Be Respectful: There is a difference between being assertive and rude. If you are being disrespectful in any way I will drop you and give you low speaker points. Make sure to have respect for your opponents.

If you have any questions feel free to email me at aryan.nair@duke.edu.

Hello - I am a new, lay judge. I’m still learning my way around the debate world, so please be patient. Please talk relatively slowly. It doesn’t have to be super slow, just understandable. Please state which contention you are on, or are responding to, to help me follow along. Thanks, and good luck! :)

I am a parent, novice judge volunteering to help out. I have experience judging scientific proposals written by researchers, technical publications authored for peer reviewed journals, and middle school robotics but no experience judging speech and debate. I am not a subject expert in this area so my feedback will be generic.

This is my fifth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.

I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.

I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.

Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy as part of Durham HP. Now I'm a freshman at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu AND taipeidocz@gmail.com

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.

General

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.

Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.

I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible. If you're going to go fast, slow down for the tags.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.

How I Evaluate

I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Prog

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments OR are in the varsity division of a TOC-bidding tournament. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

I default to competing interps and yes RVIs, you have to read No RVIs and reasonability with warrants if I'm going to vote on it.

Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE JUDGES WHEN I DEBATED: Gabe Rusk, Brian Gao, Bryce Pitrowski

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

General

I am relatively new to this, my first year and I’ve participated in 3 tournaments

• Please speak clearly and try to maintain eye contact as best as you can
• Be respectful and polite. Try to remember that cross is not for arguing but rather to further understand each other's positions
• remember to have fun and stay positive

- my background is in real estate and commercial development

- I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS/RACISM/SEXISM

Add me to email chains: sharpedebate@gmail.com

Short Verison:

*I specialized in LD in high school and moonlighted in PF when someone needed a partner. PF paradigm - Flow is the most important thing in the round, please be clear; I'll be deciding on the flow. I'm not new to debate, so I won't be voting off the last speech but the big picture of the round, who has the most positive impacts in the round. I'm a progressive judge so do whatever you want, just be respectful of your competitors.

Tho I prefer that folx don't run bad geopolitical link chains leading to nuclear war - if the links don't make sense I won't care.

TLDR:

* I really don't like racism, sexism...etc. I won't vote for hateful arguments.

* Warrant your arguments! Names of authors mean nothing to me. I won't vote for you if you just read cards.

*Weighing is very important (especially with a Value/VC/Roll of the ballot)

*Prioritize impacts, the strategy is important

*If you are going to value Morality, please explain it. What moral framework are we working under

*Be Clear

Former Debater at Homewood-Flossmoor

Lincoln Douglas was the debate-style of my high school career so I am very familiar. I started in traditional Lincoln Douglas and ended my career running Kritiks so I am comfortable with both styles of LD. I can understand most spread, but make sure your opponent is comfortable with the speed and be clear. If you are not clear, I am not flowing. You can go as fast as your mouth and lungs will let you, but if you are not clear it will most likely be detrimental to you. I will say clear twice. If you don't adjust I will probably stop flowing. Refrain from bringing your opponent's identity into the debate space, especially when it comes to sexuality, race and/or disability. I have seen and experienced many rounds where people assume wrong about someone's identity, and it becomes offensive. With that being said, if you are non-black running arguments about anti-blackness (or in general), make sure it's for the right reasons, and don't use authors that write for the black population.

Plans: Call me old-fashioned but I don't think that Affirmative needs to provide a plan in any LD debate topic. But I am not against plans in LD.

Theory: 80% of the time I do not like theory debates because it can get very messy. While I view theory to be a necessary part of debate I hate frivolous theory. To be honest, I don't care if someone's case isn't on a debate wiki, I am not 100% against voting for stuff like that but the reason why its imperative for people to explain the need to disclose.

