Traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed or negated through strong, sound, and logical arguments.

Please enunciate clearly. While spreading can be advantageous in your rebuttals, please do not forsake the quality of your arguments for speed, especially during your construct.

I value respect so please be mannerly in your conduct toward judge and fellow opponent.

I have judged at local and national tournaments.

Hello, I’m Geanell Adams! I'm a college professor with a varied life experience including military service. I have educational backgrounds in political science, business, accounting, government, economic and workforce development, career technical education, and higher education. My work experiences correlate to those educational attributes. A fun fact is that I am also a stenographer and can write machine shorthand up to 260 wpm. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (geanelladams@aol.com) and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am usually okay with some speed, but make sure you articulate and are coherent. If you want to speed up as the round goes on, we can try it out. I will be more forgiving when it comes to clarity and will say clear as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution; however, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I tend not to give verbal or non-verbal cues. I tend to be stoic and don't show or exhibit expression. This is intended to keep the presenter from being distracted by me as the judge. So don't take this an an indication that I agree or disagree with you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

History

My pronouns are she/her/hers. My debate experience started in Junior High with Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, Parliamentary debate, and most extensively World Schools Debate. I am currently a student at The University of Arkansas debating in IPDA.

Preferences

The main thing I expect to see in a round is respect for your opponents. Keep your arguments on the topic, don’t resort to insults or petty commentary. It will not win you the round. To win the round, you need both Content and Logic. Do not expect to win a round solely off of one or the other.

Public Forum is supposed to be communicative and understandable. I will judge with those two things in mind.

1. Everything in the round is true to me unless someone calls it out. I will not call for your cards, it is up to you to convey the evidence to me and impact it out. Quality over quantity.
2. Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.
3. Warranting & Impacting > Evidence
4. I will flow everything I can catch. If you are spreading or speaking too fast for me to keep up, I will put down my pen.
5. I am keeping time, but the more I need to pay attention to and check your time usage, the less I am able to flow your content. Please keep your time and be accountable.
6. Keep it respectful. There is no need to yell or get argumentative in cross or in your speeches.

I competed with International WSD Norms and expect them in any Worlds round.

1. POIs are a strategic tool in rounds, not a chance to bombard your opponent. Stay respectful and wait the customary 15 seconds between POIs. I take your POIs into consideration if you connect them or circle back to them in your substantive speeches. Follow WSD norms.
2. It does not matter how many arguments you make if none of them are weighed against your opponents. Make sure to engage with your opponents' case and extend your arguments down the bench. Please don't just reiterate your substantives without telling me why they are more important or more correct than the opposing side's
3. Impacting is integral to winning my ballot. There is a reason the motion is being debated, find it and tell me why it matters. Impact out each of your arguments. Magnitude, Scope, and Relevance.

Just have a clean round and do your best!

I’m a parent judge. My kid does PF, so I know the basics. This will be my first time judging. Please speak slowly.

I debated for several years in World Schools, British Parliamentary, and Canadian Parliamentary.

I think debate is at least partially a performance sport, and that rhetoric and speaking style are important components of the activity. I find it difficult to follow fast speakers.

Please be respectful to other debaters.

Now in college, debated in high school all four years, mostly in PF, earned a TOC bid one upon a time

PF:

-I can follow progressive rounds, but be careful running a K in PF. As long as your opponents actually understand you, I'm cool. If they don't understand you, it's simply not constructive to the educational value of the activity.

-Second rebuttal has to engage with first rebuttal in some way; second summary is far too late to address first rebuttal. I was a second speaker in high school, I know it's hard, but it really isn't optional.

-Summaries have to collapse to be effective. I found this concept hard to grasp as a debater, but the more I judge the more painfully clear this becomes.

-It's good for you if there is a framework against which I can evaluate the round that has been proposed by you.

-When judging PF I default to viewing the round as a straightforward comparison between the Con and Pro worlds. Though you can win without doing so, I welcome discussions on theory, burdens, etc.; I think they can be really helpful in PF to clarify what those worlds would look like, which is a prerequisite to weighing them well. That being said, stock issues are far, far more important, so spend your time accordingly.

-Cross is not flowed, so make arguments in speeches, not cross.

Above all, please have fun and keep things light. If you have any questions pre-round, please do not hesitate to ask! My email is firstlast at outlook if you are starting a chain.

Debated pf for two years and did ld for two years

add me to the email chain: rishi.ajmera11@gmail.com

PF:

go whatever speed u want, I'm fine with it if you spread just send a doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline everything or the other team gains offense that can't be touched on in second summary.

I will call for cards at the end of a round if they matter for my decision.

Don't post-round, if you do I will dock your speaks significantly.

if you have any questions, ask me before round

if its a panel and its lay kick me and consider me lay

I am a less experienced judge looking for a fair and clean debate. I expect all competitors to be respectful to their opponents. I am not accustomed to speed.

1. Tech > Truth, but Clarity is King

I reward technical debating—speed is fine, but clarity is non-negotiable. If I can’t flow it, it didn’t happen. Line-by-line refutation is crucial, and I appreciate well-executed weighing mechanisms. If you give me a clean framework and clear extensions, I’ll reward it.

2. Warrants Win Rounds

Evidence matters, but the “why” behind your argument is what gets my ballot. Don’t just extend a card—explain its impact and how it interacts with the round. If you collapse without warranted analysis, you’re giving up ground.

3. Debate is a Game – Play to Win

I’m here to evaluate the round as it’s presented, not intervene. If something is dropped and it’s strategic, capitalize on it. If you’re running something unconventional, sell it. Risk calculus is key—impact framing should be explicit and comparative.

4. Theory & Ks – Run Them Well or Don’t Run Them

I’ll vote on theory and kritiks if they’re executed properly, but frivolous theory is a tough sell. If you’re reading a K, I need a clear link, alternative, and impact framing. Explain why your interpretation is preferable within the debate space.

5. Speaker Points – Style & Strategy

Persuasion matters. If you can blend technical skill with rhetorical finesse, you’ll score higher. Strategic decision-making—like a well-structured final focus—earns points. Being rude, condescending, or overly aggressive will dock you.

Final Thoughts: If you adapt, weigh effectively, and give me a clear path to the ballot, you’re setting yourself up for success. Let’s have a great debate!

Parent judge.

Please talk at moderate speed and make sure your arguments are clear. If I don't understand you, I won't be able to judge you. Be respectful.

I'm a freshman at Harvard . I've done debate since middle school.

What I'm looking for in the round:

1. Collapse on one argument in the back half of the round

2. Frontline the argument you're going for effectively

3. Weigh your argument against your opponent's argument (be super comparative)

4. Defense is an afterthought for me (if you're winning your case and the weighing I will sign my ballot there) but I will evaluate it obviously

Be nice to your opponents and have fun

Below, you will find a basic run-down of my paradigms:

-While I have coached before, most of my experience lies in extemporaneous speaking. As a judge, I do my best to adjust to the norms present within debate, however I am not perfect at this.

-I value clarity of speech. If you are utilizing a highly technical, jargon laden, lightning fast presentation style, I will simply judge you on what I can understand. If you have the stronger argument, but present it in an inaccessible manner, that will hurt your chances. Assume you are communicating your argument to a person who does not have an expert-level knowledge of the topic at hand.

-I will take notes during your round. I typically jot down each sides' major points, along with particularly compelling pieces of evidence, crossfire interactions, or pithy phrases. I do not keep a rigorous flow and try to be present as you speak.

-Regarding your arguments, I expect to see you address the strengths of your own case in addition to the weaknesses of your opponent's case. As a result, you should be flowing in a consistent manner, although you do not need to do so obsessively. To win a debate, you must explain why you are right and why your opponent is wrong.

-I would appreciate it if you share evidence prior to the debate. Halting a round to communicate cards slows down the fluidity of the round. Feel free to add me to your email chain using this email: manglemire@dcsdk12.org

-I am particularly sensitive to cases that frame their arguments within a moral framework. In PF, the discussion of theory is not necessary. However, addressing the practicality of a position and buttressing it with why it is "right" will be noted.

-If you are rude to your opponent, falsify evidence, or assume a morally reprehensible position (e.g., promoting slavery), it will result in an immediate loss. Don't sweat this item. Be a good person and there is no need to worry about this.

PF & Policy Coach @ The Potomac School since 2021,

W&M '24, GMU '22 - 8 years policy debate

I have a masters in marine science and currently work in the field of Arctic policy.

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

FOR HARVARD 2025

PREFLOW, SET UP EMAIL CHAINS, FIGURE OUT WIFI WHILE YOU ARE WAITING FOR THE ROOM TO OPEN UP!!!!!!

Universal hot (lukewarm) takes

--Tech > Truth. Idk who the truth is so I’ll evaluate everything in the round at face value.

--I have no issues with speed, but I do have a problem with clarity. Some of you aren’t speaking fast; you're just noise. I’ll clear twice before I stop flowing (and will make it very obvious I have stopped flowing).

--As much as I try to remember to, I almost never time prep/speeches. If you ask me how much prep you have 8/10 times I will not know. Pls time each other.

--I ask to be on the email chain, so I have access to read evidence if I am instructed to do so. I do not flow off of speech docs.

--Impact calculus is always important. If I am buying your opponent’s arguments… give me a reason to vote for you anyway.

--Evidence!!!!! Warrants!!!! Evidence standards are in the trash can. (Most of the time) your evidence should have more than one sentence highlighted as a ‘warrant’. So many of you neglect to do any real warranted analysis. Examples ≠ warrants. Examples can be helpful, but ultimately do not rise to the level of warranted analysis you should be doing in debate. The team doing better evidence comparison is usually the team who gets my ballot. If the way you produce evidence is not in line with the NSDA Evidence Standards…. I may not be the judge for you. See PF header for specifics.

--If something happens in cross it needs to be in the next speech… I will never vote off of anything that happens in cross unless it also makes its way into a speech.

PF

--I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. I understand that not all teams are coached in the same way. However, if I am in the back of the round… you will benefit from sending cases/rebuttal docs BEFORE each speech.If you neglect to do this & you waste my time trying to hunt down a piece of evidence mid round… at the very least your speaker points will suffer because of it. Additionally, I have yet to see a round that has warranted a team asking for a marked document… even more egregiously you should never be asking your opponents to write or send out analytics… ur sooo self reporting… I know you aren’t flowing.

--Arguments need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus.However, tagline extensions of arguments do not fly. It is helpful when you reference author names of certain piece of evidence, but you need to do be doing warranted and comparative analysis in addition to naming your evidence. Defense is not sticky.

--Theory: I hate judging theory rounds. I’d rather watch grass grow. With that being said… I do think at national circuit tournaments teams should probably be disclosing. Take that as you will… I have no problem using speaker points to express my displeasure having to judge a disclosure round.

--Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. You can read my policy paradigm for more specifics. However, the biggest things to consider are 1. I am more inclined to evaluate Ks that either indict the aff or link to the topic. So many PF Ks are equivalent to links of omission… I am less inclined to vote for those. 2. I am also more inclined to vote for aff teams that actually try to engage the K.

--Tricks: Do not do this to me I will be sooooo upset.

Policy

I no longer judge many policy rounds. Potomac has one novice policy team that I work with. If I am in the back of any policy round, presume that I know little about the topic broadly. Be as specific as possible in your explanation of arguments (especially when it comes to T, CP mechs, etc).

The longer version of my paradigm is below but, 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 slightlybetter. 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 goes a longway. 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.

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 probably do something to 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 vein 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.

I am a parent judge. I enjoy judging and think you all do an excellent job. It is hard to select winners. Have fun.

Sign posting really helps.

I'm a parent judge in my fourth year of judging debate. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener of the topic.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's contentions. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please be civil and respectful to all parties.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made by your opponents), and why your side should prevail.

I look forward to hearing you.

I have some experience with both team policy and public forum debate. I have judged public forum using Tabroom at the Boston Latin tournament 2X and also at the NCFL and Harvard national competitions. I have also judged both public forum and team policy using paper ballots a few times.

As a judge, I expect teams to be professional and courteous to one another. I will be flowing the debates and watching to make sure contentions are countered and will follow those arguments through to the end of the debate. A logical argument is most important, but eye contact and persuasiveness is also a plus.

I fully understand that each team must prepare each side of the argument, and argue for things they may not agree with, and I will make every effort to judge based on the quality of each team's arguments, regardless of my opinions on the topic. If I notice a hole in one team's argument, I will watch to see if the other team calls them on it, if the other team does not point out a flawed argument, the fact that I noticed it is not important to the scores.

I can follow fairly quickly, for example I typically speed Youtube videos to 1.5X speed, however, if you speak so quickly I can not follow your arguments, I can not give you credit for them.

Hi,

I am a parent(lay) judge,

• If you can please share cases so I can follow along I would appreciate it (veezee210@gmail.com)

• Don’t speak fast and please explain your cases thoroughly

• Limit complicated Jargon: Explain what the words mean

• I will judge based on

• Confidence and speaker skills

• Final focus

• Respectfulness

Have Fun!

Hi! My name is Bobby, and I am a parent, lay judge from St Mark's School. I am not a native English speaker. This is the first debate tournament that I am judging. If I am judging your round, please:

1. Keep your speed below 150wpm, ideally at around 100wpm.
2. Don't run any obscure arguments.
3. Keep the debate civilized and don't be rude in crossfire.
4. Time yourself! I won't speak in the round unless unexpected issue happens. I expect the debaters to be able to finish the round without my help/interruptions.

I will try my best to be impartial, and good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me during the round.

Note: I will give speaker points between 28~30.

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

BACKGROUND: I am a senior at Harvard College who competed in PF for Regis High School with moderate success.

PARADIGM: Be kind, be honest, be clear, tell me a story that makes sense, and engage your opponents' arguments with nuance. Intelligent analysis distinguishes good teams from great ones. Don't make outlandish arguments or misrepresent your evidence. I will almost certainly not vote for progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc.). If you have to speak really fast, you're probably missing the point, but I can flow speed short of spreading.

LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~

PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.

Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.

I want to see the best round that you’ve gotat your ability level.

Novice Teams:

• Don’t stress! I love to see young debaters trying their best.
• Stick to the basics- Present your case well. Flow effectively. Try to address all your opponents’ points. Practice speaking with enthusiasm and confidence.
• CLASH! Listen to what your opponents are saying. Adjust your arguments so you’re talking specificallyabout the way your opponent presented their case. The more you can respond to what was said in this specific round as opposed to parroting general counter-arguments you’ve prepared, the better a debater you will be!
• Only spread if you really can do it.
• Use each round to practice skills you’ve been working on recently. Especially if you’ve gotten consistent feedback from judges or coaches, use this round to apply that feedback and see if you can perform better than the last round.
• Be respectful.
• Have fun.

Varsity/Experienced Teams:

• Show me what you got.
• Pick your strat based on the team you’re up against.
• When picking which case you run: I have no preference between truthful verses creative.
• If you’ve got a crazy case to run that will crush the meta, do it! Just make sure you have enough evidence and are familiar enough with your argument that you can pivot deftly to tough questions in cross or intense scrutiny as you collapse.
• If it’s a topic that simply insists on the meta, use it. I don’t care if we’ve seen the arguments a million times during a tournament if they’re effective. Argue it well and, if you’re bored, do it with flare.
• If you can spread and that will make the debate better, do it. If spreading makes you unintelligible, don’t. Emphasis
• While I like to see an attempt to line-by-line every point that’s brought up in case, as the round continues, I prefer meaningful clash on issues that grow relevant in the round OVER an unending fight on the veracity of each and every sub-point.
• Therefore: collapse. (If your opponent leaves things in your speeches untouched, go ahead and extend them. In this case, I still think it’s nice if you highlight a key issue that emerges in the round for me to vote on. But I if you get to keep all your offense, go for a blowout.)
• I love sign-posting. Be clear about your story of the round. It saves me thinking time if you spell out for me who you think has solvency, uniqueness, more standing arguments, etc. But also explainwhy.
• K and Theory only if it’s super awesome. I hold a higher standard for K then regular adjudication.
• No disclosure theory. That’s my only hard pass.
• In general, I will try to judge the round on the terms YOU set.
• Finally, I learn from every round. I reiterate, show me what you got. YOU teach US how awesome and varied debate can be.

Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

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

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

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

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

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

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

Hello. I am a parent judge. When judging a debate, to me a good case is one where arguments are presented logically and succinctly, supported by strong evidence, critical analysis, and good structure. I find that longer sentences and paragraphs dilute your points and lead to loss of focus, so oftentimes "less is more". Good presentations skills are also important for the overall strength of your case, so talking too fast to fit in within the allotted time is more of a drawback. I really care that competitors are respectful to each other and I don't like to see[subtle] comments, gestures or facial expressions as a reaction to arguments that the opposing team is presenting. Good luck!

I coach policy and public forum debate as well as most speech events in American and Chinese circuits. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and just as many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

14. Have fun XD

Hey, my name is Mikaila (she/her), I'm a senior at the Waring School, and I've been debating for 3 years in PF.

I will come into the round with the expectation that you will abide by and follow NSDA code of honor -humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service- and if you don't, your speaker points will probably be effected, and I may consider this in my RFD.

This means: don't be disrespectful to your opponents during prep, or their speeches, don't laugh at something you hear your opponent say, and definitely don't mansplain.

Other things to be aware of:

Weighing is a big part of how I vote, you should do this for me, tell me why you win, but don't say stuff like "Judge you NEED to vote pro for x reason", saying I "should" vote for you is fine, but "need to" is annoying.I also vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning. Please remember to carry through your reasoning as well as your impacts to the later speeches in the round. I will not consider new evidence that is brought up in grand cross or final focus.

Don't spread, I can try to understand you, but it won't be pretty, and I won't catch everything, if you want a win speak clearly.

Don't run K's or Theory, this isn't policy, PF should be substance based, and not corrupted by these strategies.

I believe that a good debate has both tech and truth. Debate is about a balance of the two. A strong debater can effectively use rhetoric, evidence, and strategy in a round.

Off time roadmaps are appreciated, and if you're not going to give one, please signpost before saying something so I know what you're responding to.

Try to make eye contact with me while speaking in order to be compelling, if you can don't just read straight off your computer.

I don't need to be added to evidence exchanges, unless it comes down to a point of contention (pun intended) in a round. That being said, my email is mikailab@waringschool.org.

When you call a card, any time you spend looking at it comes out of your own prep, your opponent has one minute to come up with the card, or I will consider that they do not have evidence to support.

Remember that debate is about having fun, and learning, and that everyone there is literally just a bunch teenagers dressed up in suits on a Saturday, and that in the grand scheme of things, your High School debate record doesn't matter that much, so don't stress :)

Hello! This is my first-year judging debate events. Please adapt to me as a newer judge, at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say and take notes. Please speak slowly and explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains - things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me. If you see me lift up my pen or not write anything for a while, it means you are going too fast for me. Slow down and speak at an understandable pace. I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone - don't yell - and be as persuasive as you can.

I consider myself alayjudge, but I will attempt to flow during the round. Here are a few of my preferences to keep in mind:

• Please be clear and concise. You should be explaining your arguments (and context) in-depth. Give me a clear link that I can follow. As always, I need to hear good warranting in case AND hear it be extended.

• Please no spreading.If I don’t understand an argument, I’m not voting for it.

• Organization matters, please signpost.

• Do comparative weighing. Give me something tangible to vote for. Tell me what is most important, and why I should be valuing this over everything else.

• Finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful. Be a good, kind person. You can be skilled and assertive without being rude.

• Add me to the email chain, dmdawson413@gmail.com

Best of luck everyone!

I am a former high school social studies teacher, elementary principal, and now work in the district office with assessment and research. In my time as a teacher, I coached Academic Decathlon and Speech and Debate, as well as soccer. This will be my first foray into judging in many years.

Judging Philosophy: I am new to judging, but believe my approach will be to focus on logical arguments and evidence. How you present your evidence and lay out a rational, logical argument will persuade me far better than trying to talk around the objective.

Core Values: I value creativity, critical thinking, and character.

Criteria for Evaluation: I believe that my judgement of your performance will rest on how well you develop an argument and the strength of the evidence that supports it. The development of that argument will be apparent through your delivery and organization. A style that seeks to be understood will score more points with me than a style that seeks to convince, but also keeps me engaged and not bored.

Balance of Objectivity and Subjectivity: I am a rule follower and expect to see those rules followed. While some things can be evaluated subjectively, I prefer to be more objective.

Feedback: I tend to focus on areas to refine, however also like to ensure that I've identified areas of reinforcement. Being new to judging, I may tend to be more general in my feedback versus targeted.

I believe in evaluating each competitor based on the quality of their presentation and trying to evaluate everyone according to the same criteria. I will endeavor to be fair and objective in my evaluation.

If you debate in full metrical verse, I will give 30 speaker points. I'm not talking about rhyming, I'm not talking "poetry" or "metaphor," I want meter. Iambic pentameter, limericks, dactyllic hexameter. I want beat, accent, rhythm, I want to feel the meter with each word.

Also I like food but that's whatever I'll eat either way.

4th-year coach in AZ circuit (Congress, PF)

VPF Paradigm

I require email chains to be set up pre-round. Add me:tomelibil@gmail.com. Cards must be cut and tagged properly.

90% flow 10% lay - 2 distinctions:

1) Your flow will be cleaner than mine. I might miss the extension of a warrant or part of a piece of evidence so I *generally* evaluate defense on case and drops/turns on opponents case as stickier than an average nat circ tech judge would.

2) That means your defense and offense has to actually convince me. Having a response on something =/= the argument being dropped in all cases. Teams still SHOULD explain why a bad response is bad.

- Locals: pls test your tech and theory cases on me, they’re more interesting (limited experience with theory though)

- Speed is fine but no spreading

- Cleanness > everything.
- Extend full (abbreviated) link chains and responses through final

JV/Novice PF & BQ Paradigm

50% flow, 50% lay. Sitting/standing doesn't matter. Keep the off-time road map short. A passionate debate is ok, but genuine anger/insults aren't. Time your speeches and prep. Please don't state your name and the topic at the start of every speech. Generally, I evaluate novices more Truth>Tech, except for late out rounds. If you notice anything that questions the round's fairness, alert me at the soonest reasonable moment. If anything immediately threatens your safety, alert me immediately. I typically disclose.

Congress Paradigm

Debaters: I judge Congress equally as both a speech and debate event. Uniqueness is hugely important, and the time in the round you speak must match the speech you give. I will drop you for breaking cycle the 2nd time if it could have been reasonably avoided.

I evaluate all aspects of presentation - consistency and strategic variability in volume, emotion, speed, pausing, emphasizing, hand signals, and enunciation. I am not a stickler for fluency as much as most others are. I unapologetically respect late-round speeches more than early rounds, and am especially picky about sponsorships.

POs: I evaluate 3 things: accuracy, speed, and round presence. Follow standard proceedings and control the chamber while being respectful. Cut off people effectively and on time without fluff. If you're going to add personality, use it sparingly & tastefully.

Harvard '27, Government and Computer Science

4 years PF @ Phillipsburg, 2 years WSD @ NJ

If you have any questions on what is on your ballot, advice, or are adding me to an email chain: jblack0898@gmail.com.

FOR VARSITY: Speech doc for case is required, if your rebuttal is card-heavy then rebuttal too.

Substance:

• 98.9% of the time, if you are evenly matched with your opponents, whichever team weighs better will win my ballot. With this being said, please weigh for the love of God

• Tech > Truth

• If you’re going to spread, send a speech doc. With this being said, you will make my day marginally worse if you spread. Also, if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it. I will flow from a doc as long as you're comprehensible. SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS

• I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. Update: I'll call for evidence if two teams seem to fundamentally disagree about what the evidence actually says.

• I won’t flow cross, but everything said is binding (unless it's obvious you misspoke). If it's important, mention it in a speech.

• If it’s not in Summary, it’s not in Final

• Going for everything is not a strategic way to win my ballot

• Final should write my ballot for me

• If an overview non-uniques both cases and no warrant is read on which side to presume, I'm ignoring the overview

• Feel free to post-round me, but just know, even if you convince me in post-round, you lost because you were unable to make that clear in round

• A claim without a warrant is not an argument. The burden is on you to give me a warrant, not the other team to call it out.

Prog:

• Theory is fine

• Ks are poorly ran in PF but I’ll evaluate them

• Ask me in round about anything else

Other random stuff:

• Your speaks will represent your strategic decisions in the round and not your actual speaking ability. Read smart stuff, get good speaks.

• Generally, I give pretty high speaks.

• I rarely flow author names so just give me a short synopsis as you extend

• Finally, following PF Finals at Harvard, so I can feel comfortable giving a Catherine Liu-esque decision next time: I won't evaluate unweighed competing links to the same impact. Nothing was worse than sitting there for five minutes sifting through evidence trying to conjure up reasons why whatever link was stronger to climate change. In fact, I'll even steal her exact wording:

"Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed."

I doubt this will come up often again, but it helps me sleep better at night.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

I only need to be on the chain if you are spreading

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 17 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 9 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

*Note: Because PF has such limited time, I am not huge on theory in PF especially if both speakers are not especially used to them. Please only run theory if it is especially egregious, even though I like theory debate. There is a big difference between when a debate has 7-8 minutes of speaking time vs 3-4*

Disclosure theory: PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU. IN PF IT IS AN AUTO LOSS TO READ DISCLOSURE THEORY I AM VERY SERIOUS. I WILL JUST NOT FLOW. PLEASE READ THIS. Either I'm over hearing this in LD and it's just done so badly in PF that it hurts my heart.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though! Reasonability is a good answer. Prefer competing interp.

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

PF: I get you want to be cool, but please make sure you know your opponent would be okay with it. Email or contact them ahead of time. As I said above with theory, it makes me really uncomfortable to judge rounds where only one side is familiar with this type of debate. I am happy to run k rounds so long as everyone is cool with it.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order for LD:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

PF:

Policy/LARP

Traditional

K

Theory

NO TRICKS WHATSOEVER ITS AN AUTO LOSS

I know this makes me sound kind of intense, I promise I'm not. I really love debate, but I also don't like messy debate that feels super one sided and could be avoided if we check in and make sure everyone is cool with the kind of debate we are having. In PF, if you can't get ahold of your opponent I prefer if you stick to lay and presume they are a lay team. In LD go to town

I'm a first year who values logic and has never done debate before. I won't vote for an argument that isn't properly explained or that is spoken too fast for me to follow.

If you use a latin word (or a word derived from Latin) in your constructive, I will be happy (I pay attention to you when I am happy). Do with that what you will.

Please ask in-round if interested, happy to answer any questions! :)

Send speech docs: brashearjamie@gmail.com

I am a fairly experienced lay judge who can follow spreading.

If you believe the other side has dropped a contention, I encourage you to point that out.

Be respectful. One note of caution -- I am familiar with NSDA rules. Please be certain of the rules before you decide to cite the rules as an objection.

If there is a problem with the other side’s evidence, point it out. I will examine the evidence in those cases.

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 27 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over.

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

• Big Questions

I view judging BQ very similarly to judging traditional LD (my LD prefs are right below).

* No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

* Most of my experience judging BQ was in 2020 when Nationals was online. I approach BQ like a slightly less flow-centric traditional LD round and the person who most clearly frames and resolves the "big question" will win the round, regardless of the flow. Each debater should aim to do that. I like this event and the current topic. I wish BQ Debate were more mainstream outside of NSDA Districts/Nationals.

• LD Prefs

• In order of preference:

  1.) Trad 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If the fw clash is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else or find a new angle on fw. I'm comfortable voting on framework if you tell me why I should and win the argument.

Slow down a bit on card tags, warrants, weighing , and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Do not drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

SIGNPOSTING is very important in the 1AR + all rebuttal speeches!

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them, if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 5 times and judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of tournament rules, NSDA rules, or debate norms that are universally accepted in the community and important in the round. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind a bit of speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues which often go hand-in-hand. My preferred speed is under 200 wpm.

PLEASE WEIGH (Framework, Probability, Magnitude, Scope, Strength of link, Reversibility, Timeframe, SV, etc.) Make your weighing analysis as objective and clear as possible. In a close round, this usually makes a difference on my ballot.

* PF Prefs

Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. The spirit of PF necessitates a somewhat less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than either policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This lacks in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 23+ years and there are going to be different ways to gain in-round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is arrogant and wrong. I've witnessed well over 1,000 rounds and have witnessed poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward. I like weighing and meta-weighing.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + all the judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. My preferred speed is around 170-180 wpm in case and 180-190 wpm in rebuttal. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I find the majority of theory rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. I have a high bar voting on disclosure theory in PF, so if you do it--make sure to do it very well!

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

On Politics: I enjoy politics-based arguments. I'm well-read and read the news daily from a variety of sources, both US-based and international. If you advance an argument that is definitely wrong, or very probably wrong in terms of truth, I will have a higher bar on your winning the argument on the flow, but it is still possible depending on what your opponent does in response.

I enjoy arguments with international impacts and links more than most judges. I've lived in China and South Korea, so I have above-average knowledge on Asia-Pacific rim security issues from reading up on them for the last 15 yrs. and living there. That said, I also enjoy learning new things that are outside my areas of expertise, so feel free to educate me on regional or international issues from anywhere, especially concerning the Septober resolution.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- all 3 are part of effective argumentation

PLEASE WEIGH (Probability, Magnitude, Scope, Strength of link, Reversibility, Timeframe, SV, FW, etc.)

If there's a clash of weighing, I like meta-weighing.

* Congress Prefs

I tend to rank P.O.s higher than many other judges. It's an important role. If you're an experienced congressional debater, you won't be hurt in ranking or points running for P.O. in a session I'm judging.

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Doc bots. It is painfully obvious when debaters have never read their case out loud before, did not write their case, or do not understand the arguments they're making in case or rebuttal.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters from the 90s or early 2000s), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )

Academic Interests:

I teach AP World History, AP European History & AP Economics on the high school level. I teach various business courses at the university level.

Topics in which I have some specialized knowledge include: world religion, modern history, organizational culture, business management, video games (esp. 90s & early 2000s era fighting games) and current events.

Good luck to all!

Read till the end all my lovely competitors

Hello! I am Chelsea Briggs the mascot of my school's debate team, due to my many wins! My good luck charm is the color purple, all my suits that I wore in my day as a competitor were all lilac or lavender hues.

Judging rules:

1. No traditional rounds, you will get dropped
2. Tech> truth
3. You can only receive 30 speaker points if you speak at a pace I can't understand
4. Nothing topical, the topic is just for decoration
5. don't sneeze, cough, or breathe heavily. I have a severe phobia of all of these things and will break out in hives if my ears hear these noises.
6. Purple hair color = 30 speaks

( jk I'm a high school coach, stay trad, please do not "spread" too fast during rounds. I would like to hear your arguments clearly and precisely.)

Former debater (hs policy and college NDT/CEDA...decades ago) and current parent of a PF debater.

I flow. Good with normative jargon. I care about the line-by-line. Number your arguments and signpost--I like a clean flow. I can handle spreading, I'll call "clear" if unable to keep up. If a shell or the arg is a tad squirrelly be deliberate so I don't miss warrants. If this is a fast-paced, high-stakes Varsity round...I’m not going to be up on the latest literature--so Ks will carry a risk of losing me, and none of us want that! Fancy srategies and theory are cool but slow down the explanations—connect dots for me. If it isn’t my making sense, my face will tell you. Please make it make sense :) I'm going to be best judging a normative round--but I'll listen to any argument you want to make.

Little things I’ve noticed about my preferences in PF (but like any tech judge, I work hard to evaluate the debate based on the round not my preferences)

• I’m a fan of case disclosure--in the hopes it will create a little more ev rigor in PF. My biggest surprise in PF is how little ev is read and scrutinized...but ultimately case disclosure is up to the debaters, not me!

• Housekeeping to cut down on time for ev exchange: start ev chain before round; Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting.

• If you offer a framework in your case, lean into it…, meaning it should match your impact/weighing or else it becomes a tad tedious for me.

• I would love to hear more comparative link weighing in PF.

A little FAQ for first/second years:

• I don’t flow Cx. It is binding. But you need to bring it up in your speech to get it in flow. And you don’t have to face me during CX, you can face your opposing team.
• Collapsing is good, if second final focus brings up new arguments, don’t panic. I’m not flowing it.
• Frontline in the second rebuttal. If you don’t, I’ll most likely buy the other team’s argument that it’s conceded.
• Good warranting and implications raises speaks.
• 
  I'm pretty laid back...have fun...sit, stand, go barefoot I don't care. Be clear before you'e clever, but be clever.Bring your best strategy, argue it well and have fun. And you do you...I'll flex as best I can!

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

First Time

I am a lay judge .
Do NOT add me to your email chain!

Do not rely on me for timing!

Looking for confidence and composure. I value clarity, enthusiasm, and delivery.

Please talk slowly and no spreading

Don't include any complex strategies. Please signpost. This is my first time as a judge so please be patient and helpful!

Please tell me your school, your name, and who is first and second speaker when you first see me!

Good luck :)

debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld

few must-know notes:

1. add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

1. I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
2. extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
3. I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
4. default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
5. uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
6. im fluent in progressive argumentation. update 08/17/2024: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.

things that get you really good speaks

1. analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
2. keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
3. judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
4. keeping the round running on time.

if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.

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 most likely not flow off the doc.

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

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- 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.

----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:

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

29-30: 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/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

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

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

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

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

Last Update: Post Harvard Paradigm

Hi! My name is Micah (They/Them - Put me on the email chain - Micahb@waringschool.org

---
I did PF for 4 years (a year on the national circuit) and have been doing LD since this year. I have 3 Bids to the TOC this year if you care abt that....My wiki this year:https://opencaselist.com/hsld24/Waring/MiBy. No racism, antiblackness, sexism, misogynoir, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. this should go without saying. I will stop the round if it happens.

If no one's speaking prep is running - card exchange should occur via email wherein all cards read in a given speech are sent before that speech begins. Please minimize dead time in rounds. I hate when rounds that should take 45 minutes end up ending an hour and 10 minutes later. Flow clarification questions are very much ok and in fact encouraged for the sake of maximizing accessibility, but these need to occur either during cross-examination or flex prep. Time ends when the timer goes off.

---

Commentary on the debate community :

I don't think debate is necessarily a game. I think it can be a game and for many people it certainly is, but at the same time for many people debate is a site for activism, a survival strategy, a home-place, and a research activity. It's important that we as a community acknowledge what debate is to different people rather than being dogmatically stuck in our understanding of what debate is or should be. I generally think that the judge should be either an educator, a policymaker, or something somewhere in between. That's not to say I will automatically not consider judge as an adjudicator, just that I believe that judge as an adjudicator is contrary to the pedagogical goals of debate. I am becoming increasingly concerned with the state of our collective debate community. I think the deepening divide between UDL's, local circuits, and the national circuit has become troublingly wide. Even more so, the divide between PF/congress, vs LD/Policy is extremely large. I don't necessarily believe this is simply because we as a community have people who prefer lay debate and policy debate. As someone who did PF for four years it is rather clear to me that a lot of this divide really divides us into which side of the clash of civilizations you fall on. In full transparency, I'm very ideologically invested in critical debate, performance debate, and debate practices that are more inclusive to marginalized groups within the community. That isn't to say everyone who wants strictly plan-focused debate does not believe in this, not in the slightest. I do however think that the urge to be in a debate format that does not have critical arguments is often the urge to not have to confront structural inequities in debate and in the real world. I understand the sentiment that kritiks are not accessible, I really do. But as a small school debater (the only debater from my school) kritiks are really the opposite. They lessen disparities between big and small schools because they have a lower prep burden, not to mention make debate more inclusive. Also, I highly encourage you to read up on the history of college policy debate. I'd recommend watching some old NDT documentaries, in particular the CSTV 2004 NDT documentary which documents the Lousville Project quite well. Linked here: https://youtu.be/Xq_F_hPeSkM?si=uChobSpxCv3v6ZKR . You may find Scott Harris' ballot in the finals of the 2013 NDT very interesting, - https://debateus.org/the-best-ballot-ever-scott-harris-ndt-2013-final-round-ballot/ +.5 speaker points if you read this and can tell me what the Lousville Project was. I'm raising the standards for this btw,

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm:

---

Novice Rounds -

I'm good for any strategy that you want to run. I'd prefer to not judge a purely traditional round, but with that said I'd rather judge a traditional round than a round where circuit arguments are executed poorly and it's clear that the debaters don't understand their own arguments. (Unless you tell me before the round that you're trying out circuit arguments in which case I'll be very happy and help you after round!!!) I often find that in these rounds the Framework clash (Value/Criterion) is the least developed part of the round, which makes it very hard to resolve arguments. Clash in these debates is not optional, you need to weigh between different value criterions and tell me how to evaluate offense. In the early season I'm forgiving with this, but seeing as it's almost the post-season I think debaters should be able to do this by now. Everything below applies to you but please know that I'll be more lenient than in varsity rounds. Do what you do best and have fun! But please feel free to experiment with circuit arguments when I'm in the back. Even if you've never read a K before, now is the time! I'll give you extensive feedback and perhaps send you some prep after the round. Novice is a learning experience so now is the best time for you to have those rounds where you do terribly but learn a lot.

Traditional Rounds -

I'm comfortable evaluating traditional debate (I Don't want to though). In these rounds, I think I tend to give lower speaker points than in other types of rounds, solely because they often culminate in 5 rounds of the same Structural Violence vs Util debates with the same 4 arguments. Please solve this by being creative!!! Just because we're in a traditional round does not mean evidence ethics rules go out the window. Massachusetts isn't living in the dark ages and it's about time that the MSDL complied with the evidence norms used by the rest of the country (and the NSDA rulebook). Evidence must be cut in card form, with the year published, the author's last name, and a URL if it's an article. Absolutely no paraphrasing or clipping. I will drop you if you clip, and I'll be very receptive to an evidence ethics challenge in other instances. Please have V/C clash, please weigh between impacts, and please have an entertaining CX. I'm not somebody's random parent, you don't need to call me "your honor" or act like a diplomat during the round - I'm like a year or two older than you lol. Arguments need to be extended, which means the full link chain is extended in the 1ar/2ar and the 2nr. I will vote on presumption if arguments aren't extended. Seriously, I'm very strict with this because it would be interventionist for me to vote on something that wasn't fully extended in the final speeches. Also, as an aside, if you're a circuit debater hitting a traditional debate you don't need to read traditional arguments, but you should keep the round educational. Avoid spreading in rebuttals and please explain arguments.

Policy Rounds -

This is the area of debate that I have the least experience and understanding of. You probably don't want me in the back of the round for a dense counterplan competition debate, or an intrinsicness test round, nor do you want me to judge a round that comes down to a funky process counterplan. That being said, as I encounter policy rounds more I am becoming more comfortable evaluating it. I am a huge fan of unique plan texts, advantages, disads, and yes even strange process counterplans. I know it's definitely losing, but if you read Friday Night Lights and win on it your speaker points will be very happy and so will I. Be strategic in your NC construction please, a bunch of disads and counter plans that create 7 off-case positions with little cohesion is an unfortunate situation. I generally think that the negative should get unlimited conditionality, but I'll evaluate condo like any other argument, and I think seeing a condo 2AR given would be really fun. (See that one condo 2AR from Mich 7 Week somewhere on YouTube...)

Clash Rounds (Policy v K) -

This is where I'm most comfortable and this is probably my favorite type of round. I evaluate framework first as a yes or no question, I won't arbitrarily intervene and decide on some strange combination of a middle-ground framework by parsing through the flow for hours on end. Usually, the team that wins framework wins these rounds which means framework should be a substantial part of the 2NR and the 1AR. Aff teams that start the framework debate early will have an easier time getting my ballot. To (badly) paraphrase Sebastian Cho, I lean neg in these rounds in spirit, but due to poor negative execution, I lean Aff in practice. K teams, we cannot be dropping the fairness paradox in the big 25. Links should be specific to the aff, links to the status quo make me sad (and are losing) and links that amount to "state bad" or "capitalism bad" are very unstrategic. If you're the Kritikal team in these debates you will win by first winning the framework, and then making a strategic decision about either going all in on the alternative or kicking the alt and going for you link you lose with multiple links in the 2NR. I won't vote on a permutation if the alt is kicked... this should be a mainstream take but somehow it isn't. No judge kicks, you're the debater make a strategic decision, please. If you're aff in these rounds you win by first winning framework, and then either going for a permutation or going for extinction outweighs/case outweighs. I think the aff win rate in these rounds would be over 60 percent if y'all ditched the preempts and instead read a soft-left advantage. A lovely example of this is Kansas reading Woody Biomass on this year's college topic. The permutation is also super underrated. Yall be out here reading a 15-second perm in the 1ar and then blowing it up to a whole 30 seconds in the 2ar. A permutation that is well explained (read: you tell me how it functions, what it looks like, and why I should prefer it to the alt alone) is very convincing. That being said, I genuinely do not understand how the perm functions in an afropessimism round, in a round where the alt is reject the aff/refusal, etc. I'm very familiar with the following literature bases: Afropessimism(Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Hartman*), Spillers, Maroonage, Wake Work, Gumbs, Agathangelou, and other scholars of Fanon, Black fem. I'm very familiar with various flavors of Marxism outside of debate but I'm not well versed on them within debate. I'm somewhat familiar with the following literature bases: Critiques of IR, queer studies(both pessimistic and not), and other not already mentioned antiblackness arguments(Tiffany King, Moten and Harney, etc). I'm good for anything kritikal, but if it's postmodernist please walk me through it and give W judge instruction. I sadly haven't gotten around to reading Lacan.

T-FW Rounds -

I do not doubt that you're backfiles are very good, but I also really don't want to judge a blocks v blocks showdown. If you insist on doccing these rounds please for the love of god get off the doc/adapt the doc to the round. I'm better for the clash/skills 2NR than the fairness 2NR because I don't know how to quantify fairness and I think it's an internal link not an impact. If you're affirming in these rounds you should opt for the impact turn strategy over the counterinterp unless you're aff is fringe resolutional and the CI resolves the majority of their offense. I've thought about these rounds the second most (after clash rounds). I find that sometimes when the aff gets my ballot in these rounds they've done the worse debating on the line by line and the negative is winning a lot of unmitigated offense, but the aff is winning a devastating impact turn like DSRB that uplayers negative offense. If you're negating and you anticipate a 2AR on DSRB or some other impact turn you should devote a considerable amount of time to the TVA debate, and explain why winning the TVA means your model of topicality is not violent/resolves aff offense on the impact turn (which btw it does). I probably lean aff in these rounds, but we've gone from an 80 percent aff bias in September to now a 55 percent aff bias. I expect this to flip as I judge more high-quality T rounds simply because of poor aff execution. The art of T debating has sadly been lost to HSLD.

KvK Rounds -

Love these rounds. I'm very good for this interaction and I've thought a great deal about how different literature bases interact outside the context of debate rounds. Please don't initiate these rounds if you don't read, 9 times out of 10 the person who is better read will win these rounds because they can articulate the perm debate best. Please have a debate that is authentic to the academic discourse being had, and be creative. The cap k is boring, let's put down Escalante pls. I'm unfortunately probably quite subconsciously biased towards afropessimism in these rounds if the pess team wins ontology because from the thinking I've done as a pess debater, I think it should be an absolute crush and ontology is probably a NIB. That being said, this bias will certainly change as I judge more of these rounds. Well-executed Pess v Setcol rounds, and Performance v Pess rounds will result in very high speaker points because I want to watch these interactions.

Phil v Policy Rounds -

Super unfamiliar with Phil. I genuinely have no idea how half of these Phil tricks function. This will almost definitely change by my mid-March update as I devote considerable time to learning Phil in preparation for the TOC, but for now, I'm probably not great at evaluating these rounds and may give incoherent decisions if put in the back of a dense one. I think induction fails is pretty devastating for policy teams, so like don't lose that. I've been watching a lot of Sterling rounds so I understand West Coast Phil pretty well...

Phil v K Rounds -

I'm sorry if you have me in the back and are about to have one of these. For now, Phil teams will likely have to win 150% to get my ballot simply because I genuinely have no idea how to evaluate these rounds. I do think though, that K teams probably should lose this interaction more than they win, so given good execution I'm biased towards induction fails and thus Phil.

Phil v Phil Rounds -

Please dear god no. I've never thought about this nor seen or judged one. Judge instruction 100x, please.

Theory Rounds -

I'm pretty ok for these rounds. I'm not a theory debater but I've had a decent amount of rounds against and on theory to evaluate it well. See my thoughts on condo from the policy section. Frivolous theory shells don't have a higher bar in my book, yall should just be able to beat it back easier if it's friv. I default to no RVI's and Competing Interps but these can be changed by, you know, debating. Kritikal theory shells make a lot of intuitive sense to me especially when combined with winning ontology from the K page.

Trix Rounds -
Yes K tricks, yes to (some) phil trix. (read: induction fails, indexicals, etc). No to spikes like the resolved apriori. I would really love to say that I evaluate trix but I don't want to get preffed by trix debaters so I won't evaluate them. Sorry not sorry.
---

I am a second year parliamentary debater at Harvard with a majority of my experience being from Worlds Schools and British Parlimentary

1. I prefer warranting > evidence.

2. Complete Arguments- I need realistic and complete linkage in order to reward arguments highly.

3. No spreading- I come from Worlds Schools/BP/APDA background and will not be able to flow all your arguments if you spread.

4. Weigh your arguments & give clear judge instruction. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important. Moreover, I prefer collapsing strategically and will reward prioritisation.

5. Avoid Theory. I am not familiar with complex theory and I also dislike the unnecessary use of theory.

6. Quick Decisions- I often make fast decisions, this is not personnel. Rounds can be of a high quality, close and yet still clear.

Public Forum Parent Judge Paradigm

GENERAL

Pacing: Do not spread. Speak at a conversational pace. If I can’t follow, it will negatively affect my decision.

Topicality: Don’t waste my time with non-topical arguments. The first team to present a non-topical case will receive an automatic 26-30 loss. If a multiple judge panel, I will not hold it against the non-offending team if they jump into the sewer of non-topical cases.

Off-Time Roadmaps: I appreciate brief off-time roadmaps (e.g. “my case, their case, weighing”).

Signposting: Clearly signpost your arguments throughout your speech.

Flowing: I flow the round and base my decision solely on the flow.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument raised in crossfire, please bring it up in a formal speech.

ROUND EVALUATION

Political Views: I have no liberal or mainstream bias. I will evaluate well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments regardless of political perspective (this includes pro-Trump, pro-Republican, or anti-US positions).

Dropped Arguments and Links: I only evaluate arguments that have been consistently carried through every round.

Clear Turns: Clearly communicate any turns you’re making. Avoid using jargon that may be unclear to me.

Impact Framing: I prioritize quantifiable and probable impacts over vague or nebulous ones. For example, if you argue that the US will gain global respect from affirming or negating a policy, you must explain why increased respect benefits the greater good from a policy perspective.

Weighing: I evaluate both the magnitude and the probability of impacts. You might have a higher-magnitude impact (e.g., extinction), but you can still lose the round if your mitigated link chain does not sufficiently support the probability of that impact occurring (e.g., nuclear war).

Final Focus: A well-reasoned Final Focus should essentially serve as your written ballot. Speak to me as if we are alone in the room. Your speech should evaluate all arguments carried through to the Final Focus and clearly explain why I should prefer your side by weighing the arguments. Avoid a frantic recitation of bullet points.

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with excellent organization to their presentations.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not: "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden. Let me reiterate: no one should know your political views from your arguments.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

Excellent debaters and excellent debate rounds are characterized by the competitors' ability to speak clearly and understandably, identify the major underlying arguments at the heart of evidence and examples, and succinctly present a case for their own side as the round evolves. I value your ability to explain why something matters (more than just XYZ person said so in this article) within the larger context of an overarching argument. As the debate progresses, you should be telling me what the major reasons are to vote for you, as opposed to travelling infinitely down the rabbit hole on the details of a specific argument.

Treat each other with respect. This is most noticeable in cross fire. Ask your question and grant your opponent a reasonable amount of time to respond. Though in the moment you may feel the urge to interrupt, it is never helpful.

Qualify your sources, don't just say a name. Tell me who said it, where they said it, and the reason it is valuable.

Enjoy yourselves and relax, the round will always turn out better if you are having fun and learning.

Rcarragher19@gmail.com

I value Public speaking above all else.

I will instantly drop you for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, bullying, or other personal attacks - L26

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). If people cannot follow what your saying, then the argument is pointless.

Crossfire:

Please give the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Respect is key to anyone changing their mind in real life application; I believe that is very important in debate as well.

Rebuttal:

Let me know what argument you are specifically responding to. Signpost.