Kritiks: I think they make debate interesting and sparks great dialogue. But please run a meaningful Kritik don't slap one together before a round that isn't well thought out. I tend to like Kritiks that challenge the topic/arguments, just because there tends to be more clash, but Kritiks about the debate space is fine. I haven't had the time to read a ton of literature in college, so don't assume I know an author.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

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 debated PF for four years at Delbarton.

my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com

Tech over truth

go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.

You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal

Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary

Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus

Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other stuff

Have cut cards ready if something is called

Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.

Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

I focus on making arguments clear and urge debaters to express their points well. I'm impartial, without any preset biases, and I'll assess arguments based on their substance. I'm adaptable, adjusting my judging style to fit debaters' strategies and the specific dynamics of each round. Ultimately, I'll decide based on who presented the stronger argument and case.

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!

Debated in policy debate for the University of Kentucky (2013-2016), before moving to NC for my PhD. Currently working at UNC. She/her.

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

My paradigm was written in 2017 for policy debate, so know that I've been out of the judging game for a while. I won't have in-depth topic knowledge, so when in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument. In general, I think debate is pretty cool, but I think it gets a lot cooler when we all treat each other like human beings. You can be competitive in your speeches and CX, but try to treat each other with basic levels of respect. There’s no need to be rude when someone’s emailing their speech.

Yes, I want on the email chain: ava.vargason@gmail.com

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing has zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated.

Theory:

Conditionality is infinitely good and it will be difficult to get me to vote on it.

Most everything else is a reason to reject the argument & not the team. I like counterplans about the affirmative with net benefits that have real links.

I will kick the counterplan unless given a compelling reason not to. Just because the counterplan is a bad idea does not mean the affirmative is better than the status quo.

Critical Strategies:

I am fine for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading framework. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

Other:

I won’t evaluate a clipping ethics challenge unless there’s a recording.

I will disregard evidence that doesn’t say anything.

I am expressive when I really like or dislike something, so you should pay attention to that.

I flow.

teddyvwallen@gmail.com

tldr fyo flow judge

Hi! I debated for 4 years on the circuit at Durham Academy and graduated in 23. I’m happy to vote on anything except for friv theory and I’m fine with any speed etc. I will only evaluate what you actually say in speeches (I will use docs to help me but won’t flow off of them). Best way to win my ballot is through good, actually comparative weighing and good frontlining so you actually win the offense you weigh.

I don’t have a ton of experience with Ks but happy to evaluate them as best as I can. I debated against a few Ks during HS but never/very rarely read one myself.

Don’t hesitate to ask any further paradigm questions before the round starts!

P.S. be mature, I don’t mind competition but if it ever gets personal/excessively rude I will tank your speaks and drop you. Use common sense/best judgment plz

P.P.S. I like fun/strategic/weird arguments and if you run them well (i.e. really understand what you’re saying and contextualize/weigh it properly) I’m likely to give you higher speaks. Saying this for people like me in HS who prep a bunch of strange arguments/weighing strats in hope of running them

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.

Hi, I'm Paul. I used to debate for Durham for 2 years, mostly on the local circuit.

I haven't thought about debate in two years. I have no idea what the new topics are, so please take your time explaining the arguments.

I would say that I am a lay judge. I want to hear clear, well-explained arguments. Although I've had experience with flow debate, I wouldn't say I'm qualified enough to evaluate a flow round today. I want a good respectful debate where people clearly explain their arguments. Essentially, I want each team to tell a story or narrative in every speech, this means extending and also warranting. I'll vote on how persuasive each team presents their arguments, especially if they explain why their argument matters more than others. I'll try to vote off each team's persuasiveness, reasoning, and overall narrative.

Don't just read evidence for the sake of it being evidence. I will write down the reasoning the evidence supports.

I was never great at flowing, so I'll try to take notes. If you spread, at some point, I won't pay attention or write anything down. At that point, I'll just twiddle my fingers, and awkwardly stare at you until you finish your speech, and neither of us wants that. 750 words for case max or lower would be ideal.