Summary:

Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. This is a quick way to take back power in the debate for your benefit.

Final Focus:

Tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Confidence and clarity on why your case is the better choice can greatly affect my favor.

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

Hey guys!

I am currently a student at Harvard University, originally from South Africa.

This will be my first time judging pf, and my debate experience is primarily with World's Schools and British Parliamentary styles.

I will judge your debate to the best of my ability and will base my decisions on a team's arguments and content, rather than who is loudest. I also think engaging with the other team's content is important, so respond to the best of your ability. Be nice, be clear and have fun!

Best of luck for the round.

Note: I will flow to follow the debate.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Hey! My name is Zey and I am a sophomore at Babson College. I have debated at Newton South for three years, so I’m a flow judge. Don’t say anything problematic and be nice and we should be fine. Failure to do so = report to tab and instant L. I don't know much about this topic so please signpost it to make it easier to flow. Weighing earlier is always good, however, one good weighing > 3 different weighing mechanisms that you had 5 seconds to explain. You have to provide me a comparative analysis of both impacts.

MORE INFO: Case: Tech > Truth, I'll vote for anything if its warranted well Cross: I don't care abt cross, won’t vote on it, if you want to bring up anything, do it in a speech Ev: Paraphrasing is meh, do it if you have too. I'll call an important evidence at the end of the round if its' a big deal Rebuttal: Please warrant out every response and signpost clearly, 2nd Rebuttal should frontline completely. Any argument that is not responded to during the following speech is considered conceded. Summary: Extend everything you want the round to revolve around, if you read a turn, weigh it or it's not going to be offense, please don't extend your entire case + 4 turns with 0 weighings, makes the round messy. Final: Should mirror summary, don't include new things in your final speech, don't bring up new weighing or responses. If you do so, it won't be counted. Please don't run Theory or K.

Good luck!

I'm Milan! I debated pf a few years at Sidwell. My email is milanchander1@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round or want any extra feedback. I hope you have a great round and that all the debaters are respectful and considerate--at the end of the day, we are all here to learn, and there is no need to be aggressive or to belittle your opponents and their arguments.

Please fully extend offense (uniqueness, links, internal links, impact), and please collapse. I don't think defense is sticky; please extend it in 1st summary. Please frontline in 2nd rebuttal, too.

Slower debates are just as valuable as fast ones. Please take time to explain all of your arguments as clearly as possible!

I'm not amazing at evaluating prog debates, but if a team is doing something unethical feel free to call them out for it. I'm willing to vote for progressive arguments provided they're well-warranted just like any other argument, and I definitely prefer arguments that aren't canned from topic to topic. I also like learning about the topic.

I will do my best to give useful feedback after rounds.

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay judge and have been judging PF debate since 2022

I value clear and concise points that are well presented with the right balance of evidence and are not overly data-driven.

Best of luck to you!!

Sid

i am lay judge

actually read this paradigm plz the thing above is a joke omfg

Lay with a year of judging.

Truth ----x------------------------ Tech

Cross is important --x------------------------- Cross isn't important

Lay pace -----x---------------------- Spreading

Please don't:

1. Ask for excessive evidence
2. Use timers that beep
3. Spread
4. Be mean or annoying!
5. Monopolize cross

Who am I: student at Harvard College (class of 27) and member of the parli team here.

High schooldebate experience: 1 year of PF (local), 3 years of Congress (mostly nat circuit),3 years of extemp

Overall:

Have fun and be kind. Don't stress yourself out, debate is never that deep.

Congress:

It's called Congressional DEBATE for a reason. Beautiful speeches that don't clash or engage with arguments belong in a speech tournament, not in Congress.

Please for the love of all that is good and holy:

1. Explain your links. If you do not connect the dots in your own argument, I will not do it for you.
2. Explain your impacts. If you do not tell me why I should care about your argument, I won't care.
3. Weigh. You do not make your arguments in a vacuum, especially if you speak late. Please situate your argument in the context that it enters into and interact with other arguments.

Authors/sponsors: PLEASE PLEASE both explain the problem in the status quo and walk through how the legislation addresses it. That's really your only job.

PF:

I'm neither tech > truth or truth > tech, all arguments are introduced at some level of trueness and I'll buy them to the extent that they're warranted. Which means I can't fully buy incomplete arguments even if they're conceded.

Weigh your arguments (and I mean actual comparative weighing, not just using the word "weighing" and throwing around mechanisms)... otherwise I have to weigh them myself and that makes neither of us happy.

Please signpost because you do have enough time in your speech to do this properly.

Spreading: not a huge fan. Debate is a communication activity and if I can't understand what you're saying then you are not communicating effectively. I can process information very quickly and write very quickly, and there's nothing wrong with a fast-paced speech, but I have limits. If I couldn't get it on my flow then you never said it.

K + Theory: Everyone got the same resolution in advance and I would REALLY prefer that you debate it. There is a very low chance I will vote on Ks or theory. That being said, I am always amenable to doing so if you give me legitimate reasons as to why it's relevant--it needs warranting and impacts like any other kind of argument.

Off-time roadmaps: I don't mind them, but they are not a substitute for good organization within the actual speech itself, and I'd rather you just did that.

I am a lay judge. I am a French teacher at Cranbrook; my email address is bcherel@cranbrook.edu

Over the past 40 years, I loved to stay abreast of international affairs and geopolitics.

I am a truth over tech judge.

Please keep your speech under 200 words per minute.

I value eloquence.

Hello Participants, I am a parent judge started judging from 2023. I value every participant's preparation and hard work. I am always thrilled to see young participants at this level. Congratulations and good luck!

I am a parent judge and this is my 6th year judging. I take notes but I do not really "flow".

Things I like to see:

Weighing (tell me why your impact is more important than theirs)

Reasoning as to why something is

Telling me why I should vote for you (clear up clash)

Telling me where you are on the flow in rebuttal

Collapsing in the round is preferred but not required

Things I don't like to see:

Speed

Bringing up new things in 2nd final focus

Being rude to the opponents

Using debate jargon

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 not evaluate progressive debate. 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

Hello,

I go by Brian, and I am a Director of Ivy Bridge Academy. I don't need to be in the loop for email chain unless it is necessary: brianchoi627@gmail.com

I do keep track of time and flow on my own. With that said, every speech ought to meet or be as close to the allotted time.

Contention:

I prefer clarity above all else. Please emphasize key terms (i.e, Impact). No spread and no spam of contentions (C1-3 is preferable). Flay judge preference

Crossfire:

Please be respectful in giving the opposing team a chance to speak and ask questions. Don't read evidence pls. I will drop you if you don't respect the cross rules.

Rebuttal:

Sign post, sign post, sign post! Frontline is preferable for 2nd Rebuttal.

Summary:

My favorite part of the debate. Extend and go over what your opponent dropped. If you don't impact weigh, then you concede.

Final Focus:

I pay keen attention to what claims the opponent(s) dropped as well as emphasizing most of the FF on weighing cases and impacts. This is the speech to which I prefer to have the speakers tell me what I should judge the debate on and why the opponents' case should be dismissed. Persuasion is key!

Speaker Points

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time (i.e, 2 minute rebuttals.. yes I have heard these at nationals before), and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner (ie, grand cross and flow of debate).

28.1-29 You did well. This is what I usually give and you barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Horrah! You did amazing. Had no flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

I'm a parent judge and I'm fairly new to judging. However, I have done a bit of debate before, so I kind of know how it works.

Please talk slowly and be very clear. If I can't understand what you are saying, then I won't be able to vote for you.

Please signpost(or tell me where you are on the flow) so it is easy for me to understand. Also, please don't spread.

No theory.

I want good arguments, so truth>tech. I don't really understand the technical side of debate, so I'll be voting on how strong your arguments are.

Please no insults and any type of racism, sexism, or discriminatory behavior directed towards ANYONE in the round. Try to be mature, and good people overall. If I see any signs of this type of behavior, I will report you.

I also like confidence, so if you sound confident you are bound to be on the higher spectrum of speaker points.

Finally, just have fun and aim for a good round. If you guys are having fun, I'll be really pleased.

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.

I compete in parliamentary debate for Harvard. In high school, my main event was extemp, although I've also done OO, LD, PF, WSD, and Congress.

For extemp: Your speaking style matters. Feel free to be creative with your structure, but I do want substantiated arguments.

For debate: I'm a traditional judge. Please don't spread. Truth over tech.

calebchung@college.harvard.edu

This may seem obvious to you, but to many debaters, it is not. There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution. Signposting is a must. Speaking fast doesn't endear you to me, nor does it impress me. I think it's a tactic used by unprepared debaters who don't think the judge is really listening. Additionally, please don't try to appeal to my emotions and tell me that I have a "moral obligation" to support your side. No, I don't. You have an obligation to successfully argue your side and should not ever ask a judge to insert personal feelings into a RFD.

I also do not like "off the wall" contentions that are merely used to attempt to sound different relative to other debaters. You must stay wedded to the resolution. I also do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Let's go back to the first paragraph. It's not my job to link for you. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Having said that, if you do your job, but your opponent doesn't respond to that claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop). Anyway, if I can flow, it's a good thing for you. You should be doing it too while you listen to your opposition. Make your links clear, please! Ensure that your links are connected to something the opposition actually argued (you wouldn't believe the strawmanning that I have heard over the years).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage and I won't tolerate it. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that I have access to this and that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives. The "utilitarian" framework is possibly the most popular one, but I would strongly prefer it if you don't just drop the term and then move on...you should be very specific as to what you mean.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Don't just casually say it once and then never have any ties back to it...similar to how you should approach the framework. I've heard some really good non-unique impacts, but if you're going to try and attack your opponent for having a non-unique argument, make sure you're actually correct. Again, I really don't like buzzwords and using terminology just to use it because you may think the judge is only listening for them won't work with me. When you're levying an impact in your arguments, ask yourself "how probable is this?" You would be surprised if you stopped and thought before you spoke.

Rebuttals: a little bit repetitive here, but you have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech...usually here. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked and, likely, lose. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. If you wait until summary or second cross, that's a problem for you. Rebuttal speeches are meant to do exactly that; they are not meant to make new arguments, nor is final focus for that matter. Don't do it.

Off-time Roadmaps: I don't mind them and if you need to verbalize what you're planning on doing, that's fine. Keep them short please.

Oh, one more thing: don't be top heavy in your overview. What I mean by this is please do not spend lots of time on your own arguments but not answer (or shoddily answer) your opponent arguments. Please don't do this. You can give me a re-cap, but make it fast. For example, during summary you should prioritize answering the key arguments addressed by the second rebuttal speaker in addition to giving me a brief overview of your own arguments...just ensure that there is balance here.

I'm a parent judge. My daughter is a varsity PF debater, so I understand what flow is, but still treat me as a lay.

I prioritize well warranted arguments with strong evidence (not just card names & stats). Do not spread. Be respectful and kind :)

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program.

For e-mail chain: melaco@gmail.com. Speechdrop is also great.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

Number of Years I’ve been judging debate since 2018.

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.…)

If you read nothing else, read this: I am a flow judge. (IMO, truth does not exist within the confines of a debate round. The setting of the resolution is the beginning of world creation, which you will build upon and participate in during the round and that is outside the confines of "the real world." I fall short of being a tech judge, but I lean tech.) I expect teams to warrant and clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. Be very clear in your final speeches on why you are winning the round. State clearly what your path to the ballot is. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. I prefer for you, in your final speech, to tell me the RFD you would like me to write.

I don't vote on anything in cross, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on new arguments brought up too late in round.

Happy to clarify any of my prefs, ask before round begins.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: I went to a critical theory-oriented art school MFA program, so no surprise, I love theory, kritik and tricks because it reminds me of grad school. I have a pretty broad background on much of the literature. That being said, it's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik/tricks. You need to completely understand your argument (and not just reading something you found on the wiki or that a friend gave you), and it needs to be clearly presented during the debate in an accessible way. I need well-explained, warranted voters. Please warrant your implications. Be very clear on why I should vote for you.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I expect you to also be keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you pause prep to call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Everything Else:
Cards (where applicable): I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during cross. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the debaters brought up in a speech and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tab immediately.

Judge Disclosure: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. As a judge, I should be able to give you a good RFD after the round. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Judging after 8pm: I'm a morning person. If it is after 8pm, I am probably tired. Clarity in your speeches is always important, but takes on even more importance after 8pm. Talk to me like I'm half-asleep, because I might be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown:
30: Excellent job, I think you are in the top two percent of debaters at this tournament.

29: Very strong ability. You demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round

28: Ability to function well in the round, however at some point, analysis or organization could have been better.

27: Lacking organization and/or analysis in this debate round.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. May have made a large error.

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

My Background:

- I am a parent judge who started judging when our son began debating as a freshman in high school

- Have judged Public Forum

What I expect from debaters:

- Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot stress this enough. If you speak too quickly and I can't follow you, you will not be helping your team.- --- Persuade me with arguments that are supported by evidence. Evidence should be presented with full citations and explained clearly. Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive.- Tell me why I should vote for your side by explaining with particularity why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.

Focus me on the important issues in your favor.

- Be respectful of everyone who is participating in your debate - your opponents, and your partner. Consider your tone, your conduct, and your words.

• Do not assume that I understand acronyms or phrases that are peculiar to the topic but not necessarily in common use in the English language. Please take the time to define them.

I feel honored to judge your debate and debating skills. Please do not feel I am ever judging you as a person. I feel privileged to hear your learned thoughts on the debate topics.

I have been impressed with all debaters I have heard to date and you and your colleagues gift me great hope for the future! :-)

Everything is debatable in the round and I will judge the round to the best of my ability based on the arguments that are made. Nonetheless, I do have some presumptive biases:

1. The purpose of debate is to clash.
2. The resolution, as defined in the course of the debate, is what we clash about.
3. Speech is the method by which we communicate our positions and how they clash; If I can't understand you, it didn't happen.

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 6th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things. I also like a more professional environment without cussing or treating me too casually.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

Hey y'all

A quick recap about me, throughout my four years of high school, I debated in PF (freshman and senior year), LD (sophomore), and Policy (junior and senior year). triple homicide. Second speeches is my life I love second speeches.

Cards:

If you have a card, it is your opponent's job to prove to me that the card is false or unreliable. until then, I will assume that the card is true.

please don't take 5 years to send out a card. if it take you longer than 1 min then you need to move on

Public Forum:

• I am not super strict on time, but since it has the shortest speaking time, I would prefer for everyone to keep up with the time given
• remember it is not about who can make the best policies for me it is about who can prove to me that their way of life is better.

Lincoln Douglass:

• I love value debate.
• If you are going to read a K about black people please make it make sense. I do not like it when people milk the suffering of black people just to win a round.

Policy:

• I LOVE POLICY DEBATE
• if you are going off-case let me know. I take away speaker points if there is a lack of organization.
• if you are one of those teams that give 1,000,000,000 off cases, then you will see me give you a major side-eye. (LOL)

overall:

I love impact debate the whole purpose for debate is information me why should I care about anything you are saying

I do not care about speed or if you sit or stand

If I do not hear your I will not flow.

I will give my RFD.

Everything I say in the round will be put in TAB.

Have fun you humans.

my email is deedeecorbett15@gmail.com - for email chain.

TFA STATE 2025 UPDATE:

i’m recovering from a concussion right now, so it would be very appreciated if you spoke slowly, basically treat me like a flay judge

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I am looking for clear delivery, sound reasoning, and credible evidence. I really don’t like yelling or excessively fast talking—debate is about persuasion, not speed. Also, please look up occasionally! Reading straight from your computer makes it harder to connect with your audience (and makes me wonder if you’ve actually thought through your own arguments).

Remember, you’re developing an incredible life skill, and in the end, winning isn’t the most important part. Debate tournaments provide a controlled dose of stress so you can practice public speaking in a high-pressure setting. It helped me tremendously, and I know it will help you too!

No, I’m not a lawyer—I’m a registered architect with my own firm. I have a BFA and a B.Arch from the Rhode Island School of Design. Debate prepared me for presenting projects to town councils, where I still have to defend my arguments—just with more zoning codes issues and difficult neighbors involved. :)

Try to speak slowly and show compassion—it reassures me that you’re not a robot overlord plotting world domination. :)

Hi everyone! I debated for 6 years through middle and high school in PF, parli, and world schools. However, I will likely be unfamiliar with the resolution, so remember to explain everything thoroughly!

Some notes about my judging:

• I will flow the entire round and make my decision based off the final standing impacts
• Don't just tell me what your contentions/impacts are– weigh them against your opponents' arguments! Draw on specific weighing mechanisms (e.g. magnitude, scope, probability, time frame... etc)
• I don't flow crossfire, so make sure to mention anything notable again in a later speech so it makes it on the flow
• I can follow fast speaking, but please don't spread!
• Any comments/arguments/discourse that is racist, sexist, discriminatory... etc in nature will dock your speaks.

Good luck!

PF: Focus on framework building + topicality (aff) and examining exclusivity + counterplan burden (neg). Weighing on impacts, uniqueness of cons, and magnitude. Speak clearly, slow to medium fast, do not spread. Signpost as you go through your case. Crossfire should be prepared and effective at asking/answering clarifying and combative questions.

LD/CX: Tabula Rasa + Hypothesis Tester: view resolution as hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. Heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and open to non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counter-warrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted.

WSD: Content, style, strategy. Content on prepared motions should be a given and of high priority. Less so on impromptu (but never unimportant). Tend to put heavier weight toward strategy: For example, if prop mentions a solution but does not fully address/explain and that it is a potential argument that works in opps favor, does that mean prop side made a mistake, or is that a tactic to further that particular argument opp addresses in order to show prop was aware and prepared for opp taking the bait? This would be an example or steering the debate using hidden counterplans or subtext to "force the hand" of the other team.

While reply speech is important, it is helpful to be more than just summative. Ask the audience to think more about the world you have created vs the world the other team has created (clash). Ensure the judge leaves with a strong sense you are right/better/more efficient/inclusive/utilitarian/ethical/whatever, and give the reason(s) why.

Dear competitors,

Your commitment to excellence is exemplary and commendable. There are a million things you could be doing now, but you chose this hard and stressful craft of debate. My respect to all of you.

Please, do not ask me what I prefer as a judge - make decisions amongst yourselves and with your opponents.

Do not raise your voice, no personal attacks, no arrogant comments, or otherwise negative attitude. Debate on substance.

You will fair well if you bring evidence, listen carefully to your opponents, and show depth of your understanding of the topic by using multiple evidence cards to substantiate your arguments and counterarguments.

Each side has a fair chance if presenting logically, clearly, and rebutting with evidence.

Have fun and grow your skills - one round at a time!

Hello, I'm Gavin I go to Acton-Boxborough, email: 25dattag@abschools.org

1) i'll flow

2) tech>truth

3) idc abt cross unless u bring it up in a speech

4) extend and weigh, d isn't sticky

5) i'll evaluate theory and K's if they aren't dumb (explain K's like I'm 6, tricks are whatever)

5a) if you're a novice ask your opps before rd if they tryna have a round about any prog

6) have fun in round, debate isn't that deep so don't get worked up about it

6a) will give good speaks if you aren't mean and make the round fun

update for 2025 (because i'm old and need sanity): i would love to not have prog rounds, they make me sad. I will evaluate them but will not flow, so beware if you want to run some prog.

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

also collapse and extend please, write my ballot in final focus

I am in my second year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I did some PF

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

update on communication: I won't STOP you from speaking to your partner while they are giving a speech, but please don't do it. I will dock speaks, and I have never seen it been done well enough to justify both the perceptual loss and the interruption in thought process. Just do what I did when my partner missed an argument – write it big on paper, and hold it up for them to see.

update on speed: I did a lot of debate and I can flow very well. With that being said, I will not flow off of the doc (I think its a bad norm). Take this advice as you will.

My name is Eric Denby. I am a new History instructor at Phillips Academy, but have taught for eight years at the college level at the University of Illinois. Although new to PF, I am not new to argumentation, logic, and evidence. Clear and concise speaking is a must for an oral presentation. I notice many students speaking way too fast, so please slow down and be clear.

Good luck.

About Me:

I'm a 7th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you, your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post/ Wall St Journal/ etc instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

I am a speech AND debate coach for Milton Academy. I am an experienced PF judge who values the key principles of PF. I have been judging PF since 2011, and I debated in 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, don't just state a weighing mechanism and assume that puts it on the flow, do not give me a super lengthy off time road map, that sort of thing. Add me on email chains: lindsay_donovan@milton.edu

I vote primarily on comprehensive analysis, on well-supported AND well-reasoned, "real-world" links, which are the logic building blocks to your impact (no matter how large or larger in scope they may be than your opponents). I do not like source wars, or taking long periods of time to call for evidence or look at evidence, especially out of prep time. If your only strategy is to call into question the validity of evidence, you will not earn my vote. I will primarily vote on the flow, but I think persuasion is the crux of debate and can make flow better... and can stick out more to me than just an extended tag on the flow.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them"

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Theory/K/what have you: If Theory or K is fair, understandable, and well reasoned I can follow it. But in general I find most theory debates unfair in nature, most people just use it as a tactic to win and have no heart in it for the sake of smart argumentation. Notably I will not vote for Disclosure theory. It is a norm, not a rule :)

Pet Peeves:

• Tech > Truth (If you are saying something blatantly not true or distorting/mis-paraphrasing your opponent's evidence I will mark you down).
• Nuclear war impacts, unclear warranting or no warranting only evidence.
• Overly aggressive/rude tactics. Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. I tend to vote for more calm, collected, and cordial teams.
• "Collapsing" feels like a fancy way to say dropping all your points.... I don't like it. Why bring up points in the first place so easily to discard? Run a 1 contention case then... Never concede anything!
• Also - I hate Solvency (it is a Policy concept, and PF does not have the burden of proving/disproving solvency as a voting issue unless the resolution SPECIFICALLY calls for it.) This means, do not ask how they "solve for" whatever point or that I should downvote teams who cannot completely solve issues.

Spreading and Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational CONVERSATIONAL speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread OR EVEN GO A STEP OR TWO TOO FAST I do. not. flow. If you can't adapt to a paradigm, then why are we even using them? I do not believe that PFers should spread AT ALL, even for a “flow” judge. If you cannot speak well and argue well, then you are not competing in this event at your best ability.

Don't be malicious please! It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwards. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue (or if you ask me to! Always ask your judge to stop a round if you feel unsafe).

International Relations Specialist for US Department of Labor working to fight forced labor, child labor and human trafficking.

George Washington University Grad with certificate in Non Profit Management

University of Maryland Grad with Master of Public Public, International Security and Economic Policy specialization

Tuskegee University Grad with Bachelor of Arts in Political Science

Former Lincoln Douglas debater

Married to a debate coach, Julian Dotson.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:

I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:

I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:

A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:

In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:

Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:

I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:

Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

I flow but I'm not impressed by speed and I'm not up on the latest jargon.

Make sure you have clear warrants and links to your impacts and the resolution.

Send a case doc to my email Ranadotson@gmail.com

Be polite in Cross

Don't spread; speed is a no go. will even evaluate Speed theory if your opps are spreading; TKO.

Progressive args and Ks are a no go.

I don't evaluate disclosure theory so just don't run it; seems like a cheap strategy.

I consider ivi

Ask me about my job if you are interested in foreign policy!

Have fun and debate.

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is colindownes@gmail.com — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

The stuff you probably care most about:

The K and K affs are now older than the debaters running them and I'd struggle to even term them non-normative ways of engaging with debate at this point. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but you have to be prepared to defend a view of what each side in the debate is for, what their burdens are, and how that model of debate is good and sustainable not just in one round but as a vision for the activity as a whole. I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial: I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it and tend to think it would be much more strategic for you to substantively engage with your opponents' advocacy.

Speed—it's fine to a point, but frankly? Keep a lid on it. I can keep a good flow in most rounds I see, judging ~30 CX rounds a year split roughly evenly between my local circuit and the national circuit. But I do it by ear, not off speech docs. So it's gotta be clear as crystal. And I'm not often in the back of the room for *very* fast rounds, so I just don't get much practice at those. If you cross my information processing threshold and I can't hear the warrants of your cards or make sense of your analytics, that's a problem (for you). That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I absolutely need you to slow down to compensate for that. Unfortunately it's impossible to articulate a brightline on this.

Assorted cantankerous stuff I care about:

Cross ex is important. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if, for example, your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism. If it's obvious you're out to sea without your partner to cover for you it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact. RelatedlyI default to a strong view that the aff has the initial burden of production and will vote on presumption.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

I have no way to fairly adjudicate out of round conduct (which includes a range of things from disclosure to various forms of inappropriate behavior) and being asked to do so makes me uncomfortable.

I have a pretty strong preference for depth > breadth.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

PF

Evidence violations are shockingly pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad evidence exchange norms, the constraints of the format's time limits, and widespread use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this dire state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for signing a ballot on an evidence violation. In my view, a paraphrase which substantially distorts the content of a card is distortion in the sense of the NSDA evidence rules: call them on it, end the round, and I'll vote on it. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

Relatedly, your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly produce to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased. I will deck your speaks if you aren't able to satisfy that extremely minimal demand, which LD and CX debaters manage to do without the drama and wasted time that attends it in many PF rounds.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

For related reasons, I have a high threshold for voting on theory in PF. Theory plays an important role as a guardrail to ensure fairness. But if you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical arguments to bully a team you are calculating will be less familiar with theory debates, I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the trad oratory / conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I learned everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty and turned into a little K hack. I have been the Upper School Debate Coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022 and previously was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian and a lawyer for a labor union.

I am an assistant director to Ivy Bridge Academy, and I started out as a novice Debate Coach. I understand the structure of the debate and terms, but you should explain the case to me as a Lay Judge.

I do not tolerate personal attacks, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying.Please be respectful of your opponents and me as a judge. If you have an issue you should contact your coach.

For your cases, I value impacts and weighing, as well as clarity. Enunciate your words and speak in a moderate speed as to be heard clearly.

I will keep track of time and flow on my own, but you should be timing yourselves and reaching the time limit.

Speaker Points

26-26.9-You fell short of the time, you were unclear or I could not understand your case at all.

27-28-I couldn't understand the concepts in your case fully, you did not work well with your partner.

28.1-29-You did a good job and were understood, with clear concepts. You could develop your case further or be more persuasive.

29.1-30-I couldn't give anymore feedback, and your case was either near, or absolutely flawless.

I will give personalized feedback as necessary, verbally and over tabroom.

JV Pool: treat me as 120% lay if they throw me into JV.

The last time I did PF/Extemp was in 2019 for Plano West. Take that to mean what you will.

PF isn't LD or CX.

You:no signpost —> Me:no flow.

If you are being cocky, arrogant, condescending, etc. I will make that my RFD :)

If you want to wear your slippers in round instead of your heels, I will applaud you for standing up to the patriarchy.

If you decide to bring your team and coach in to post-round me aggressively, I will promptly stand up and leave. It's rude.

I use cross as entertainment; no flow/will likely not be paying attention to cross (except to flag potentially discriminatory language).

Ask specific questions if they matter to you.

If you are interested in applying to Columbia undergrad/Harvard Law at some point (or need any general help/advice re: college/grad school), I'm always happy to chat! Please reach out and ask for my email post-round. Wishing you great luck ahead! :)

basically a parent judge

Though I am currently a debate coach, prior to this year have had little debate experience. I judge based off of what I see on the flow. I will (try) not to make any assumptions on what you are saying, nor will I include anything that I may know into my judging.

I will be looking for clear communication of arguments, evidence, and impacts. I want to see how your side of the ballot is going to best solve for the problems proposed, and have the strongest real world implications. I want to see effective and explicit weighing of impacts.

I can take notes at a pace slightly faster than conversational. If you spread I will lose track of my notes and your argument. To repeat, I value clarity over volume of words; speaking quickly may cost you the debate.

I am in my second year as a parent judge. I prefer clarity in speaking over speed. I like well-thought-out, layered arguments with strong and relevant evidence. I can flow to a large extent but am not seasoned at it.

I detest rude and belittling behavior towards opponents or towards the judge. No scoffing, eye-rolling, or laughing at opponents. Let's all strive to be professional.

I’m a parent judge. My kid does PF, so I know the basics. I will take notes. Please speak slowly.

I am a junior at Harvard competing in APDA and British Parliamentary. I primarily did WSDC and BP in high school. I have no affiliation with any school in the US.

Rules

1. Be respectful. This doesn't just mean "don't be rude", it means do your best to create a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of debate experience or identity, can feel safe, comfortable, and empowered to perform to the best of their capabilities.

Paradign/General Preferences

1. I do not have major PF, Lincoln-Douglas, or Congress experience - this means that I am not familiar with common buzzwords/jargon. Please ensure the way you are expressing your arguments takes this into account because I will not be able to credit what I don't understand.
2. I am okay with responses that go in the order of the flow - I am also okay with responses that are sorted into themes or that go in any different order. As long as I can comprehend the point you are responding to and the point you are making, I will credit it.
3. As a judge, I will attempt to position myself as the "average voter". This, for me, describes a person who is moderately informed about the events in the world but does not know their nuances/details. This means that any reference to articles/papers or assertion of details about the situation will not be credited, especially if the other team is able to provide robust argumentation.
4. Please weigh. I will DEFINITELY keep an ear out for weighing and take it into account in my adjudication.
5. I do as a person believe that human suffering should be minimised. In the absence of alternate weighing, I will default to "which side causes the most benefit/least harm to humanity as a whole". However, I am always ready to listen to and be swayed towards other ways of judging the debate.
6. I adore puns. The worse the better.
7. I do not think human extinction is likely to occur. I have a slight preference towards arguments about higher probability impacts as opposed to arguments about nuclear war or human extinction.

Put me on the email chain: vg.nautilus@gmail.com

Dulls HS '23: debated policy all four years + three tournaments in PF

Policy

Prefs:

syo BUT a speaks fairy

In order of decreasing frequency, rounds I most often debated are:

1. K Aff v. Fwk
2. Policy Aff v. K
3. K aff v. K
4. Policy v. Policy
5. Theory stuff ig

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. Apparently my flow is ass now; for you that probably means please spend more time on the stuff you think is important or be p rigorous about numbering your args/signposting, sorry :'(
2. I do not know the topic sorry :,(
3. I like case debates!
4. Give the important args (turns, perms, DAs, links) actual names
5. Lots of pen time between flows please
6. Send analytics if you're comfortable
7. I flow cross + it's binding
8. T-USfg: functional limits check and structural fairness overwriting procedural fairness [attached reason that matters] are persuasive to me.
9. Don't judge kick
10. I don't like when people spam perms -- also an actual perm text (like literally: perm do [actual plan text] and [the parts of the CA that would be executed in the world of the perm]) will get a speaks boost and is probably also helpful when like ~articulating the world of the perm~
11. Offense/Defense paradigm
12. Condo is occasionally bad!
13. Slow down on theory, topicality, framework

PF

Probs pretty tech but not worth wasting your strikes on even if you're a lay debater.

Prog: dislike theory/Ks in PF but also like intervention probably bad so:

• I'll evaluate everything but will reward good effort w/ good speaks (e.g., a valiant effort by a lay debater facing prog will be rewarded; an LD transplant reading theory or Ks badly will not).

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. Set-up an email chain; send all cards for every speech (the underlined, bolded, and highlighted versions) before hand -- it won't count as prep time unless it takes you egregiously long.
2. Label major arguments (e.g., "the credibility turn," "intervention turn," etc.) or at the VERY LEAST number your arguments.
3. Probably more partial to no-brink = don't eval the impact than most PF judges
4. Offense/defense paradigm
5. Asserting your impact has a "greater magnitude, scope, and probability than theirs" is not impact weighing. If y'all are going to insist on "quantifiable impacts" please at MINIMUM give me two numbers (yours and your opponents) in the impact weighing + a reason why yours matters more. I do not, however, think quantification is necessary to building a compelling impact.
6. I flow cross + it's binding
7. Kritiks must have a topic link
8. Speed will probably not be a problem for me

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes for novices:

Roadmap: the order in which you will go to arguments during the debate, essentially a table of contents. This is given before you start the time to your speech (eg. "The order is: the Biz Con DA, Case, the DoS CP, and the K.")

Off vs. On Case: Off case positions are either DAs, CPs, Ks, or T shells. On case positions are Case Defense, Impact Turns, Case Turns, Solvency Deficits, etc. I guess technically anything (except CPs and probably T shells) can be an on-case position - it's just a matter of which sheet you want the judge to flow on.

Second year judging with modest experience. Please do not speak too rapidly.

I am looking for a clear logic and nuanced analysis of your arguments. One strong argument is better than multiple weak ones.

I am a Junior at Harvard and I primarily competed in BP in high school. I have no affiliation with any school in the US.

1. Be respectful. Do your best to create a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of debate experience or identity, can feel safe and comfortable.
2. Please do not speak super fast (I prefer around 200words/min).
3. I do not have major PF experience - this means that I am not familiar with common buzzwords/jargon. Please ensure the way you are expressing your arguments takes this into account because I will not be able to credit what I don't understand.
4. Please weigh. I will DEFINITELY keep an ear out for weighing and take it into account in my adjudication.

I did Public Forum debate at St. John’s in Houston, TX for four years. If you have any questions about anything written here, please feel free to ask before the round!

Email chain: rgarza@brandeis.edu

In any debate, the most important thing is weighing. Particularly in close rounds, explaining why your impacts should be prioritized over others is critical to helping me determine who won. If you do not weigh, I will be forced to intervene and you may not like how that intervention plays out.

In order to have an argument, you must extend at minimum a warrant and an impact.

Tech>Truth

(i.e. if you tell me the sky is green and the other team does not respond to it, the sky is green) Having said that, outlandish arguments will have a very low threshold for a good response. In that example, simply mentioning the sky is not green would be a sufficient response to win the argument. You do have to interact with every argument, no matter how outlandish, however.

PF Specific

1. An argument you go for (i.e. want me to vote for) should have a warrant and impact extended in both summary and final focus.

2. I did not run progressive arguments (Ks, Theory, CPs) during my debate career. Generally, I do not think progressive argumentation belongs in PF as it increases the barrier to entry of the event. I may not know how to interpret such arguments in the context of a PF round. If you choose to run them, you do so at your own peril. I am not very receptive to theory unless there is actual in-round abuse.

3. Second rebuttal must frontline.

4.Offense not responded to after second rebuttal is conceded and must be weighed against (excepting turns/other offense read in second rebuttal).

5. With a 3-minute summary, defense should ideally be extended in summary where possible.

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
3. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
4. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
5. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

1. Stay Composed and Confident.
2. Speak Clearly and with Purpose.
3. Use Appropriate and Engaging Body Language.
4. Stay Focused on the Topic.
5. Show Respect for Your Opponents and Their Arguments.

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com AND lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) Try to set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 4th year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu.

TLDR: tech > truth. I will evaluate anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and weighed.

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that case/argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debate washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case/argument, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot. I would also like to preface that this is in the context of a case argument, but I have also happily voted on any type of offense that has followed this structure.

Some overall specifics:

Speed: I am good with PF speed, but it's more important that your opponent is okay with it rather than me. Also, if you are going to be spreading please just slow down on tags and author names, dont just go through it full speed.

Framework: I am cool with pretty much any framework read in PF, just nothing phil oriented. If a framework is read, and a counter framework is not read, I will default the framework read. Otherwise, if two opposing frameworks are read, I prioritize pre-fiat offense then post-fiat. I often find teams under prioritizing pre-fiat offense, you should go for these arguments instead of engaging with the post-fiat offense of the framework.

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: I am not insanely versed in the norms of PF, but I think disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I rather not judge a friv debate, if you wanna read one, i probably will not flow it. Otherwise, I have voted for disclosure, paraphrasing, and vague alts. As long as you win some kind of in round abuse, I will probably vote for it.

K’s: This is where I am more comfortable evaluating. I think K teams in PF don’t utilize the alternative to its full potential, please spend time explaining how the alternative resolves the link of the K. Otherwise I am somewhat familar in: capitalism, settler colonialism, psycho (lacan), virilio, and security.

Phil: nah.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution. Also a great way to respond to the K!

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Message me on facebook if you have any questions!

Somethings I really enjoy:
- House music
- Tay-K
- Warrant comparison.

Somethings I dont really enjoy:
- Offensive overviews while speaking 2nd.
- Saying you outweigh on scope when you dont.

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

ALWAYS check if the judge is ready.

Above all- maintain decorum. Assertiveness is perfectly fine, even encouraged. But unprofessional behavior will only get you an easy L.

Public Forum:

Self-described as hybrid trad-tech judge, slightly trad-leaning.

If you try to run a theory case, it better be reasonable. Don't make false accusations for the sake of confusing your opponents or catching them off guard.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll give you some grace, but I will also cut you off if you go too far over. When in doubt, play it safe.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary. It's a fine line, pick your battles accordingly. Don't pick every battle.

Don't let things go- if claims or frameworks go unrefuted, they drop- plain and simple.

If something is argued prior to grand cross, it can be brought back up in final focus. In other words: if you bring it in, then you make it fair game to be attacked or responded to.

FYI- I'm not keeping track of prep time.

Student Congress:

I value an efficient PO. If you keep the chamber productive and run it fairly, I will likely rank you.

Unless you are the author/sponsor, you should be clashing.

Late round speakers should not just rehash previously presented arguments. They should be crystallizing.

Please behave like actual senators/congressmen and congresswomen; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

Speech Events:

Originality scores the biggest points with me.

Eye contact always matters, but it matters more in speech.

Your tone holds a lot of weight, showing tonal range is crucial in all speech events.

Be aware of your timing, I am not reliable for hand signals.

In terms of piece selection or chosen topic: sad is fine, but funny is better. Make me feel something.

I am a parent judge who has judged 4 tournaments. Please send your cases to venurgoli@gmail.com. Please go slow and be respectful. Have fun!

Parent judge with a handful of tourneys expirience. No new responses late in the round. speak slow. Be good sports. Arguments should be thoroughly explained

COACH G - EMAIL : RYAN.GOSLING@saschools.org

Tech judge okay with speed, looking for concise well extended arguments that leave me going "hmmmmm" after the round. Be respectful. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

Lay + parent judge

You don’t need to speak super slowly, but do not spread and if you need to speak fast, please articulate well

DO NOT run Ks or theory; I do not know how to evaluate them

I will not flow but I will take some notes

Weighing is necessary to win the round

Be respectful towards your opponents at all times

In cross examination, the goal should be to (politely) seek clarification or to highlight what you believe are analytic or factual weaknesses in their argument; the goal should NOT be to to intimidate, shout down, or otherwise prevent your opponents from actually responding

If you interrupt or otherwise prevent them from responding, I will score the cross in their favor; if they do not meaningfully respond to the substance of your question, I will score it in yours

About my debate experience, I did two years of competitive public forum debate, where I participated in various tournaments.

I look for a few things when judging rounds. Most importantly, I expect all debaters to be respectful of their opponents. I put a lot of emphasis on how debaters perform in the later speeches. I believe it is most important to stay on topic during later speeches and really focus on being consistent with their own case while also simultaneously properly refuting their opponents points in the later speeches. I believe that debates are won and lost in how they stay consistent and reliable in the rebuttals, summary, and final focus.

At the end of the day, I understand how challenging debate is and I commend everyone who attempts to keep a respectful throughout the entirety of the round.

Good Luck!

In the 20th century, I was a reasonably successful college debater and coach.

Written judge paradigms were just coming into use back then. My favorite was from Tuna Snider. It read as follows:

"We gather. You debate. I decide."

That seems a great place to start. Here are a few things that may be helpful.

SPEED -- Though I have debated with and against speakers as fast as you can imagine, there is NO WAY I will read/follow a document to understand you during your speech. Be audible, signpost well, and have the strategic chops to parse out a winning solution. It is up to you, not me, to make sure you're being clear -- I never say "clear." Unless you're good at it (really good at it) spreading is annoying to me. That goes double if we're in a format other than CX, and triple if you're beating up on a less experienced opponent.

STYLE -- You're giving a speech. I'm an audience. Read the room. Make me glad I showed up to hear you. Be courteous to your opponents. I understand the round may crackle with rivalry. Lean into it with grace. Most of my best friends are the people I debated with and against back in the day. I won't ask to see any of your materials unless they're verbally contested, or I'm curious. This is a speaking contest, not an essay contest.

SUBSTANCE -- When it's clear you have a solid grasp of the subject matter, that's persuasive. Next level is you hearing and understanding your opponent, and returning on-point replies, with or without evidence. Hyperdrive is when you carry all that through to the final speeches and articulate a genuine solution to the debate.

A note on evidence: If you don't identify your sources by telling me about their personal qualifications, I give those words no more substantive weight than if you'd simply said the same thing yourself. In general, a good card from a well-crafted study in a peer-reviewed journal weighs more than a well-educated opinion from an unbiased scholar or thought leader, which weighs more than an article from a reputable journalist, newspaper or magazine, and so on. A debater's ability to attack study methodology, compare internal warrants within cards, impeach testimony for bias and other factors is impressive.

THEORY/K's, etc. -- I will listen to what you have to say, if you give me sufficient reason to do so, at a pace I can digest. That said, the further you stray from simply affirming or negating the resolution, it's exponentially more likely I'll agree with your opponent's reaction. Thus, if you happen to find yourself defending against some esoteric K or theory onslaught, answer your opponent's argument as best you can. I'm likely to agree with you if you keep your composure. If your K is essentially a counterplan, it belongs in CX, or possibly LD, but not PF.

Let's learn, compete, and have fun!

I would describe myself as a traditional debate coach with a passion for argument and craft. For Public Forum Debate, this means I look for the strength in your argument, validity of your evidence, and its organic structure. While eloquence of speech is appreciated, I lean away from performative debate. Clarity often gets lost in jargon and pageantry. The ability to continually learn and hone your craft makes debate a beautiful sport. Please do not be alarmed by the amount of notes that I take or flow. I enjoy helping debaters grow and being as specific as possible in my final deliberations.

Hello,

I am new to judging, this is my first time. I am very attentive and a great listener.

Please speak clearly, annunciate correctly and maintain good voice projection.

I look forward this event. Good Luck to all the participants! ????

Hello to all, and Good Luck!

I am new to Judging and I only judge Public Forum. I understand the time constraints that come with the PF format, so please be prepared organized and speak clearly. Physical presentation, eye contact, and body language in my opinion, helps accentuate your verbal argument or position. This is a friendly competition, lets have fun and enjoy the Debate.

Thank you and Good luck to everyone,

Mark Greenburg...

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a matter that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.

3. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.

4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.

6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals. That said, don't bring up new arguments in the last two speeches.

7. Please do not run a non-topical case. Please speak to the resolution.

8. Be clear about what contentions you are dropping and what you are flowing forward. It makes it easier for me to understand who is winning.

9. Please signpost and do off-time roadmaps if you can. It makes it easier for me to judge your speech.

10. I don't prefer tech debates. I am not a tech judge.

“Sometimes your joy is the source of your smile, but sometimes your smile can be the source of your joy.” - Thich Nhat Hanh

We have a choice in this moment to smile in mindfulness. When you walk into a room, it doesn't matter if you're 0-6, failing all your classes, or your crush just rejected you. If you close your eyes and take one mindful breath, you'll experience this moment the same way the happiest person on earth is experiencing it. Don't make being a teenager harder than it needs to be.

Spencergrosso@gmail.com (Yes, I want to be on the chain.)

Conflicts of Interest/Background

Debated PF on the national circuit for 5 years at Nova Middle/High School.

On my 3rd year Coaching PF at Ransom Everglades High School.

Flow Judge

-Tech>Truth, debate is a game.

-Speed is fine, I’ll yell clear up to twice in one speech, If you continue to be unintelligible after that, it’s on you.

PF rules:

-Any offense brought up in either 1st constructive or 1st rebuttal not responded to by second rebuttal is considered dropped.

-Defense doesn’t need to be frontlined until 2nd sum but its still smart to do it in 2nd rebuttal.

-Everything that you want me to vote on should be in both the final and the summary except I don’t require defense in first summary.

Philosophies:

-I don't believe anything dropped is automatically 100% true. I do believe anything that is WARRANTED that is dropped is 100% true. read that twice. So, when you postround me because you wonder why I voted for the "COLD DROPPED TURN" that you spent 3 seconds blipping in final, that's why.

-I default to consequentialism/utilitarianism, but I’m open to looking at the round through a different lens if I am given a warrant as to why I should and I'm pretty good about that I've voted based off anti util framework many times.

-I tend to prefer strong, clear link chains over big sounding impacts that may or may not have a risk of solvency to them, but again if you do good meta weighing as to why I should prefer your 0.001% probability solvency for human extinction over a likely link chain to something smaller, I’m open to it.

-I heavily despise exclusion. If I can tell your opponents either have access problems or are brand new to debate and you’re dumping 350+ WPM speech docs, reading something progressive, or debating in any way that is clearly designed to make your opponents unable to contest you, I'll doc speaks.

Evidence Rules:

-I don't evaluate problems with evidence that are not specifically pointed out to me, so there's never a reason to not send me evidence. Lets please work together to improve PF evidence standards. Use a chain, and put all your cards on it. PLEASE.

-I’m generally lax with paraphrasing as long as I feel the literal words of the card are accurately represented by what you read.

On Arguments:

If role of the ballot is absent in any speech other than rebuttal, I default to Policy/Framework>Kritik>theory>tricks.

Framework:

-Cool stuff.

Kritiks:

-I like Ks. Topical links are cool but general literature is fine.

Theory:

-Theory needs to exist to prevent real abuse, so I don't love generic theory that I see as being brought into the round to give you an excuse to not debate the topic and get a win (dates, disclosure, paraphrasing etc.) that being said I’m open to all those shells, if you warrant it, win it, and weigh successfully why I should vote off it, I’ll vote off it.

-In PF, I don’t require responses to theory in the very next speech(if it’s read in 1st constructive, I don’t require a response until 2nd rebuttal) I don't even care if you tell me why I should require responses early. I say this because the warranting for such a requirement tends to be A) time skew and B) by waiting to respond, our opponents are "silencing the issues we speak about". Both of these are valid but they apply to any argument. If the 1st speaking team makes a policy argument, its equally unfair or silencing for the second speaking team to wait a speech to engage. All arguments are created equal.

Tricks:

-Silliness.

-Some are better than others, should be obvious which ones I'm talking about

-My bar for responses is on the FLOOR. This stuff basically needs to be dropped for me to even see it.

Presumption:

-Not automatic. If u tell me to presume the first speaking team cuz its unfair and u give me even a little warranting ill oblige if the other spheres are somehow even. Unless u argue that, I won't do it. I'd rather sift through the flow and find literally any other way to vote.

Speaker Points:

-I rank the four speakers and give 28.4, 28.5, 28.6, and 28.7. I do this because none of those numbers should make or break anyone's overall speaks, and since speaker points is a ridiculous, subjective way to determine breaks, i believe this is the best way i can protest it without altering the result of the tournament.

I'll be timing everything. You should time yourselves and each other but my time is final so if my timer says you're done, you're done.

For HST:

My high school background is primarily in world schools and parliamentary (east and west coast). I understand the basics of theory but I strongly prefer well-explained, analytical argumentation and strategic (yet appropriately used) evidence.

email chain: ambikagrover@college.harvard.edu

Looking for good argument, not technical wins. I.e. I don’t care about dropped contentions if the dropped contention was weak and other, stronger contentions were addressed well. Intellectual, evidentiary, and logical domination wins over tit-for-tat flow.

Technical losses are stupid. You’ll never see my ballot say “You didn’t frontline, therefore you lose.” Debate is still about persuasion. Don’t get me wrong; frontlining, collapsing, etc., are all good persuasive techniques to be used in debate. But the failure to use them won’t necessarily or automatically lose you the round… it just might affect the persuasive effect of your argument. If you can still persuade that your side wins without using all the specific techniques, even against a team that does use them, you’ll still get my ballot.

Cross should be for either a) establishing a framework (e.g. "Can we agree that [term from the topic] means [definition]?"), b) make a point, or c) set up a point you get to make later. I'm not scoring cross per-se, but if you run a tight cross and either make a good point or use an answer later to good effect, it'll go to speaks. Being a jerk in cross will *also affect speaks.

Yes, I want to be on an evidence thread if you start one. (tampalaw@gmail.com) Yes, you can speak fast but don't policy spread me. Kritiks and mathematical annihilation arguments (e.g. "Even if it's only a 0.001% chance, nuclear war means extinction therefore we outweigh") should be used sparingly and only if *truly warranted and supported.

PS I am perfectly fine with paraphrasing. Heaven help you if it's not fair, of course... but if it is I prefer not to have a ridiculous block quote from some article. Be persuasive... not technical.