I don't know theory, Ks, or any progressive arguments. If you read them, I'll chuckle and then open up chess.com and start playing puzzles. Please don't read them.

During crossfire, I want a good and fun discussion, not a yelling match.

Don't be _ist or discriminatory. I'll drop you with the lowest possible speaker points.

If you are somehow able to fit any of these following phrases in your speeches then I'll give you 30 speaker points:

"fear prakash"

"sphere prakash"

"severe prakash"

Have fun! At the end of the day, the activity should be fun, and I'll enjoy the round more if you're having fun.

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.

This will be my first time judging a debate tournament. I’m a graduate student at William & Mary and my friend introduced me to debate. I spent time learning about debate and the mechanics and will do my best to judge the round fairly! Please add me to the email chain egwilk28@gmail.com

Be respectful to each other during round. Make sure you are not speaking over your opponents frequently as this may result in a deduction in speaker points. Please make complete arguments. The story of your argument should be cohesive and explained in a way that I would have no trouble repeating back to you. Please do not speak too quickly. I am taking as many notes as possible, but if I miss arguments, I will not be able to evaluate them at the end of the round

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Parent judge. No spreading or sliming. Explain to me why you win. Have realistic impacts, not everything leads to nuclear war. You can be aggressive while not being rude.

About me: I am a recent graduate from Appalachian State University and was a member of the App State Debate Team while in college. I have competed in LD, NPDA, and IPDA in college, and competed solely in LD in high school.

I prefer being able to read your speech on SpeechDrop (or something similar).

Your case:

• Please give me a framework for the round.

• I do not mind whether or not opposing teams share their cases on SpeechDrop. Do not run disclosure theory if you have both agreed to NOT share cases.

• Arguments that are racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, ableist, classist, etc. will result in a loss and very low speaker points.

In round:

• I don’t mind if you speak fast, but do not speak so quickly that you are no longer saying real words. I need to know what you are saying in order to weigh the round. Do not make me try and read a 20+ page case in 5 minutes while you are gasping for air. That being said, I will say 'clear' if you begin to speak so quickly that I can no longer understand what is being said.

• If an opponent is speaking too quickly to understand, please speak up! Debate should be accessible to everyone.

• Debate Jargon: I do not appreciate when more experienced opponents try to confuse their less experienced opponents by bogging them down with debate jargon. There is a time and place to use it - but keep the space accessible to both myself and your opponents.

• Please give off-time roadmaps! This helps everyone in the room stay organized.

• I believe that the only rules in debate are the ones agreed upon in the round. Making an argument about how your school’s debate rules are more correct than another will not do much to progress the debate.

• This also means that I am very flexible when it comes to debate “norms”. If there is something you would like to do or change, just ask! As I said, the debate space should be accessible to everyone.

• I love debates that are engaging for everyone involved. Make sure that you are actually addressing each other's arguments. I will not make arguments for you.

• I will never be mad at you running a fun case as long as it is appropriate for the round.

I’m happy you are here!!! You are amazing for being here.

Hi everyone!

I'm Mia (she/her) and I am a third year PF debater at Bronx Science.
Email chains/Questions/Feedback: zaslowm@bxscience.edu

Some general things:

- I am tech > truth, however, be reasonable. I am a flow judge but appreciate lay appeal because it usually means you are warranting more, so give me a narrative.

- I do not flow card names, so if you want me to flow your evidence through the round you need to re-explain the content of the card. Just saying "extend Smith 21" doesn't cut it for me.

- I listen to cross but do not flow it, so anything you want me to evaluate should be brought up in the next speech.

- I'm fine with some speed, but just remember you want everything you say to make it on my flow.

- I don’t really like progressive arguments so run them in front of me at your own risk.

In terms of debate structure, I just want you to make it as clear as possible why I should vote for you. This means your warranting and impacts should be extended and weighed.

Finally, please be kind. Don't do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I know how awful a bad round can feel so let's have a good time. If you can make me laugh during the round I will boost your speaks.

Email me with any questions :)