LD- know your VC. Understand how, e.g., utilitarianism works or what social contract means in the context of your argument before hanging your entire argument on it. Do the actual analysis using your VC. Also do the analysis using the opponent’s VC if you can. Cross is good for discovery, but also for points.

Put me on the email chain: neha.gupta11@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging. I would prefer if you could talk clearly and slowly (AKA avoiding talking at the speed of light).I look for points that are supported with evidence, so stick with the facts. Lastly, I heavily weigh confidence and speaking style, so be mindful and be kind.

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.

That being said , remember to have fun!!! All the best.

1. Clarity - express clearly and cogently. Avoid jargon, acronyms, etc. and use a pace that maintains clarity.
2. Impact - arguments need to indicate significant impact on the main topic. Be clear how it relates to your position and what impact it makes on the topic at hand.
3. Linkage - arguments are supposed to weave a "fabric" to support your position, and/or to refute other side's position - so ensure the point being made is linked explicitly to the structure or framework you are using to support your position, and/or to refute other side's position.
4. No distractions - provocative, ad hominem, ideological, broad brush, etc. kinds of statements should be avoided. They will not carry weight and may be even penalized if it crosses some line. Stick to the topic, evidence presented and reasoning used without appealing to the emotions of the judge.
5. Final focus should be exactly that - focus on the main points where you think you have an upper hand leading to your win. No new arguments should be introduced and emphasis should be made on where you think you have won. New arguments presented here will not carry any weight.
6. I don't believe much in winning by technicality unless something is very obvious and very gross. So please try to win by the merit of your arguments.

I prefer warranting > evidence

Please no spreading

Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it.

Weigh your arguments.

I am not a fan of spreading or theory.

Hi,

I am a parent judge with some judging experience. I value well-constructed arguments, clarity, and logic. I prioritize well-explained impacts over flashy statistics—a smaller impact that’s carefully explained and connected to your case will get my vote over a big number with weak reasoning.

I include crossfire in my judging and look for clear, respectful communication. Professionalism is important in my judging—being rude can cost you the round. For the speaker points, I prefer a calm and professional delivery over emotional or dramatic presentations. Slight speed is okay, but please speak at an understandable pace.

I usually don’t disclose my decision after the round. I time the speeches but recommend that debaters keep track of time themselves as well.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge, with a not a lot of experience judging varsity tournaments, but very excited to earn that experience. I am fair to both sides and will deduct speaking points for rudeness.

Parent judge, I'm still learning the debate jargon

Please talk slowly and clearly

Don't just share statistics and citations, tell me how they fit into your argument and why they matter.

Debate is not a race - use your time to tell a story, not just fit in as many words as you can.

Every impact can't be nuclear war or human extinction. Make your impacts realistic.

If you are racist/homophobic/sexist etc I will drop you

Be kind, and have fun!

As a debate judge, my primary responsibility is to assess the arguments presented by each team and determine which team has made the most convincing case. In order to make an informed decision, I will be looking for the following qualities:

1. Clarity: I expect each speaker to present their arguments in a clear and concise manner, using language that is easy to understand. If a speaker is not clear, it will be difficult for me to follow their arguments and evaluate them effectively. I do not like spreading.

2. Logical coherence: I expect each team to present a logical argument that builds from one point to the next. The argument should be grounded in evidence and should avoid logical fallacies. If a team presents a coherent and logical argument, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their position.

3. Evidence: I expect each team to support their arguments with evidence. This evidence should be relevant, accurate, and persuasive. If a team presents strong evidence, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

4. Rebuttal: I expect each team to engage with their opponents' arguments and present effective rebuttals. This means addressing the key points made by their opponents and demonstrating why their own argument is stronger. If a team presents strong rebuttals, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their position.

5. Delivery: I expect each speaker to deliver their arguments in a confident and engaging manner. This means using vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact to capture the attention of the audience. If a speaker is engaging, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their argument.

6. Cross-examination: I expect each team to engage in cross-examination in a respectful and constructive manner. This means asking relevant and probing questions, and responding to questions in a clear and concise manner. If a team engages in cross-examination effectively, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

7. Respect: I expect each team to show respect for their opponents and for the debate process. This means avoiding personal attacks and staying focused on the issues at hand. If a team shows respect, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

In summary, I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

khasenbeck-meyer@fenwickfriars.com

FOR PF:

I prefer warranting > evidence

Please no spreading

Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it

Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important

I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD

Please no spreading

Please don't read Ks or theory

I prefer warranting > evidence ✍️✍️✍️

I did debate in high school and so you can treat me as a flay judge

I guess on some level I believe in tech over truth but you may want to reflect on why you are avoiding truth

Send any evidence that gets called in round to machealey@college.harvard.edu

Relax and have fun!

I am a parent judge. Please limit debate jargon; would seek a reasonable rate of speech and see lots of value in providing a road map. Be concise.

For Toc dig PF:

Stuff below is general to basically any event but like cuz I'm judging PF some of this stuff is PF specific. But my thoughts from event to event don't really change.

Email: sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Send speech docs of all cards being read before round and set up a email chain, do not do the send cards after, it makes things go much slower, and is generally just a better practice to send a speech doc with whatever cards were read. If you do not do this, I will definitely doc speaks, but I'm not gonna say anything if you don't do this in round.

Did LD In HS for 4 years at montville. I tried to shorten this but its lowkey still hella yap, so if you have any specific questions ask irl. The more important I think something is for the sake of the round, the higher up it is( besides the speaks stuff at the bottom, its prolly good to see that). But generally ill vote on basically anything, and tech>truth as best I can. Note, though, that I'm not perfect and make mistakes, so I'm ok with post rounding as long as you all are respectful and don't start ripping my head off. Note that even if my decision is "wrong", my ballot is never going to change, but I understand how much this activity means to some people, and I want yall to at least get as much clarity as I can give as to how I made my decision even if you completely disagree.

Also just as a note like I don't really care if yall read my paradigm before round, at the end of the day its your round, but like if something happens like a team reads disclosure, and you get mad I voted on it because you didnt know that argument existed or something, I will not feel bad since its pretty clear in my paradigm that I like disco and in general am comfortable with progressive argumentation. I am not going to intervene if I thought they won this argument just because I feel bad that you couldnt respond to this. You should strike me if you want a judge who wont evaluate these arguments. That said, if you are a trad team, hit something progressive, and try to respond but still lose, Ill prolly keep speaks relatively high and try to explain what I thought could've been better if yall want.

Should be fine with speed, but since I've been out of debate for a while, my flowing has gotten a lot worse, so if you're going like really fast on analytics, there's a good chance I'll miss something. Better to either slow down on analytics or like send them, but ill clear you if I cant flow you at all.

I really like disclosure (disclosing open source on HSLD wiki 30 min before round), and I think it should be a PF norm (so if your opp hasn't disclosed its probably a good idea to run disclosure in front of me). That being said ill vote on disclosure bad if I think you won your counter interp/reasonability or something, but the bar will just be higher to win that. Also the more friv the disclosure violation the easier it'll be to win reasonablity.

tech > truth. I will vote on literally anything (i.e., vote after x speech, friv shells, etc..), but like naturally, the more I don't understand the arg, the greater chance I just can't vote on it. Also the more objectively untrue an arg (ie sky is green) the lower the bar is for a response. Also these arguments still need a warrant, like I won't vote on ev after 1ac if there isn't some sort warrant. Also, even if this stuff is conceded, I think a much better-warranted argument can always be layered against a crappy blippy argument. Thats part of the reason I think badly warranted blips tend to lose a lot. I've been out of debate for a bit which means I'll naturally be less familiar with some ideas. This means Pomo, really obscure Phil, complicated link chains, weird pems, etc.. probably need a lot more explanation/go slower, since otherwise, if I'm lost as to like what the arg is, it makes it really hard to vote on that. Good with Policy args, theory and stock Ks (cap, security, etc..). Will vote on spikes, but probably dont read a nailbomb AC.

Please collapse, and give a ballot story and do judge instruction as to why you won the round by FF. If you just LBL and do no like judge instruction (ie: if we win this link turn, we win round cuz xyz, or even if scenarios) then it's more likely I will need to intervene and the decision/speaks won't go your way. Also please make sure your actually explaining your weighing and why it matters ie its not enough just assert we ow on scope, prob etc.., but argue why that ows other weighing mechanism, or why your terminal impact ows/link turns their impacts.

On speaks (skip the chunk and just go to the list if your on a time crunch, but the chunk could give some info that could be important idk):

I'm probably gonna be more strict with speaks. Ie, I most likely will not give 30 speaks on a 30 speaks spike, unless I actually thought your deserve a 30. I think speaks inflation is getting a little crazy, and a lot of the time everyone just be getting 29+. However, I understand that they're extremely arbitrary which is why this usually happens. So on this, I'll try to be as consistent with my speaks from round to round and try to be clear on what my scale is (but admittedly this wont be perfect, like if its r6, and I'm rly tired and the round is super messy and there's a bunch of unweighted impacts or links, yall are probably all get >28.5, just bc ill be slightly annoyed). Generally speaks will start with 28.5 and will go up dependent on ur round strat, ie, did u collapse well, did u do good comparative weighing, judge instruction, etc. Also like admittedly, part of speaks will depend on how much i liked the round/how the round went down. For example, if I thought you were good, but round was really messy/you just lost to a really good team, speaks might be lower, even if you probably would normally get higher speaks in another round. Might give a low point win in extreme scenarios. Generally speaks will follow:

<28 - didn't collapse, or weigh, or dropped a lot of stuff.

28 -28.5 - a lot of stuff I thought could have been better.

28.6 - 28.9 - decent, but thought either collapse, weighing, or like just general round strat/argumentation could've been better.

29 - 29.3 - most everything was pretty good, probably some small stuff I would change (ex: you went for a winning strat but there was probably easier way out

29.4 - 29.9 - really good, not much I can really add.

30 - goat

Make the round easy for me to vote and your speaks will probably be 29+. This doesn't mean like a close round will give lower speaks, ie that round could've been really good and everyone will get good speaks in that case, but like the clearer the judge instruction and ballot is for me, I will probably be happier and naturally give higher speaks.

This is my first year in the debate world and I am the assistant debate coach at Waring School. I come from a mock trial background and completed a summer institute in debate this past August.

In terms of debate itself, I believe that debate should be accessible. With this in mind, I appreciate sign posting. Regarding speed, debaters can choose to speak quickly but should know that if you are speaking so quickly that I cannot keep up I also cannot flow your arguments. Using evidence in debate is also important to me.

If you have any questions at the end of the round or the results, please email me at ehelstrom@waringschool.org

Dear Debaters,

This is my second year judging and I am a parent judge.

I am tech over truth - I would highly appreciate if you argue your points clearly and concisely when possible. You can speak fast as long as you are intelligible and the argument is logically cohesive. Use evidence to articulate a point or illustrate a picture.

Be polite to your opponents and try your best.

Good luck and have fun - debate is about learning!

Hi! I’m Jenna (Harvard ‘25). I debated parli (APDA, British Parli, World Schools) throughout high school and college. I’m a big fan of warranting rather than pure evidence, and how I sign my ballot will be heavily influenced by weighing of warranting and evidence. Spreading is ok, I’ll say clear if you go too fast.

Don't waste a strike on me - I'm in tab.

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

I have been judging speech and PF in both Novice and Varsity in tabroom and local tournaments in past few years.

Here are a few important aspects of speech and debate that are crucial in my mind:

1. Respect to your opponents
2. Speak slowly and clearly (I will stop taking notes if you talk too fast)
3. Avoid Debater Language
4. Do not speak over one another
5. I will give you a few seconds of leeway, but don't abuse it
6. Know your audience

Thanks

-Sandy Hou

I am the parent judge who has previously judged PF. My expectations are as follows (PF specific):

Professional discourse that does not become overly aggressive or personal

Ability to share evidence when asked by opposing teams as I view an inability to do so as bringing said contention into question

Clear and concise points that are presented and refuted

I generally dislike teams arguing that the opponents aren't following all rules or teams that try to score points by claiming the others are being disingenuous. Argue your case and refute the other team's.

Delivery should be moderate as going to fast will make it too difficult to follow

I expect teams to respond to their opponents contentions and not simply ignore them

I do not rate technical arguments outside of the topic. I expect the debate to focus on the topic presented and will judge accordingly if teams chose to go that route (think arguing theory instead of the topic)

Uploaded 01/23

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

I am a parent judge with no direct debate experience. Please speak at a normal pace and I will take notes along the way. During the debate round, I pay special attention to the dynamics of the interactions among debate teams and how well the partners collaborate as a team.  

Email - ginger.hunsucker@gmail.com

Hello! Here are some notes about my judging:

• I believe valid evidence is important in your arguments. Well-reasoned arguments supported with evidence are most persuasive.
• I will be looking for whether you've fully explained your argument, whether you've provided a warrant, and whether you've articulated the impact.
• I understand you need to relay a ton of information in a short amount of time, but please keep in mind that I still have to understand what you are saying. If I can't understand your points because you are speaking too quickly, that will affect your score.
• I expect everyone to be professional and befitting of the occasion. Artfully turning another side's logic against them and/or pointing out flaws can (and should) be done respectfully. This includes crossfire conduct.
• I will be more impressed with direct refutation versus refutation that is generic or canned sounding. I hold the same view toward frontlining.
• Keep in mind how important final focus will be as this is the last time I will hear you. I shouldn't be introduced to completely new arguments. I'll be interested in how you tie everything together to make your points and analyze/respond to the other side.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

I am a parent judge with limited experience, and I vote based on the strength of both your argument and speech delivery.

For the strength of your argument, I look for compelling warrants and unique links to tangible, clear, probable impacts (not necessarily quantitative). I also look for extensions of your contentions, comparative weighing that is well developed, and frontlining.

In crossfire, I look for lively, critical engagement with your opponents' reasoning and evidence. In the summary or final focus, I also appreciate debaters who paint a picture of the PRO and CON world and weigh accordingly.

For delivery, it is imperative that you read your contention clearly and not spread. I greatly appreciate off time roadmaps and speeches that stick to a structure with clear signposts throughout.

For speaker points, I look for energy, clarity, and a tenacity to turn your opponents' argument throughout the round.

Please feel free to send a copy of your speech doc to jiyoon.im@gmail.com.

I have never done any debate judging before, so I will judge purely on vibes. I also appreciate arguments done in the recitative style of opera.

Congratulations for participating in Speech and Debate!

I’m a debate enthusiast, and my leisure time is spent promoting the sport for all students. Whether you win or lose this round, you are developing competencies that will carry you throughout your life. Now for how to win my ballot.

I'm a FLAY (Flow /Laymen) PF judge, so while I flow the round, I expect a respectful and civil atmosphere— and make sure your narrative makes sense. In other words, don’t read a bunch of statistics to support arguments that don’t seem reasonable in the real world.

In my evaluations, I prioritize the following three factors, listed in no particular order:

1) Weighing: clearly explain the arguments made by both sides as early as the second rebuttal and throughout the remainder of the round

2) Warrant: provide logical reasoning behind the evidence presented and critically interrogate your opponents' warrants.

3) Clash/Crossfire: fully engage with and provide quality responses to the arguments made by your opponent, rather than simply disagreeing with them. With that said, don’t stress the crossfire. The crossfire is NOT going to make or break the round. At most, it may impact your speaker points. Thus, it's important to use that time to thoroughly interrogate and understand the opponent's narrative to have a meaningful exchange of ideas for the remainder of the round.

If evenly matched on all the above, perceptual dominance (i.e., tone, presence, confidence, and team dynamic) wins!

Automatic Loss:

Warning: If tempted to give false evidence, Don’t Do It!

Speaker Point deduction:

Icks:

• Repeatedly (3 or more) asking opponents for cards. You might as well ask them to send you their entire case- SUS!

• Looking only at the judge the entire round without ever looking at your opponent; I find it dismissive and rude to your opponent. It’s important to fluctuate your attention and consider both the judge and your opponent during the round.

Hi, Here are the some facts abouts me as it relates to judging debates.

• I am a post graduate in Env Engg. & Management from IIT Kharagpur.
• Have 23+ years of experience in Information Technology including 16+ years in leading large programs for delivery in shipping and Healthcare Industry. Currently working as Strategy and Planning specialist.
• Public Forum Debate judging started in 2/18/2023. Have judged ~21 rounds including 4 triples so far till Mar-2024
• Participants introductions before actual start of debate would definitely help me.
• Would love to see arguments summarized at the end of case presentation and rebutting section.
• Maintaining respect for everyone in the room and keeping calm during debate is always desirable.

My email in case you have any questions and want to reach me : vishu.jain30@gmail.com

I'm a lay judge with little experience. I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate. A fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand arguments in the past.

• Speak Clearly
• Present clear, concise arguments
• No spreading
• Don't use jargon
• Be respectful!!

Parent judge.

Parent judge

I cannot flow your speeches properly if your pace is too fast or if you are mumbling.

Make sure to be organized (if you present a roadmap, follow it clearly and signpost)

Collapse onto your main argument in summary, it makes the round much more cleaner and easier for me to vote on.

Make sure everything is warranted properly.

Extend everything you want me to consider in my RFD.

Add me to the evidence exchange email chain (jha.sharad11@gmail.com) but I won't review cards unless specifically mentioned in a speech.

I won't be timing so I trust that you and your opponents will keep each other accountable.

Make sure you are being respectful at all times.

Good luck and have fun!

first time participating as a judge

For your email chains: jatikohn@gmail.com

Tldr;

NonT & Performance: 1

Kritiks: 1

Phil: 2

LARP: 2-3

Topicality: 2-3

Theory: 3

Hello everyone, I’m Kati (she/they). I am the lead PF coach & curriculum writer for Bergen Debate, and I regularly teach LD at various summer camps (NSD every summer since I graduated high school: 2019, ’20, ’21, ’22 & War Room in 2020). As a debater, I competed primarily in LD, clearing at every nat circ tournament I went to my junior/senior year, reaching the bid round at all but one. I was the first freshman to qualify to TFA State & Nationals at my school, amassing over 60 state points compositely & was top 30 in extemp debate nationally as a fish. Throughout undergrad, I continued coaching LD and Policy, and upon graduation began working in PF. All of this is to say that I’ve been in the activity for a while and really love it, and I very much look forward to judging your round:)

If you have any specific paradigmatic questions for me, feel free to ask before we get started, but I pretty much am a blank slate. What matters to me most is that arguments make sense & I know what I'm voting for and why it matters.

General Prefs:

-Speed is fine/good! But don’t sacrifice your clarity & please don't yell into your mic if we're online.

-Good Extensions clarify warrants. It’s not a real extension if you are just restating the tag; spend time fleshing out why it deserves my ballot.

-Weigh everything, even/especially your weighing! Not referring solely to those mechanisms, you need to be comparing all of the arguments on my flow and telling me what is the most important to vote on & why.

-Overviews are awesome / Final Speeches should be attempting to write my RFD. This means take me through each layer of the debate and tell me how/why you are winning (framework, contentions, link or alt, the RVI, etc.). Go through everything that matters, identifying independent voters for your side.

-Lastly, don’t read radical arguments that you don’t have the agency to. An L 26 is the most likely conclusion of a round like that.

Email chain info: nathanmichaeljohnston@gmail.com

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind) - I find myself to be compelled by genuine in-round abuse stories more than potential abuse.
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution.

Signposting is a must.

I do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Linking is a must. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. Make your links clear, please! So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Failure to provide clear links is a good way to lose on a particular contention.

If your opponent doesn't respond to a claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Your impacts tell the judge why he or she should care. Don't just casually say them once and then never have any ties back to it. Make sure to directly link your impacts to your contentions. In close matches where both teams make valid well-presented claims, decisions are ultimately made on the power of the teams' impacts.

Rebuttals: You have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech. This is called the burden of rejoinder. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked.

Off-time Roadmaps: I find them helpful especially if you speak fast. I will try my best to flow all arguments so anything that helps me do that appreciated. That said, keep them short and don't attempt to squeeze in any off-clock arguments.

Hi, I'm Natalie! I'm a freshman at Harvard, and I debated PF for four years at Newton South. I am a flow judge, but sometimes I flow in my head.

Preferences

• I won’t vote for theory
• No spreading (I won’t read speech docs, I only flow what I hear and understand)
• I like clearly explained warrants and thorough comparative analysis
• I don’t like blippy arguments and evidence or statistics that are not clearly explained

Speaks

• +0.5 speaker points if you work in a Taylor Swift reference
• -0.5 speaker points each time you're disrespectful in cross

Good luck and good debating! Let me know before the round begins if you have any questions or need any accommodations.

email chain: samjones@college.harvard.edu

PLEASE EXPLICITLY WEIGH AND EXTEND LINKS - IF YOU DO NOT I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE TO DECIDE WHAT WARRANT/IMPACT IS MORE IMPORTANT AND NO ONE WILL BE HAPPY.

Update Harvard 2024: For some reason, everyone keeps reading extinction impacts without internal links and no link weighing. I like extinction as an impact when done well, but it isn't an excuse to not read links and not weigh. "There's no internal link in case" is a valid response. If both teams go for extinction, please give me explicit link weighing. "Our impact happens first" isn't weighing unless give me a reason to care. I'm more likely to vote on weighing over extinction than a sketchy link into extinction. Maybe I'm old, but one person per speech and first/second cross.

Day 3: I have not been getting enough sleep, so the more coffee I get brought the better my decision will be. I'm not going to vote on arguments for which I don't understand the internal links - this is the most likely to be true on conflict scenarios.

tldr: debate is a game, tech > truth, and warrants > cards.

Respond to offense and concede defense as soon as possible. First rebuttal defense is sticky until frontlined. I'm almost always going to prefer a warrant over a card. A round where everyone gets 30s is a round where I vote on high-quality warrant comparison.

Without metaweighting, I default uniqueness > magnitude. I won't flow off docs. If you're reading prog, assume I have no background. I'm open to ROTBs which have an explicitly defined way for your opponents to win under the ROTB. I default fairness > education, i'm truth over tech on most shells, and I will vote on RVIs.

Wear whatever and say whatever you want. I don't really listen to cross, but it makes me sad when people talk over each other. I'll vote on anything.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Tech guided by Truth.All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

My background is I have judged for 7 years, mainly exempt, Interpt , oratory, duet, and duo. World Schools nationals and state. and other various debates. I have done Big Questions, With that being said, speak slowly and enunciate your words so I can understand you. I like concise, logical arguments. I want to hear voters in your last speech explaining in detail why I should vote for you and what you did that the other side failed to do.

I will listen to all arguments To earn a big win

The main thing I expect to see in a round is respect for your opponents. Keep your arguments on the topic, don’t resort to insults or petty commentary. It will not win you the round. To win the round, you need both Content and Style. Do not expect to win a round solely off of one or the other.

1. POIs are a strategic tool in rounds, not a chance to bombard your opponent. Stay respectful and wait the customary 15 seconds between POIs. I take your POIs into consideration if you connect them or circle back to them in your substantive speeches. Follow WSD norms.
2. It does not matter how many arguments you make if none of them are weighed against your opponents. Make sure to engage with your opponents' case and extend your arguments down the bench. Please don't just reiterate your substantives without telling me why they are more important or more correct than the opposing side's
3. Impacting is integral to winning my ballot. There is a reason the motion is being debated, find it and tell me why it matters. Impact out each of your arguments. Magnitude, Scope, and Relevance.
5. Organization & Structure I value clear and logical organization in all speech events. Clarity and style In speech events your ability to clearly articulate your message is essential. Whether you are giving a prepared speech or impromptu, your speaking style should be clear, engaging and confident. Use your voice, gestures. and pauses strategically to keep the audience ( and me) engaged.

1. Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. I value manners and sportsmanship EXTREMELY heavily. Debate is supposed to be fun and engaging. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.Just have a clean round and do your best!

When it comes to speed, I prefer slower deliveries. I value speeches that are understandable, stylized, and with inflections that highlight the most important aspects of your case. A rapid delivery dumping card after card does not impress me.

1. Debate well
2. Be Nice!

Best of Luck to all.

Heyo! I'm Revin, and I'm a former PF debater. I'm a current undergrad who debated starting from early middle school, so I do have a fair bit of experience. Below I've listed some things that may help you when I judge you.

1. Speed is ok, but no spreading. You can read at a generally fast pace, and I'll most likely understand what your points are if you signpost. However, don't spread - I need to hear at least some clarity and inflection.

2. Signpost. Self-explanatory.

3. Bringing things up in final focus that were not in the summary is heavily discouraged. While not a rule, articulating and organizing your summary is important, and a final focus is meant to wrap up your case, not introduce new arguments.

4. High theory. Not very familiar with this kind of stuff, but explain it WELL if you choose to use it.

That's it for how I judge. A couple of common things that are addressed:

1. Off-time roadmaps are preferred. Just give a brief outline of your contentions and/or responses, but make sure you say something indicating that it is off-time so I don't start timing you.

2. Frontlines + paraphrasing is ok. Just make sure you have the evidence/cards on call.

3. Giving cases is preferred. I would like to have both sides' cases in front of me so I can follow along easily. +0.5 speaker points if done.

4. Preflow your arguments. Self-explanatory.

5. Extra speaker points. Any Riot Games/anime references give +0.5 speaker points. More if done consistently/well :D

I also make music on YouTube if that interests you. Have fun!

TLDR: Hello, my name is Sri, and I'm a LAY

Some of my preferences:

- I can handle speed well enough. Don't spread.

- Clarity- especially if you're speaking fast, please enunciate and do not mumble.

- Please weigh comparatively.

- Implicate- don't just read off responses from your block file, tell me individually why each refutation matters/its impact and why I cannot buy your opponent's arguments.

- Signpost- always tell me where you are in the speech. It helps with my flow. If I don't know what you're saying, or why you're saying it, I likely won't flow it.

- Please be respectful to your opponents. Being aggressive is fine, but don't say anything rude. I will take speaker points off for that.

- Time- I will usually keep track of prep and speech time, but I encourage you to do so as well!

- Extending- please extend your argument in every speech!

- Please don't be abusive. No new arguments in final focus.

- Evidence- if your opponents ask for a card, you should be able to retrieve it within a minute.

- Intervention- I will seldom intervene in a debate round. I will only do so if I find any cards suspicious and I'll call for them.

- I am very objective.

Speaker points guide:

29-30- Perfect--keep up the good work!

27-28- you're either average or a little above average. You're on the right track!

25-26- you might have said something offensive or rude, or you didn't do a great job in the round overall.

My email id to add to the email chain : kv.sridhar@gmail.com

Good luck!

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

hi i'm neel (they/them). i did a bit of circuit pf and circuit ld at plano east in texas. i'm now a third year at michigan (go blue) but i'm not affiliated with the debate program. i made a couple of useful resources (pf forward and the debate group) back in my debate heyday

gimmeurcards@gmail.com for the chain please.

i'd appreciate content warnings for mentions of self harm and/or sexual violence.

largely debated policy and the kritik, and as such, have largely judged policy and the kritik. really inexperienced with phil and tricks so take that as you will. decent for theory, but my experience is limited to more common shells (disclosure, condo, etc.) frankly, i'm probably best for policy v policy, policy v k, and k v k debates, but i'll do my best to judge whatever you want to throw down.

some of my fav ld judges were e cook, blake andrews, and rose larson. some of my favorite pf judges were sam loh, cale mccrary, and shane stafford.

if you extend an argument with a claim, a warrant, and an impact until the end of the round, i will consider it when making my decision. this rule is blind to the substance of this argument except for death good (which i will not evaluate) - i will be sad about a ballot on eval the debate after the 1ac, but i will do my best to evaluate the argument nonetheless.

prooooobably 50/50 on non-t affs vs fwk but i haven't judged these debate in a minute lol.

will disclose and will disclose speaks if you ask.

ask before round if you want me to clarify anything said above.

i think joining debate was the single best decision i made in high school (other than deciding not to take the ap art history exam) - i'm more than happy to be a resource or chat about what debate can do for you beyond high school, well into college and the job search.

best of luck!

I am a parent judge and have been judging since Fall 2022.
I am a physician and health policy researcher.

I find that the best debaters present clear and logical arguments that are supported by strong evidence and important impacts. Regarding evidence, I don't need to be included on evidence chains; rather, I will expect you and your opposing team to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence presented.

Some additional suggestions.

1. Talk clearly and at a normal speed. I will flow the round and need to be able to understand the points you are making.
2. Keep track of your own time. I will also time speeches. If you go over, please finish your sentence. If you go more than 5-10 seconds over, I will put down my pen and stop writing and not capture what you are saying.
3. Please be clear about your warrants and impact (signpost).
4. Off-time road maps aren’t required but are appreciated.
5. Your summary and final focus should be paralleled, and I will ignore any new points brought up in either.
6. Speaker points will be lower for any debaters who are rude or disrespectful to opponents.
7. No K's, theory, or trix.
8. Have fun!

sammie keenan (she/her) | skleigh523@gmail.com | 2673249332

2nd Year at Northeastern University

JR Masterman EK - PF for 4 years, TOCs twice

add me to the chain

post round me if you believe i genuinely made the wrong decision - I probably won't go about reaching out to tab to change it, but I will appreciate the discussion nonetheless

feel free to reach out if you have any questions or are looking for any support outside of round

if you dont feel like reading the rest of my paradigm/ you aren't looking to see how i feel about prog etc, just read this

I will not read lit on the topics beforehand, so don't treat me like i've been spending as much time thinking about this as you have. i probably don't know those 5 cards that everyone knows and uses, so don't just throw out a name and expect me to get it. if your argument doesn't make sense without me having done extensive research on my own time, it's not worth voting on.

treat me as you would treat a pretty standard tech

don't be racist, homophobic, dont misgender your opponents, do not be belittling, arrogant, or condescending, etc. etc.

Debate whichever way brings you the most joy, have fun

If you have something fun you want to try out, PLEASE do it in a round with me, Ill probably be overjoyed to break away from substance for an hour

i think speaks are pretty stupid - we cant really separate ourselves from our biases so i will usually just give everyone relatively good speaks ill only dock you if youre mean/harmful

Im anti-intervention which means i will vote strictly off of the flow (or as strictly as i can). please do not ask me to fill in the holes for you, weigh for you, etc - i wont. If its not on my flow Im not voting for it.

If its not fleshed out in speech, I wont vote for it, dont just extend a tagline and expect that to be substantive enough to vote on.

DO NOT just extend a card name without

a) extending what that card says

b) extending a warrant with it

telling me "extend x its the most important & holistic ev in the round" isn't enough for me to vote off of and will not win you the round

Please do a preflow before you enter the room

Please do not give me a 40s preamble before you start time

i dont listen to cross unless you say something funny enough to distract me from tetris, and id prefer we skip grand and take a min of prep

PLEASE MAKE THE LAZIEST POSSIBLE CHOICE - i vote on whatever is the cleanest - as long as its been consistently substantiated idc what it is ill vote on it if its clean

some substance stuff:

good extensions or i wont vote for you - big on continuity through speeches - this means you don't win my ballot if i dont get uq,links,impact through every speech i dont vote for it.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH - I love weighing and especially in messy rounds (which are most atp) it makes my job much easier and you way more likely to win my ballot. make it fun - metaweigh, go for a prereq, link weigh, idc just please weigh

defense is not sticky

signpost, roadmap - if you tell me where to look, i can look there, but if rounds get messy and you are jumping all over the place with no warning, i will get lost and i will stop flowing and it will lose you the round

i like when ppl go for turns but if it was a blippy turn to begin with and you blow it up it in the backhalf (esp if ur second) prob wont vote on it

probability weighing isnt an excuse to make new responses in the backhalf

prog stuff:

ks - I like them and Ill vote off them. Have a ROB, I like alts, idc if theyre reject x or an actual separate alt. im familiar with a solid amount of k lit but if its super niche please take the time to make sure that both i understand and your opponents understand. if you really believe in your lit you dont just see it as a path to the ballot, you want to have good discourse on it. if i can tell that you yourself don't even know your lit and you are picking a niche k to get my ballot... yeah ill vote for you if you win it, but ill vote for you very begrudgingly and ill probably get very annoyed at you during my rfd.

theory - I dont like friv theory. I also don't love evaluating theory and don't see the value in a lot of shells. i personally believe in disclo, but its not a huge deal to me. on top of that, i dont totally care about certain specific norms within disclo, so if youre getting super picky and starting an argument with the opponents over which "type" of disclo, im probably going to feel that all of our time has been wasted. That being said, If you win your shell I vote on it and if you think someone made a serious and harmful violation, run a shell ill vote on it.

tricks - first caveat for my anti-interventionism

framing - loveee framing. do not, however, love perfcons so pick a narrative. also, if you are running SV framing please make sure it is actually SV and not a util arg where you tell me at the bottom that it affects a certain marginalized group worse than everyone else experiencing the issue. every util arg is exacerbated by SV. if you label it as SV, make sure its SV.

*respond in 2nd constructive - second caveat for my anti-interventionsim.

*be strategic w framing, notabusive

*note about prog - if you are a small school, haven't been to camp, etc. and you don't "know" how to respond to prog yet, i get it. but not knowing how to respond is not a response. there is

a) a reason people are running prog arguments apart from putting you in a position where you struggle to respond.

b) a reason you are here - to THINK CRITICALLY - responding to prog is really no different than responding to any given argument, please just use your brain and think critically about the argument at hand. i dont need a line-by-line response including indicts about the lit, just try your best and make an actual response.

other specifics:

norms -

cut your cards and have them ready immediately

content warnings should have opt-outs

i like speech docs - if you can send docs for every speech thats cool but if not that's chill as well

be nice to your opponents

please be cautious about your evidence ethics - on this note, if you have a problem with someone elses evidence ethics PLEASE officially challenge it as soon as you notice it DO NOT wait until round over, im not gonna evaluate it, sorry

dont do egregious prep theft

please don't spam shells. i dont care if its your strategy to win against a team that doesnt even know how to access the wiki or if you genuinely believe there are that many shells to run in the context of this round - its never a good strategy. in the same way that i dont want to see 3 contentions and 2 turns extended in FF, i dont wanted to see a ridiculous amount of shells that by the end of round have become so muddled that not one of us understands.

on the above note - pick an advocacy. yeah, maybe you care about a lot of things and want to advocate for all of them but remember that this is public forum. pf was not built to be conducive for prog, even generally, so please limit the number of prog args per round to at least attempt to make use of the limited space provided.

as mentioned in the prog details, i like disclo as a norm, and i will vote on it if you give me a reason to.

idrc about para unless youre quite literally lying - if you think your opponent did something crazy then run a shell. alternatively, just say hey they egregiously paraphrased, thats not what their ev says, no warrant blah blah blah and i probably just wont vote on the argument and you'll save a bunch of time instead of running the shell! ill be appreciative if you can just win on the substance. also, i personally dont think a little paraphrasing is bad for the debate space but if you win your shell ill vote on it, I just personally feel para shells are a waste of time in pf

speed - i can handle speed but if you are exceeding 300wpm please send a speech doc. if youre gonna spread please make sure you can actually spread. even if you can spread, i will say, i just simply dont enjoy it. also, if i cant understand you I might yell clear or i might just stop flowing.

docs - ill appreciate if you can send me a doc for every speech, and ill really appreciate if the reason you send it is not because you are speaking at a ridiculous pace. this being said, docs are by no means necessary and if you are not a team who is afforded massive files which you can quickly put into a doc for me speech by speech, understood.

1. I weigh arguments and style equally.
2. Citing evidence is extremely important.
3. The arguments and contentions should be clear.
4. I prefer clear speeches over fast-paced.

Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:

Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org

Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)

Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)

I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!

I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.

Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:

1. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
2. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
3. I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
4. I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
5. Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
6. Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
7. I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
8. I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!

I debated in WSD in high school for Greenhill ('22). I don't debate much anymore (Harvard '26)

Paradigm:

1. Assume I am reasonable but relatively uninformed. Explain what you want me to understand.
2. Comparative arguments are almost always the most compelling.
3. Both impacts and links should be weighed.
4. Extreme burdens and frameworks are generally uncompelling.
5. The prop 4 should not attempt to go for everything in the opp block, but they must respond. I have a high bar for what counts as new material.
6. I like principle arguments but they should be weighed and ideally be intuitive.
7. Regrets motions: prop must both define what the counterfactual is and defend why that is the likely case. Opp defends squo.
8. Speed: you can be quick but please do not spread.
9. Please be respectful to your opponents and to the topic you are debating. Also feel free to post-round me to your satisfaction.

PF specifics:

1. I do not consider an argument responded to because you said you responded. I consider the contents of your response, and consider an argument true until explained otherwise. However, I do NOT consider an argument important until explained why.

Hopefully you debate because you enjoy it. In that vain, have fun :)

Pine View KP; NSD Instructor; Lake Highland Prep Coach

Tabula Rasa

The funnier you make the round, the better it will go for you

TLDR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and DO NOT SPREAD(honestly i prefer if you heir on the side of slower; if your opponents can’t understand you I probably cannot either). Defense is sticky but I only grant you marginal defense(if the ; first FF may read some type of new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

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

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can make new implications on weighing but not brand new weighing or new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

Add me to email chain Rafehk21@gmail.com; I prefer if you send a speech doc beforehand with all evidence unless it's analytics

Speed:

Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (250+ wpm) there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast or not clear and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Time:

You are not a baby, time yourself

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

––––––PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

Theory:

I enjoy theory debate (ONLY IF NOT ABUSIVE). Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells. I think abuse in rounds is bad but if you read other shells it may not go well for you. I EVALUATE THEORY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN OTHER TECH JUDGES (model of debate > than a small random squirrlley turn)

Kritiks: I read a couple K's in my time but I am extremely bad at evaluating them SO if you run one, please WIN the argument sufficiently. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY WITH A MEGAMIND BRAIN.

Tricks: These genuinely create a stupid model of debate but go for them if you want to.

TKO:If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks, if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

I am a parent supporting my daughter in high school debate. I have judged on last year Harvard National. Although I don’t have a lot of judging experience, I do understand the rules of debate. I like my debaters to be polite to each other and prefer if they speak at normal speed. I will be impartial and unbiased in my judging. I will make my determination based on how well the debaters present their evidence and make their argument.

Minimal PF/debate experience. Don't rely on theory—treat me like I'm lay. You can speak fast, but at a speed where everybody can understand. I'll be flowing. I'm big on weighing impacts—you give me bigger numbers with strong links, you win. I'm lenient with time; you can go a bit over time, but too much and you'll see that reflected in speaks. If a question is asked at the very end of crossx I'll give the other team time to respond. If you go over prep by a little, that's ok—five seconds over isn't going to change the outcome of a round. And most importantly, don't be rude!

Debate parent, former high school policy debater. Moderate to fast pace ok, will decide round based on debater speeches. Emphasis on last set of speeches

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged various formats of speech and debate for several years.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Put forth well structured argument that outlines your points in clear contentions. Designate these contentions. Do not talk too fast. Your extra information means nothing if it is lost in a machine gun of words. Be expressive in your tone. If something is particularly important, make sure your inflection denotes this. Be passionate, but not exasperated. Remember that there are three modes of persuasion, ethos, pathos, logos. Almost all debaters bring good logos, most bring good ethos(see below), but few bring sufficient pathos. Can you get at the emotion of the issue beyond simply using a passionate tone? Bring humanity to the issue by connecting it to a specific anecdote or example. This will show you care about your topic and are showing me how it genuinely affects an individual, not just numbers. Stats are important, but numbers can blend together and be forgotten soon after they are said. A story rarely is.

Maintain courtesy in your cross and your exchanges with the opponent. Do not commit ad hominem. Do not interrupt your opponent's answer during cross unless he or she is being unnecessarily wordy and using up the time. Let the person finish. If you have to interrupt them, do so respectfully. If you don't want a person to eat up your time, then don't ask an open ended question that allows him/her to do so. Professionalism and respect are essential to effectively winning an argument. Why would I believe what you have to say if you can't even believe in your own argument enough to let the other side say theirs?

Avoid using the word 'like' as a filler during speeches. This is a bad habit and can erode your authority as a speaker. Don't try to impress me with debate jargon. This can bog down the flow of your argument and can get away from the humanity of the issue. Public forum debate or World School debate are both supposed to appeal to any person. Excessive use of debate jargon or spreading goes against that intent. Please recognize that you are here to perfect your ability as a communicator, not dump as much information onto the judge as possible.

please treat me like ive never done debate before

• slow, explain your arguments, give me a clear reason to vote for you

full lay

I do American and British Parliamentary on the Harvard team but have no familiarity with any other formats so you may want to treat me as a lay judge.

I will not (generally) read any cards and will not flow crossfire. If something important comes up, you must mention it during a speech for me to vote on it. I will only check a card if someone points out to me in-round that the card has been misrepresented.

Talking slightly fast is fine but if you spread, I will not follow your arguments well.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD. No Ks or theory.

Tech > truth but if you can explain why your opponent has made a very unlikely argument or has not illustrated a feasible link chain, I will probably be quite receptive to that rebuttal. Likewise, if you can explain why your argument is most reasonable and probable, I will be happy.

FOR PF:

I am probably biased in favor of the most reasonable sounding team in the round. I tend to dislike arguments where the impacts are massively overblown (e.g. world-ending extinction events) unless you've warranted them really well or given me some good weighing as to why I should prioritize magnitude over likelihood.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

I am a judge from Regis High School. I'm in search of logical, well-reasoned arguments delivered in a civil, respectful manner. I like to see a significant amount of effort put in by the competitor, while still keeping in mind that this is meant to be an enjoyable activity. I am profoundly uninterested in a landslide of dozens of arguments; a few well-reasoned points is always preferable to a novel's worth of statistical sludge. More than anything, I want to see that you have spent a considerable amount of time evaluating the issue and which arguments are worth contending.

Brookelyn Leblanc

she/her/hers

LSU '21 (geaux tigers)

This will be my first time judging, but I've received some training and I forward to hearing you debate! I have a theater background, so strong rhetorical skills and presentation will contribute to your speaker points, while your actual argumentation will determine my ballot. I'll do my best to flow you, but PLEASE speak at a conversational pace, limit your jargon, and time yourselves. Be polite to your partner, and each other, and have fun.

Hello - I am a first year of judge and English is not my first language - so please speak slowly enough so I can clearly understand your points.

Please understand that I cannot vote for you, if I cannot understand you.

Also I am a lay judge but will try my best in flowing.

One last thing to add is - please do not run spreading or theory during the debate.

For Districts: I have no topic knowledge. Please explain things well!

Treat me like a flay judge only in the sense that I prefer slower, well-warranted rounds over the current weird tech meta of dumping as many arguments as possible and making rounds incredibly messy. This doesn't mean that I don't know what's happening on the flow (i.e. don't drop turns or responses because you're debating as you would in front of a lay judge) – just slow down, speak like you would to a normal person, and extend well/provide warrants for everything you say (especially including frontlines and weighing). The more you explain something, the more I'm likely to vote for it.

If you want me to call for a card, tell me to in a speech. I won't read anything I'm sent in a chain unless you tell me to. Don't read progressive arguments in front of me. I do not want to flow off of a speech doc so just speak at a reasonable pace. If you have any other questions about my preferences, feel free to ask me before the round.

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll

Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-Be decent to one another

-Be ready to debate at the start time, including an email chain/speechdrop

-(Online) - sound check before round, and check to make sure we're all ready before you start your speech

----------

NYC Districts (LD):

-Send docs in a downloadable format. I have had debaters send "view only" google docs, only to edit them and turn off access during round, among other academically dishonest actions. Due to this, do not begin your speech until I've downloaded the document that is accurate to what you're reading.

-Sending cards without highlighting is clipping.

-Paraphrased evidence is illegitimate.

-I have no problem voting for disclosure theory.

>90% of my judging has been for Policy and PF.

-I like critical arguments, and policy arguments a close second.

-Phil is pretty new to me - I can't say I fully get it yet, but if it's your bread-and-butter strat, run with it. You'll benefit from over-explaining.

-I'm not a fan of tricks, but it's your debate, not mine! I'll do my best to keep up, but I can't vote for an argument I don't understand by the end of the round.

-I've found LD to be more interpersonally prickly/uncomfortable than team debates. Lower the temperature. Be nice. Have some fun.

-Speed is fine but slow down for the start of your speeches, tags, and signposting between arguments. Neither of us want me to miss what you're saying, so help me help you. Once you're into the internals of the card, I am much more permissive.

-I'll probably be following along in the doc.

-If you're going to spread analytics, it is in your best interest to send them in the doc. I won't consciously punish you if you don't, but I may inadvertently punish you if I miss a key warrant because you zipped through it.

-I will never "eval" after any speech besides the 2AR, save for clipping or safety concerns.

-Quality > Quantity for off-case! More than 4-off runs the risk of my flow becoming disorganized. While I am sympathetic to Condo Bad as an argument, I would strongly prefer not having to decide rounds on it.

-Don't read frivolous theory arguments. Disclosure theory is not frivolous.

-Speaker Points:

30: You were an astounding speaker and strategist, while demonstrating tact, grace, and good humor through your presence in the round. Your performance represented debate at its best.

29.5-29.9: You sincerely impressed me. You spoke well, and executed your strategy nearly flawlessly with no stone left unturned. I will tell my own students about your performance.

29.1-29.4: Very strong performance; What I'd expect of a 5-1 or 6-0 debater.

28.7-29: Well done; What I'd expect of a 4-2 debater.

28.4-28.6: Default; I'd generally expect you to go 3-3, give or take.

27-28.3: Varying degrees of gaps to fill - keep pushing!

<27: Something happened which warrants a conversation/intervention with your coach

----------

Policy:

-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.

-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.

-I'm happy to vote for procedural fairness.

-I'm equally happy to vote for an impact turn against procedural fairness.

-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.

-I thoroughly enjoy a good T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").

-Quality over quantity for off-case. 4-off is my general threshold for keeping a good flow these days - the cleaner I flow the more effectively i can adjudicate.

-If it happens, so be it, but I'd rather not decide debates on condo.

-Generally, no RVIs.

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!

-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.

-Perms are tests of competition.

-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean its always a good argument)

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

Don't speak too fast. Respect each other. Standing up or sitting down per your own preference.

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west a while ago. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain:rhl53@georgetown.edu

i am open to evaluating any arguments conducive to an inclusive debate, but i do have some more traditional preferences (especially pertaining to warranting and extensions). these preferences will likely not impact the direction of my decision, but are largely reflected in my speaks.

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• i am of advanced age and poor hearing, please articulate. (more specifically, i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks. that being said, send your speech docs anyway.)

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. (this includes me, it's been a while since i've evaluated prog and i am not confident in my ability to adjudicate the debate if it gets messy.) if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin and then no one will be happy with my rfd

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a million cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for mildly entertaining videos while you wait

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

I'm a parent judge but I do have some experience as a policy (CX) debater from when I was in high school a loooooong time ago. A couple of pointers that I hope will be useful:

• I think I could handle some spreading but check with the other team first and be articulate.
• Make sure to signpost. Please number your contentions and impacts.
• When rebutting, please reference those signposts, I use a ridiculously large flow sheet but need your help to keep it organized!
• While I tend to be tech>truth, I'm not all that familiar with theory and Ks so make sure it's reasonable and well-defended.
• Please weigh - I am quantitative but you need to also take into account probability and timeframe.
• I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, harassment, or discrimination. Be courteous and professional with one another, especially during cross-x. You will be dinged if you are rude or abusive.
• Please include me in the email chain or doc share using alexlin.pf@gmail.com.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is a great experience that provides valuable skills and wonderful memories.

Hi, my name is Joanna Lin (she/her), and I have four years of PF experience. I'm super excited to watch your round!

A few things to know about my judging style:

I will not tolerate any behavior that is sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or disrespectful to anyone in any way. You will lose my respect and a bunch of speaks, and be dropped from the round immediately.

DO SIGNPOST AND DO NOT SPREAD. I do not appreciate card-dumping. You need to show analysis and application of your arguments. You need to show me how your evidence contributes to the claim that you are making. If you impact out to something large, please make sure you have concrete links backing it up. Even if you have the most “truthful” argument, if you are not able to show me how exactly your evidence and warrants back it up — and you card dump — I will be less likely to vote for you. The same goes vice-versa.

WEIGH, and COLLAPSE! At the end of the day, if your words do not coordinate to an impact statement and an explanation or comparison about how your impacts outweigh your opps, your argument does not hold water to me. I will be voting off the flow.

I do not appreciate misrepresentations of data. Please contextualize your numbers in relative/comparative terms.

Assume I do not know anything about this topic. Debate is meant to be accessible to a general audience: you are building your speaking skills so that the common person can understand you! Therefore, please integrate any definitions of jargon and clearly explain esoteric ideas in your speeches.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at jzhuanglin@gmail.com.

———

BONUS!

Opportunities for +0.5 speaks, not compounding:

During a speech of yours:

1. Saying "rizz" or "grahh" in a smooth, well-integrated way
2. Using a pun
3. Using a British accent
4. Holding your computer upside down

Not during your speech:

1. Lip-biting or doing (m) th(e) ja(w)line thing
2. Doing a Fortnite dance
3. Rapping at least 30 seconds of a UK drill song
4. Doing a breakdance move

Not for points, but if you give me food, you will have a piece of my love.

At the end of the day, we are all just learning how to be better communicators. So, have fun — and best of luck!

tl;dr former PF debater treat me as a flay judge

Email: oliverlin2004@gmail.com

Debated Public Forum at St. John's School. Did some Worlds as a senior.

Speed is fine as long as you maintain clarity. Speech docs are preferred, but I will begin to dock speaks if I need to refer to it multiple times.

I don't flow cross and won't call cards on my own. If you want me to do either, put it in a speech.

I don't mind if you want to postround as long as we have time.

Theory

I'll try to evaluate it tab but I will drop the shell instead of any reasonability stuff.

Kritik

Never ran it. Never hit it. Run at your own risk.

Substance

Tech > Truth. No sticky anything. Please extend and weigh.

Turns should be clearly implicated as they are delivered. A new impact in final focus or second summary is a new argument.

Don't be a jerk in round. I will start by docking speaks, but I will drop you for unacceptable behavior (any -isms, bullying, threats). Please be civil.

Worlds

Same thing as PF except no speech docs and obviously no progressive stuff. I think reading a principle argument is almost always strategic and I like to hear them.

Speech

Zero experience here. As lay as it gets.

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging. Please keep your delivery clear (clarity over speed). I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

This is my second season to serve as lay judge. As a parent, I have been following PF for several years and am familiar with the format,

In my daily job, I am a scientist focused on Stem Cell research, and English is my second language.

If you could, please send your constructive documents to ylinster@gmail.com before the round so I can better follow your speech.

No spreading as I have difficulty keeping up with fast pace.

I value debates showcasing constructive, logic arguments supported by solid evidence. I highly appreciate the skillful catching and addressing of opponents' flaws during crossfire, and final conclusion.

Please be polite and respectful. Personal attacks or bullying are not tolerated.

I assure you that I will be unbiased and will work diligently to give a fair decision.

Enjoy the game!

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• The 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• It's your burden to have a warrant, not your opponent's to point it out. If you extend an impact that I believe to be unwarranted I will not vote on it. This also means you get the implication of your warrant, not your tag. You can't be like "a wealth tax causes economic collapse" if your warrant just says that investment will decrease. I will listen to your cards and will be sad if you over-claim impacts.
• I like clear judge instruction.

my email is ethanhwliu@utexas.edu

debated for Seven Lakes for 4 years

tech over truth

send docs before speeches if fast

feel free to call TKOs if you think its applicable

As a parent judge, I value clarity, commitment, and collaboration. Please don't speak too fast as a steady pace with clear pronunciation and articulation can always make your presentation better understood and more effective. The logic should also be clear and sound. Each member of the team also needs to show full engagement with and devotion to the debate and to their respective position, and they need to support each other to make the team strong. Please remain respectful throughout the debate.

I am a parent judge in my 3rd year. Please present your arguments clearly as I try to capture the flow. Please help maintain the pace of the round by mindful of time limits. have enjoyed learning from the debaters about the topic of the round. I prefer to hear the debaters speak on the resolution instead of the rules of debate.

My name is Eliza Loring (she/her), and I am a senior at the Waring School in Beverly. I am in Varsity PF. So I come into the round with a guarantee I've done research on the topic and an understanding of the in and outs of Public Forum Debate.

> If you are offensive in any way, even if it's a "joke." I will report you to tabroom and you will lose the round.

> Respect Public Forum in it's essence. What I mean by this is that PF is supposed to be accessible and should be understood by any person from off the street. Therefore if you spread (talking so fast that your words blend together), I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but just know you've lost some of my respect (and speaker points). Additionally, don't overuse debate jargon, because you are actively making debate less accessible.

> Please signpost, I'm begging you. What I mean is that tell me what you are saying. If you are responding to a contention please tell me that so I can flow it.

> In terms of tech over truth. I've begun to evaluate tech more. However I think debate should be a balance of both evidence and rhetoric not one or the other.

> Refrain from running Theory of Kritiks. I will listen to them but just know I very much dislike them. I think they are a cop-out for actually debating the resolved and I will think less of you. If you love Theory or K you should join Policy or Big Questions, because that's not what PF is about (PF actually emerged as a response to this!).

> Evidence ethics are important. Don't make up information, you should always have evidence.

>Don't mansplain and let your opponent answer in cross please. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When someone asks a question in cross and then proceeds to answer it themselves rather than letting the opponent actually answer. Just be respectful and kind, it's not too much to ask.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or about the results of the round please ask me.

Add me to evidence exchanges: elizal@waringschool.org

Have fun!

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

VBI Institute Assistan Director of PF (After the round, please feel free to ask about VBI! We would love to earn your attendance! I truly believe we offer an amazing and invaluable camp experience).

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

*UPDATED PF PARADIGM 2/3/25*- I have made some significant updates. This can be founder underneath my "general debate thoughts (pf/ld/policy/wsd)" section.

General debate thoughts (PF/LD/Policy/WSD)As cringe as it is to write, I view myself as a critic of argumentation. This means that any argument you make must be warranted. Absent a warrant your argument is not an argument and I will not flow it.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the rebuttals/Final focus, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 5 seconds of the final speech. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal/final focus, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last speech.

Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

Public Forum:

TLDR: Tech through truth, and truth through tech. I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I will not evaluate non-topical/reject the topic kritiks. I will evaluate kritiks that have a strong link to the topic/aff IFthey begin in 2nd constructive. Not earlier/later. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine. Last but not least.BE NICE.I have, and will continue to, drop teams for being unnecesarily rude, arrogant, or hostile. Passionate crossfire is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): At this point it's either Util or Structural violence which is fine. If you are going to read a framing argument use it. If both sides are reading the same framework be comparative. I find link ins to framing to be persuasive when well explained. If both sides have a different framework tell me why to prefer yours, or link in, or both. Going for magnitude meta-weighing and structural violence is kind of strange absent good warranting. "Frameworks" that are really just tricks/truth-testing are annoying. I will have a VERY low threshold for your opponents to respond if I suss out you're being sketch with your framing arguments.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: Tread carefully all ye who enter here.Disclosure and round reports theory are going to be an auto L-25 unless your opponent is reading some way off the wall argument that is not germane to the topic. In general the more "progressive" the argument the more willing I am to evaluate theory. Any attempts to read theory as a cheap shot victory will mean you get dropped. Reading theory args to "keep PF public" are persuasive to me. So spreading theory is not the worst if your opponents are going too fast. All of that being said theory debate is the debate I LEAST want to see. If a team reads theory against you, you should make it an RVI. It doesn't make sense in an event that is so short speech time wise that a team can read theory and not go for it, but as the team getting theory read on you, you need to make that argument.

Non-traditional stuff/Kritiks: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. Kritiks with a strong link to the topic are really underutilized in my opinion in PF. That being said if this is your strat I only want to see it when the kritik begins in the 2nd negative constructive.

After some less than savory experiences judging performative kritiks/kritiks that do not have a link to the topic I have to say they are a no-go for me. This event is just not there yet for these rounds to have any pedagogical value. I will not vote for blatant reject the topic kritiks in this event.

Argument rankings:

Substance-1

Topical Kritiks-1 (with the caveate that this be introduce in the 2nd negative constructive).

Theory-4

Non-topical kritks-5

Tricks- -10000000000000000000

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Policy:I have not judged much on the patents topic, I do not know the lingo, I do not know what is considered "topical" by the community. Start slower and work up to full speed.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Any other questions let me know!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

I am a college student with little debate background.

I will not understand debate jargon, but I will evaluate rounds based on logic and clash in the round. In general, I would appreciate a respectful and clear round. In other words, do not just read me a bunch of cards and expect me to analyze them for you. Public forum is made for the public, therefore, please try to make things simple and as straightforward as can be.

Try to make the round fun!

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

In my opinion, good debaters can articulate their points, have good eye contact, appear confident, show respect to opponents and judges, and present strong evidences. I prefer to have your case for better understanding; please email to luwenping2001@yahoo.com.

I am a lay and this is my first time judging. That said, please speak slowly. Please have a lot of warranting for your points, especially in rebuttal. When weighing, don't use terms like magnitude or scope, I don't know what they mean. Please try to make this round easy for all of us.

Hello, I'm probably your judge for the next round so here are some ways to win my ballot:

Note: I might ask for some evidence links, if I'm not sure if it is credible or not.

Spreading/Talking Fast

What I'm don't prefer is debaters spread, so if you decide to spread, please send me your speech so I can follow along and read your case and understand it more thoroughly.

Analytics and Cards

If you have an analytic, make sure it actually makes sense. I don't wan

Camera Settings

*Only for online tournaments

Please turn on your cameras just in case, as it might not be you actually debating. It is fine if you turn off your camera if you're not speaking, but when you're speaking please remember to turn it on, or else I will remind you.

Partnering

*Only for in-person tournaments

You can talk to your partner during your opponent's speech, as long as it's a soft whisper so that I can focus on the other speech. If you're laughing or talking loudly, no matter if you are friends with your opponents, it'll be an automatic speaker point deduction, as it can be taken in a negative way by both the judge and the opponents.

Speaker Points

If I hear someone use derogatory or racial language, it's an automatic 26 for both that person. To get a perfect 30, speak concise, and I would prefer if you spoke in the middle, so don't speak too slow, as you can't get out all the information, but don't speak so fast that I can't understand what your saying. Additionally, I know that crossfire isn't really important to most judges, but I care about crossfire. It can show me how much you understand the topic (and what you're saying). Don't be too aggressive though, try to calmly answer the questions but if your opponent keeps on mistaking/misunderstanding you question or fails to respond to it correctly, I will be sure to note that down. I definitely take off points though if you bring up new evidence in summary, grand cross, or final focus, as that is against NSDA norms.

TLDR

In short terms I am a flay judge in the middle. If you want to speak fast, send me your speech. Speak concisely and clear, no stuttering or stumbling, and please no making up evidence. That just makes the job of me and your opponent harder. Further details in my actual paradigm.

Where I am

<-Lay---------↑-Flay---------Tech->

Remember debaters, your score doesn't define how well of a debater you are. It only defines how well you did in that specific round. If you get a slightly lower score than your opponents or partner, don't feel discouraged because it's just once and you have many more rounds and debates to go. So no matter if you take the L in the round, remember that you all are great debaters, and keep pursuing your passion in debate! (Unless you're forced by your parents to do debate).

General

I am a coach and have judged PF for many years.

- DON'T SPEAK FAST OR SPREAD.

- Yes, I want to be on the email chain. vaibhav_mahajan@yahoo.com

- I'm fine with you reading theory or K's as long as it is well explained and defended.

- Truth > Tech

- Be respectful and remember that cross is not for arguing but rather to further understand each other's positions and discuss about evidence.

- Don't waste cross time to call for cards. Do that separately, and prep time will count towards you reading the cards.

- Don't read anything new in the second half. I will accept new weighing and frontlining in summary but not in Final Focus.

- I work in the finance and banking sector so I will understand economy-related arguments extremely well and will be more willing to vote off them

- BE PROFESSIONAL.

Decision

I give my ballot to the side that does the best impact comparisons and weighing, provides good quantitative statistics and logical evidence, and well constructs/explains their narrative.

Speaks

- I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS/RACISM/SEXISM

• I give speaks based off of organization, clarity, participation, and ethics

I am a past debater (Parliamentary debate), and current debate coach. I judge based off of what I see on the flow. I will (try) not to make any assumptions on what you are saying, nor will I include anything that I may know into my judging.

I will be looking for clear communication of arguments, evidence, and impacts. I want to see how your side of the ballot is going to best solve for the problems proposed, and have the strongest real world implications. I want to see effective and explicit weighing.

I can take notes at a pace slightly faster than conversational. If you spread I will lose track of my notes and your argument. I prefer clarity over number of words said.

Hello!

I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Mercyhurst Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I've been coaching and involved with speech and debate since 2017, and primarily work with my school's debaters. I enjoy judging Public Forum due to it's clear and pragmatic discussions.

When judging, I, above all, desire to hear clearly delivered speeches. Without clarity, it is difficult to give consideration to your position and evidence. Also, I listen closely for a well-organized speech that clearly states contentions, evidence, and impacts.

I approach PF as the event was originally intended. As judge, I am basing my decision on who was most convincing in their argument. Think of me as a regular guy pulled off the street, so you must clearly explain things and convince me!

Finally, debaters must remain courteous and civil in debates. Rudeness will be penalized!

I look forward to judging your team!

Hello!

I am a parent Judge. I would like all speakers to be very clear in their arguments.

I prefer no spreading, and it will be hard for me to understand your arguments at a fast pace. I value logical and supported arguments, avoiding unnecessary complexity. I expect all arguments to be conveyed clearly. I strongly encourage you to only run standard lay cases in front of me.

I expect all debaters to show integrity throughout the round. Disagreement during cross is good, however, please maintain a respectful atmosphere.

For email chains, please send it to Padhu.mn@gmail.com

Good luck!

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

And no need to speak very quickly!

Most importantly have fun!

This is my fourth year as a parent judge. I value clear and convincing arguments, both in the context of debate and my day job as a professor. I want debaters to interact respectfully, and I appreciate it when you don't talk too fast.

Please add me to the email chain:firstseeker@gmail.com

• I've never debated. My experience in PF comes from coaching my son and judging over the last year.
• Please don't spread. Conversational speed is appreciated
• Signposting and off-time roadmaps are encouraged/appreciated
• Be respectful in cross and don't interrupt/talk over each other.
• Cross is very important, so I will definitely be listening. However, please weigh/extend during summary/FF so I can be sure to put it all together.
• Please keep your own time. I will be timing as well.
• Body language, eye contact, and enunciation are important
• Relaxed, light-hearted, and even humor if the situation calls for it is all good.
• Please collapse on your arguments.

If you have any specific questions, you could ask me before the round or email me at firstseeker@gmail.com

I am always amazed by how smart you all are and how well you debate. Thank you for allowing me the privilege to be here.

Tldr:

Good =conversational speed, collapse, signpost, weigh/extend, good form/body language/enunciation

Bad =Spread, disrespectful, ignoring time, bad form/body language/enunciation

I'm a parent judge, my son competes in public forum debate. I will judge based on NSDA rules. Competitors should speak slowly enough for me to follow since I will judge based on what they say. Please be respectful to opponents.

As a judge, I prioritize clear argumentation, evidence, and clash. Please be concise and articulate your points. Time management is crucial, and be respectful of your opponent's arguments. I value substance over style, so focus on the quality of your content. Avoid spreading or excessive jargon, and provide a clear framework for me to evaluate the round. Remember to extend and weigh your arguments effectively in the rebuttal and final focus. Good luck!

Hi debaters! I'm new to debate this year; going too fast doesn't help me understand how you are actually debating within the round. I don't have a great understanding regarding this topic, so I expect arguments to be understandable and well supported. Please be respectful to each other and have fun!

Hello! My name is Rajesh, I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, otherwise I may not understand you and might judge you wrong. Try to send a speech document for as many of your speeches as you can, it makes it easier for me to follow along. You may use flex prep, but please do not use many other debate terms, I am not familiar with them. Teams may take a ten-second grace on each speech, but I will intervene if you go over this. Most importantly, please be kind and have fun!

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. This means I am comfortable at 70-80% of spreading for top debaters. If you spread full speed, you will lose me. So far I have been fine with prelim rounds, but not out rounds with a 2-tech-judge panels.

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-LARP: My favorite arguments. Warrant well.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair to make sure your opponent does not get educated with your argument per your value. I default to education first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon.

-Trix: Not a fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you run trix even when your opponent drops/concedes it. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

I'm a parent judge with one year of experience judging public forum debate.

It's difficult for me to follow if you speak too fast. Please speak at a reasonable pace and be clear about your arguments.

Clarifying impact and explaining why you should win is important and please be respectful.

Good luck!

Dear Debaters,

Although I have used English professionally for decades, English is not my first language.

Because of this, I respectfully ask you to:

• Slow down your speaking speed and please do your best to enunciate each word clearly
• Mark clearly your arguments and rebuttals by:

1). Pausing before you make your argument

2). Stating clearly and slowly that you are making an argument

I will be taking notes on my computer.

Good luck to all, and let's have fun.

Thank you for your attention,

Rafael Mier

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay judge who has been judging both debate and speech events for approximately six years.

I particularly value a clear presentation of a particular argument. Please consider the amount of evidence that you need to present to support your contention or your refutation of your opponent's contentions. Being able to clearly and logically present your arguments is as important as the volume of data that support your argument.

I do not like the approach of trying to present an excess of data in the hope that your opponents might miss a particular piece of evidence.

Good luck and have fun.

Ram Miller

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years. I do a bit of collegiate policy now.

tech > truth unless you’re physically violent or bigoted

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

All ev is silly but i’m a big ethan roytman guy so go for it

Yang Gang

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or bigoted pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on ICC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need NEED to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progressive Args

Ks:

I did a bit of K debate last year in collegiate policy, did a bit of K debate while still on the HSPF circuit, and coach K teams, so I'm cool with it. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to.

I do like K's that pertain to the debate space (eg some versions of fem, orientalism, afropess, etc) as I'm persuaded by the whole "if debate can only operate through bigotry it probably shouldn't exist" but approach debate bad or debate broken arguments however you feel so inclined.

Generally I think that T-USFG is smarter than a lot of framework arguments in PF mainly because no plans/cp means less room for teams to meet in a way that is reasonable but I've voted on both so go for whatever you think fits better for the round.

My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is usually not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it). Note that this still means that the team going for the RVI needs to warrant why losing the shell is a reason to lose the round.

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing/Decision Criterion in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

• Repeatedly cut your opponents off
• Be rude to anyone in the round
• Taking super long to pull up ev
• Extending through ink
• Not signposting
• Calling everything dropped when it's not
• Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

• Efficient LbyL
• Having fun with it
• Good argument explanation
• Signposting well
• Good weighing
• Smart strategy
• A super clean win

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhat honest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then be VERY certain about the violation.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAQ

1. Can I use speed?Sort of but I have audio processing issues so under three conditions.

a) Don't take it above about 275wpm (the slower the better)

b) You’re clear

c) You send me docs including analytics

d) probably not a smart idea to go fast and read a k

I’ve been doing this for years, have spread many rounds myself, and do policy now but that doesn’t mean I’ll always be perfect, especially considering my API. So while not a huge risk, the faster and less clear you are the more you risk me missing something.

1. Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
2. Can I read new weighing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
3. Is cross open? Sure we ball
4. Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
5. Does a split panel change my judging prefs?

nah probably not

1. Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

I am a traditional judge who was President of my high school debate team. I vote based upon the flow but require warranting and extending your arguments to inform my decision. Include impacts in your argument and weigh/meta weigh during rounds. It is difficult for me to reach a favorable conclusion if you base your argument on theory, counter interpretation, or disclosure theory.

Other things to consider: Signposting is helpful. My decisions are influenced by which individual/team more clearly, concisely and factually presents and supports their case. You can speak quickly but don't spread (240 wpm +). Try not to fall into "debated speak" as it makes it more difficult to understand/relate to your arguments. It is much more important that I can understand and follow your line of reasoning and how you build your argument. Building a logical case supported by a well thought out line of reasoning with supporting evidence is much more important to my decision than how quickly you can rattle off information. It is very important that you can support (or cite evidence for) "statements of fact" in your argument. You can off time roadmap but limit this to less than 15 seconds. Focus on your contentions and countering your opponents arguments - DON'T focus on telling me what your opponent is doing wrong or the rules they are breaking (ex. bringing up a new contention in final focus) as that is just wasting time. Finally, don't laugh at, belittle, or otherwise show disrespect to your opponent or you will be docked individual points. Most importantly have fun, be nice, and we'll all have a great time. If you have questions please feel free to email me at trmoffitt@yahoo.com.

I am a fourth-year PF debater and varsity co-captain at Concord Carlisle High School. I have become more and more tech over time.

PF:

I am a tabula rasa judge, meaning that the only information that exists in my world is whatever gets brought up and extended throughout the round. Treat me as though I could understand anything, but know nothing.

In terms of speaking style, I don't have a huge preference. Public Forum debating should be about convincing civilian judges, and the team that most effectively does that will get the highest speaks and the best chance at a win. Remember that persuasion doesn't just come in your speeches, but also in your demeanor and respect for your opponents.

Insofar as I'm sort of a Tech/Flow hybrid, I think that spreading (speaking so fast that your words blend together) in Novice is somewhat ableist and I don't care for it much; try to keep your cases under 900 words.

For similar reasons, I wouldn't recommend running Theory or Ks when I am judging. Ask me about this if you object or have any questions

LD:

I have extremely limited experience with LD, but I am familiar with the structure and philosophy - don't go too fast, but other than that you should be alright.

Same thing about Theory/Ks as PF, I would recommend avoiding them in pretty much all cases

Debate can be stressful, but also extremely fun. If you are reading this, good luck! Know that I am rooting for all of you.

This will be my first time judging a debate competition. So, please maintain eye contact and pace yourself a bit slowly. I used to participate in debates in high school, do have a sense of what to expect.

I am an analytics professional. I would look for how multiple pieces of evidence and data are stitched together to arrive at a conclusion. My evaluation would also take into consideration if evidence presented is anecdotes and singular data points as opposed to multiple pieces of evidence pointing towards same conclusion.

I'm a parent/lay judge.

So presenting using clear organized arguments that the general public can understand, such as signposting your arguments and clearly expressing the superior impact of your argument, is appreciated.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge, and this marks my second year participating in Public Forum Debate.

As a judge, I place a high value on clear and effective communication, as well as mutual respect between debaters. Confidence in presenting your arguments is important, but it should be balanced with respectful interactions and professional conduct. Focus on your key points and support them with solid facts, credible evidence, and logical reasoning. I appreciate speakers who maintain composure and professionalism throughout the round, encouraging a constructive and respectful debate atmosphere rather than one based on aggression.

It is important for all debaters to remain courteous and contribute to a positive, respectful environment during the entire debate.

Please be mindful of the time limits and make sure to follow all event rules.

Ultimately, my goal is to assess the debate fairly and thoughtfully, weighing the strength of your arguments, the quality of your evidence, and the professionalism you bring to the table.

Wishing you all the best of luck!

hi!!

i'm alexa (she/her) and i'm a senior. i've debated PF for 4 years and world schools for 3, and i'm a current member of the national debate team.

here are some things about my judging

1. don't spread too fast. its not perceptually dominant, just confusing
2. i value structure a lot. signpost please, follow the flow, and stick to your roadmaps.
3. tech over truth. my opinions will not interfere with my judgement of your performance

in general, debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. if i note that you are not being friendly nor welcoming (sexist, homophobic, racist), i will drop speaks and perhaps you will lose the round. be civil

my email is alexa.murphy@mastersny.org for chains/docs

debate is hard and i know you are doing your best. we all have off rounds and we are all learning together so don't take losses very hard at all. also, feel free to reach out to me at the above email with addition questions/concerns if you have any

love, alexa

I am a recovering debater. I debated for 7 years. Some might even say I debated for too many years. But debate was a critical part of my education and formation.

I have one preference: please god, have fun. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

This is your debate round, not mine. You and/or your team are paying to be here and you have (hopefully) been putting in the work to prepare for this round (we, judges, largely just show up). So this round and tournament are rightly yours. Make it what you want it to be.

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for more than 10 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

I prefer clear communication and will rank those who spread lower.

Hello! I'm currently a junior at Harvard College debating in APDA with experience judging PF, World Schools, and APDA.

Be polite and respectful during rounds.

If possible arrive early

I OPT OUT OF ALL DISCUSSIONS OF ISRAEL/HAMAS

You will be auto-dropped if you read arguments relating to the current conflict.

General debate best practices:

I care more about warranting than about evidence, just quoting a New York Times article is not enough to convince me of your argument.

I appreciate off-time road-maps and clear side-posting, but it will not negatively affect you if you do not do these things.

Weighing is important! Please explicitly weigh why an argument is more important than your opponents.

You do not need to prove complete solvency for me to buy an impact or argument - ie any reduction in climate change is better than no reduction, regardless of if you solve climate change

For PF:

I cannot understand spreading so please try not to read faster than 212 words/min. If I can't understand it, I won't evaluate it.

I generally don't buy high-impact low probability arguments unless they are well warranted—ie if you say x will lead to nuclear war, there must be a very good link-chain.

I generally don't flow cross-ex, if a contradiction is important please pull it through to FF!

For APDA:

I don't have any theory pre-beliefs.

For LD:

I cannot understand spreading so please try not to read faster than 212 words/min. If I can't understand it, I won't evaluate it.

I will not evaluate theory or ks, so don't read them.

As a judge, I prioritize clear argumentation, evidence, and clash. Please be concise and articulate your points. Time management is crucial, and be respectful of your opponent's arguments. I value substance over style, so focus on the quality of your content. Avoid spreading or excessive jargon, and provide a clear framework for me to evaluate the round. Remember to extend and weigh your arguments effectively in the rebuttal and final focus. Good luck!

Volunteer college student with history of debate in High school. I did mostly Public forum but i did compete in LD and congress respectively.

Spreading is fine as long as your coherent, if I can’t hear your points I can’t evaluate them.

I judge heavily on the back and forth portions, make sure to cover everything I will be flowing everything you say. Stay respectful in cross. Do not belittle or yell at your opponents at any point.

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, I will ask to see any cards anyone else calls for. I may call for cards at the end of the debate but if your opponent didn’t mention anything wrong with it I won’t factor that. If your opponent asks for a card have it within reasonable time, if you cannot locate your own information i will just move on and assume you don't have it.

I like email chains to insure smooth rounds and quick speech transitions.

If your planning on running a theory/K explain yourself well don’t just assume everything is understood. Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. I like to actually see debate on the resolution, not debate debate. I don’t mind arguments that are theoretical/philosophical, especially when backed up by actual historical or political evidence. I also think kritiks and progressive debate practices are interesting.

More specifically for pf:

warrants impacts framework

Im keeping track of it all, if you drop any of it in any speech I drop it on my flow. Don’t assume I know even if I do, tell me. I can only count what comes from you. Clarify everything, Repeat your information, organize yourself in speeches.

WEIGH in final focus tell me why and how you won and if it’s true the round is yours.

Email for email chain: orta.mia@gmail.com

Thank you for taking the time to participate in speech and debate. This summary should be succinct and to the point in order provide a guide or framework on how I typically judge participants.

  My experience: I’ve participated in congress and policy debate. My judging history has been congress, Lincoln-Douglas, PF, and Policy.   Speaking: Please ensure you speak clearly even if you are spreading or speed reading. If it’s not spoken, I will not be able to understand or weigh the item into the decision making process.   Decision process: It is the burden of the affirmative to carry without a reasonable doubt as to why your the winner. However, this does not mean that the negative can simply use one simple or anecdotal hole to throw out the entire case. I like to weigh the options presuming the burdens have been met.   Etiquette: Please ensure you are professional and respectful of your opponents and those in attendance. Rudeness and arrogance is not appreciated, and will be reflected particularly in the speaker points.   Thank you and best of luck!

I am a first-year college student with limited debating experience, so please don't spread. Please be kind to me. Im trying i promise. Im more scared of you than you are of me.

I enjoy sweet treats. ;)

my name is olivia, i coach debate and do mock trial and love public speaking. i am a chill judge, and am very experienced, i’m fine with speed, i like when you outline your arguments specifically as you move throughout your speeches, and when you spend time weighing and outlining which arguments were left unresponded to or dropped. don’t be mean to each other during cross :)

1. No spreading
2. No complex theory
3. Don't read Ks or theory in LD
4. Be nice

For the NSD tournament: If you run theory on kappa or lambda, I'm dropping you.

Before getting into technicals:

Chances are that by the time you're reading this, I've become a very sleepy guy. I'd love to just have a straight forward topical debate that isn't lightening speed, but then again I'll evaluate whatever you get up and say.

I'm a second year out, so I can pretty much adapt to any in round practices you're used to. A few preferences:

- tech > truth

- Clear signposting (I vote off the flow so I need to know where to write what)

- Case extensions in summary and final focus

- It has to be in summary to be in final focus

- If it's not in summary, I won't vote on it (...ok revisiting this a year later... I reserve the right to maybe vote on it)

- I don't flow crossfire

- I will go to extreme lengths to avoid voting on presumption.

- Time yourselves (esp crossfire)

- Any speed is fine

- Add me to the email chain please: gnpaulson@college.harvard.edu

Two critical notes:

1. I don't believe in speech docs. Debate is about speaking, so I refuse to read your speech off a document as you read so quickly you're basically just making sounds instead of saying words. Please speak as fast as you'd like and clarity will rely on your annunciation rather than a google doc.

2. I do not like theory; I've found that most times teams run it for a competitive advantage rather than for the sake of benefiting debate. That said I'll still evaluate and vote on it, but I think it's fair for you to know my preferences.

Hey, I am a parliamentary debater from Harvard. Please be respectful at all times to both me and the team you are going against. Please don't run theory. I am fine with any speed of talking and I do not value evidence that highly.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

I am a volunteer judge. I have judged both forensics and PF Debate both in state and at national tournaments.

According to the coach I work with, these are the things I need to tell you:

Consider me a "Lay" judge, and I can handle (at most) a fast conversational speech.

I have zero background in debate, so I don't understand the debate-specific vocabulary.

I do have a good understanding of politics and a basic understand of philosophy. When laying out your Value and Value criterion, make sure you are really clear about what you want me to know about the particular philosopher/theory you are working with.

Please... do not run Kritiks, crazy weird cases, or anything wild in front of me. I can guarantee I won't understand what you are trying to do and might have to drop you since I don't know what it means. I STRONGLY encourage you to only run standard lay debate cases in front of me.

Interp Events-

- I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you. Cleanliness does impact my ranking, Dont forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?

SPEAKING EVENTS/Debate

• Be specific with the topic at hand
• Not a fan pf spreading
• please be respectfull
• I pay the most attention during cross, like a lot. So please keep that in mind

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

1. EXPERIENCE LEVEL: I have no formal training in judging debates, but beginning Feb 2024 I have volunteered at multiple different tournaments and evaluated debaters at different experience levels, in grades from middle school through high school, and from across the United States and countries around the globe.
2. RATE OF DELIVERY/JARGON/TECHNICAL LANGUAGE: I find that listening to conversational or fast conversational speech is easiest for me to follow arguments. I am open to the use of technical language and jargon.
3. NOTE TAKING: I find it helpful to make notes as debates are proceeding and will periodically make notes throughout.
4. STYLE vs. ARGUMENT: I prefer a balance of argument and style. I do not have strong preferences for delivery styles.
5. SPECIFIC CRITERIA: In assessing a debate, I focus primarily on the ability to coherently assemble facts and data in a persuasive fashion behind meaningful arguments, and also consider ability of debaters to respond effectively and specifically to counter arguments made by their opponents. In general, I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.

-- Paradigm

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. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in topical research (from any part of the library) rather than theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit), Daniel Guo (Strake Jesuit)

I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.

Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021. Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

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 AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

-- Misc

I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

I am an Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at Montville Township High School. In high school I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I've been involved in speech & debate for over ten years as a competitor, judge, and now coach.

My debate paradigm is simple. I ask that you provide me a clear explanation for why your side is winning based upon the resolution. I prefer topical cases. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity and I value the educational experience above all else.

That being said, I will certainly listen to whatever framework, paradigm, or theory you plan to throw at me so as long as it is well articulated, warranted, and explained. Context is critical for me to evaluate your arguments and understand why your side is winning in the round based upon the stated resolution. Assume that I have not researched the resolution at hand.

I prefer clear overviews that explain what you plan to do in the round and how you plan to win. I want this to continue throughout the round. How and why you are winning? Interaction with your opponent is a must. The more clash that exists in a round, the easier it is for me to adjudicate. I'm not interested in inserting myself into the round as the judge. I need weighing mechanisms.

Word economy is a valuable asset. Speed is not. I will not yell clear, even if I cannot understand you. The communication aspect of this activity is not dead. So why take the risk and spread?

Please let me know if you have any questions before a round. Good luck!

Hi! I have been a public school teacher for 26 years and a Speech and Debate Judge for 3 years! I will be keeping notes/comments throughout your presentation.

Hi, my name is Julian (Zhanliang) Qin, and I am a parent judge.

For presentation, I am looking for clear, loud and confident voice of speaking, with natural hand & body movement and eye contact with audience. Ok to refer to notes occasionally, but too often especially searching in notes with pause could lead to point reduction. Fully use time allocated but close speech within grace period.

A straightforward roadmap with an outline, organized arguments and summary is essential.

Convincing reasoning from unique angle is applaudable and make the debater stand out of the average.

For the seating debaters, active engagement is not only respectful to opponents, but necessary to have effective counter arguments.

For Parliamentary debate, try to have at least 2 POIs per round (even if you got denied), to show you are engaged and listening, and strategically challenge the speaker in a good way.

Good luck on your rounds! Please email me if you have any questions.

Email: zhanliang_qin@yahoo.com

Background: I come from a World schools background but have experience in judging and coaching PF and LD as well

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts
4. I really appreciate principled arguments
5. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
6. Humour is appreciated but there exists lines you shouldn't cross
7. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

I'm a parent judge. I have judged Congress once before, but this is my first time judging PF. I am a practicing attorney and a former teacher of English as a Second Language. My training in law means I tend to value content/substance of the argument over style/flair, and I will be keen to ensure that arguments are successfully rebutted. My teaching experience means I am aware how challenging standing up in front of strangers and speaking can be. Good luck everyone!

Please share your speech with me, especially if you tend to speak quickly: vickiraikes1@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years on the PF national circuit for duPont Manual High School from 2015-2019 and I graduated from Vanderbilt in 2023. Let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions!

1. Make it easy for me to vote for you with well-warranted and weighed arguments in the 2nd half

2. Plz rebuild in 2nd rebuttal (and even start collapsing!)

3. SIGNPOST I will be forever grateful

4. WEIGH COMPARATIVELY: don't just say magnitude, tell me how you have 3 more magnitudes than your opponent

5. I'm fine with speed; just make tags and signposts especially clear

6. Please come to the round with pre-flows completed and try to keep evidence calls as short as possible

7. Have fun! Be comfortable! Be nice to your opponents!

2nd Half (Summary/FF): Collapse needs to happen in summary and these speeches should mirror each other. Make sure you are telling me why things matter when extending it. Extend the warrant AND impact in BOTH speeches for me to vote off of it (weigh it and you'll win!)

I don't require defense in 1st summary but mentioning it will always work in your favor.

Cross: I kind of enjoy watching cross so take it as an opportunity to clarify arguments or just to be funny. That being said, it won't factor into my decision at all unless it's brought up in a speech.

Evidence: I'll call for it if someone tells me to or if it's super key to my decision. If it is sus, I will not be a happy camper.

Theory n stuff: I have no idea how to properly run or evaluate it but I will try my best if you read it (my best is not very good). Please do not use this as a tool to be exclusionary. Be sure to emphasize the roll of the ballot.

Please enjoy yourselves while debating and have a fun (and educational) time!

For PF:

1. Be respectful of your fellow debaters
2. Be realistic with your impacts. If an impact is very extreme but has zero plausibility, it's hard to vote on it.
3. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things can be true in a round, but that doesn't mean they are all equally important.
4. Be mindful of your speaking speed (more than 200 words/minute is too much)

For LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD.
2. Pretty much everything from the PF paradigm is relevant to LD.

* Quality of argumentation

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

I prefer warranting > evidence

Please no spreading, anything too fast I will ignore

Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it

Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important

I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost

Email: Benjaminredler@gmail.com

Lay

I am a lay judge. My email is kimreuter2@gmail.com to add to your email chain of evidence. Please know I will need the following to render a meaningful decision:

1. Please speak slowly and clearly. If you speak quickly, aka "spread", I will miss your argument.
2. Please signpost and do off-time road maps.
3. Please let your opponent's finish their statements before responding during crossfire.
4. Please do not use jargon.
5. Please keep your own time.
6. Please figure out how to share your cards before the round starts.
7. Please have your evidence ready and available to present immediately if requested by the other side.
8. Do not discount cross. I am always ok with open cross earlier in the debate, anything to get you to engage on the topic meaningfully.
9. Please be respectful of each other and act ethically.

I graduated from the University of Texas in 2023 with a bachelors in Political Science and English. I'm currently taking a year to teach at my alma mater where I teach AP Spanish Literature. I plan to apply to law school this year and begin my 1L year next year. While I didn't debate in HS and haven't judged much, I'm a bright guy that keeps up with the politics and economics in the news and should be able to render a fair decision in any round. Give me clear explanations of why I should voter for you. Go slow and explain things clearly and you will be fine.

Hi y'all! My name is Tilly (she/her), and I'm excited to have the opportunity to judge your debate and/or speech rounds :)

Background: I'm a sophomore at Harvard College and currently debate in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats. I attended Bloomington High School South in Indiana. During high school, I competed most extensively in LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Informative.

Lincoln-Douglas: I debated for all 4 years of high school, primarily in LD, and I was competitive on the Indiana circuit, where I attended 5-10 tournaments per year. If your debate experience is in traditional LD, please treat me as a flow judge. If your debate experience is in progressive/national circuit LD, you should probably treat me as a lay judge, at least to the extent that I have little familiarity with progressive debate (aside from what I've read in the debate blogosphere). Here are some notes about how I judge:

General Principles:

Debate encourages us to learn about interesting ideas that interact with each other in interesting ways. For me, the single most important thing you can do in a debate round is to genuinely think about the ideas in play. Why do your arguments make sense — or not? What contexts and assumptions underlie them? I think if you do this, you'll be more likely to win the round — and even if you don't, you will get more out of the debate.

I appreciate good research and well-chosen cards. That said, if you are relying on cards to make an argument, they should contain information that actually proves your point. For example, if I am choosing between argument (a), which relies on an assertion of some fact by a famous professor, and argument (b), which doesn't include a card but does include good analysis that negates argument (a), I will vote for argument (b). However, if I then hear argument (c) which provides sufficient empirical evidence to show that argument (b) is false and argument (a) is true, I will then vote for arguments (c & a).

I appreciate clash — make sure you are doing your best to understand and respond to your opponent's arguments. Especially if you're not going line-by-line, make sure to roadmap (on- or off-time) so I know how to structure my flow.

To vote off a given argument, I need to be able to believe that it's true (which requires warranting and, generally, evidence) as well as why it matters (keep in mind question like: what is the impact? why does it matter under this round's framework? how can I weigh this impact against other impacts in the round?).

I am "tech > truth" to an extent. However, I also consider myself reasonably well-informed about the world. Therefore, while I will try not to intervene in the round, if you are making an argument that contradicts common assumptions I might have drawn from, say, reading the news or taking history classes, you may have to do more argumentative work to persuade me of your argument.

Re: judge intervention, I will intervene less the more clearly you explain your arguments and their implications.

Some Specifics:

Please don't spread. (I'll let you know if I can't understand you — but just in general, assume I can't understand spreading.) I can flow relatively fast "normal" speech (and I understand the desire to fit as much information into the round as possible), but I will flow more accurately and in more detail the closer you are to a normal conversational pace.

Please use theory only as much as necessary to maintain a fair debate. Don't run tricks that are not also actual, good arguments.

That being said, I will evaluate most arguments (including kritiks, counterplans, etc., if in a circuit where those are a norm), as long as you explain them clearly (i.e., you offer warrants for all your arguments instead of simply name-dropping jargon, you explain any cards that aren't self-explanatory, you make it clear why your arguments are relevant to the resolution and my ballot).

Please send me your speech docs if you have them, but understand that I will only open them to check content/evidence if called (or if I'm skeptical about something that's asserted in the round), and that any argument you want me to evaluate should be clearly stated (and warranted, and backed up with any necessary cards) in your actual speeches.

Finally, remember that while I have specified some preferences here, my goal as a judge is to make debaters feel welcome and cast a well-considered ballot based on what happened in the round I judged. Please don't just run the arguments you think I'll "like" — run the arguments that you think are compelling, interesting, or important.

Other Debate Events: In general, my LD paradigm applies to all debate events. I have competed once in PF and once in Congress, and have judged both events. I have never competed in policy, but I've read at least one textbook on how to debate in policy (i.e., my knowledge extends to some familiarity with stock issues and a little bit of policy jargon, but I'm not familiar with technical arguments or current trends in the policy circuit).

PF

I'm fine if you paraphrase evidence, but if you paraphrase, please make sure you also have a document with citations and cut cards corresponding to any evidence you mention in the round.

Congress

Your speeches are short, but please do your best to make them substantive! If you speak early, try to frame major issues in the round so that your speech stays relevant and resonant throughout. If you speak late, try to either (a) weigh arguments that were made earlier in the round and analyze how they interact with one another, (b) introduce new arguments/perspectives/evidence that have not yet been considered, or (c) both. I vote off substance first, but I do appreciate style. :)

Extemp:

I love extemp. Make sure to answer your question. Like in debate, genuinely thinking about the question and its answer(s) will go a long way. Don't make up evidence. Don't freak out. Also, remember to give a speech you are comfortable with and confident in, instead of stressing about what I might like in a speech.

Here are some other things I do appreciate:

Interesting AGDs and transitions (as long as they don't detract from substance or strike a tone inappropriate to your question).

Signposting. Make sure I can clearly track your separate points!

Unified analysis. (This is when you have an umbrella thesis that unifies the separate points in your speech into an answer that is more specific/detailed than "yes" or "no." It's not necessary, and a good speech without unified analysis will beat a less good speech with it — but unified analysis may make your speech more cohesive if you can pull it off.)

Diversity of evidence. If you can cite different types of sources (e.g., an Associated Press article with breaking news, a book laying out an international relations theory, an NBER study on the gender wage gap), each offering a different perspective or type of information to bolster your points, then you will probably be able to put together a very well-rounded speech.

Quality and relevance of evidence. For some topics, recency of evidence matters a lot; for others, older evidence can still be valuable. Make sure to cite reputable news sources (think NPR or the Washington Post, not Fox News) and note biases or perspectives (e.g., the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, while The Nation is a left-leaning magazine).

Context. If you can place your arguments in historical context, frame them with academic theories, or understand how seemingly disparate issues influence one another, I think that's really impressive.

Beyond that, of course, Extemp is a speech event, so I do care about style! I won't penalize you for small stumbles, but if one speech is significantly more fluent than another, that is a big point in its favor. Similarly, things like using vocal variation, gesturing naturally, embodying a range of emotions, and sounding like you're having a conversation (not, er, talking to a wall) will all help your speech stand out.

Other Speech Events:

Public Address

Be funny, be passionate, be solemn, be conversational — whatever tone(s) work best for you and your message.

I appreciate speeches that address interesting, arguable topics, rather than simply relying on platitudes or common assumptions. I enjoy clever rhetoric and powerful writing — as well as solid argumentation.

I weigh speaking style, writing style, and content in my decisions; because these factors play into one another, I don't categorically prioritize one over the other.

In Info, I appreciate creative and interesting visual aids (although I am totally willing to vote for a good speech with few or no VAs). Remember, visual aids should help you convey your message, not distract from it. I won't penalize you for small mishaps (e.g., you will be fine if your stand falls over).

Interp Events

I don't have much personal experience with interp, but I really enjoy watching interp and admire interp performers, and I'll judge as best I can.

I appreciate clear pops between characters and precise, creative blocking.

Although you didn't write your speech, you did select and cut it, so I will pay attention to your choices. Does the narrative make sense? Is the piece itself successful (i.e., is it thoughtful? is it funny? are the characters believable?).

If your piece seems to exist for the sole purpose of being maximally traumatic, I will rank you low.

The balances between naturalism and exaggeration, drama and humor, etc., are yours to strike. If I think you chose the right balance for your piece and performance style, I will rank you higher!

Miscellaneous:

Don't be discriminatory.

Please assume (within reason) that others in your round are well-intentioned. People with good intentions can still say harmful things, but usually it's more effective to explain to them why something is harmful than to ice them out of the conversation.

Speech and debate rankings are a zero-sum game, but speech and debate are not! I hope you have the opportunity to learn from your own research, reading, and practice; learn from one another; and find a community through speech and debate. Have fun!

As an English teacher and new judge, I'm looking for speeches and debates that are both substantively strong and stylistically polished.

When evaluating content, I focus on a logical flow of ideas and substantive evidence. Arguments should be coherent, well-researched, and support a clear central claim. I want to see that students have a command of not just facts, but persuasive reasoning.

In terms of delivery, speeches should have solid structure, smooth transitions, and a natural, conversational tone. I look for good posture, eye contact, vocal projection, and judicious use of gestures. I deduct points for pacing that is too fast, repetitive, or monotonous.

Given my English background, language choice and rhetorical devices also factor into my scoring. I appreciate artful metaphors, descriptive words, and varied sentence patterns. I mark down for rambling, redundancy, filler words, grammar mistakes, and imprecise vocabulary.

Overall, I want to see students synthesize claims and evidence into arguments that intelligently explore complex issues. Speeches should showcase the student's unique perspective and critical thinking abilities. While polish is important, authentic arguments that take risks impress me more than formulaic, generic speeches.

Heritage ‘23 -ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com & evan.burkeen@yale.edu - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did PF for 4 years
• Flay Judge
• I agree with Daniel Zhao on TKOs - half the rounds this tournament a team has just not extended an impact - call a TKO if you can TKO speaks only drop the longer the round goes on.

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory (all evidence included) and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork. Update: I will have a higher threshold for explanations - I am not going to reread ur K link card - if your explanation and implication of your literature isn't sufficient you will not get my ballot.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• More efficient the round the better the speaks for both teams (GCX is skippable).
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.
• 30 Speaks Theory = 27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

hi hi im soph i debated w ransom everglades for 4 years on the nat circuit. now i am a sophomore at emory and coach:)

preflow before round cuz as soon as everyone is there im starting

my emails are sophia.r9234@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

pls add both emails to the email chain (I prefer email chains to docs) and send speech docs w/ cut cards

(i don't know why this is formatted weirdly tab just does it idk)

1. debate stuff

1. i will vote off the flow

2. tech > truth but don’t say anything ridiculous and this doesnt apply if it makes the round unsafe

3. start weighing in rebuttal if possible and keep it consistent

4. COMPARATIVE WEIGHING don’t just say “scope”

5. PLEASE WEIGH ANYTHING OFFENSIVE (THIS INCLUDES TURNS)

6. no new weighing in final, no offensive overviews starting at first summary but i dont rly like it in 2nd reb either

7. please collapse

8. extend links, not just a tagline with an impact

1. saying “extend tariko ‘21” is also not a link extension

9. signpost, especially in rebuttal, if i don’t know where you are i can’t flow

10. SIGN MY BALLOT FOR ME. tell me what i’m voting for and why. also tell me why i’m not voting for your opponents

11. if there’s no offense i’ll presume for the side that lost the coin flip

12. defense isnt sticky

13. you should have cut cards

1. if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to

14. I'm down w ks and paraphrase theory (shoutout jdog) but technically i never actually RAN a K or initiated theory i just know how they work so take that as u will - that being said I coach 3 K teams and understand how they should be run but in like a watered down pf way so run whatever u want but send rhetoric
15. with that being said- I have a very LOW threshold to feel bad if a team is in varsity and upset about hitting a varsity argument when there is a novice and/or JV division. if you are in varsity, be prepared to hit theory and potentially a K. simply saying "pf is for the public" and/or "I don't know how to answer this" probably wont win my ballot unless there is no nov division and you are clearly a nov. if that is the case-L25 for the team reading varsity stuff on novs, otherwise if you are volunteering to be in varsity nothing is off limits
16. I'm not the best w tricks but I can try
17. if you genuinely think I made a mistake you can postround but not aggressively pls <3
18. im not gonna flow cross so just say it in a speech
19. I don't hack for or against anyone so if you know me, that isn't going to influence my decision and I would be a waste of a strike
20. the only caveat to the thing above is if you are known to be problematic to like an egregious point (i.e having a national news article referencing being publicly antisemitic or saying racist, homophobic, or sexist things) then strike me lol. i cant like separate the art from the artist or whatever. ill down u.

1. speaking stuff

1. send speech docs even if you go slow and send all cut cards

2. i’m ok with speed as long as i can understand you, but i would still send the text to be safe

3. have fun, make jokes, but dont force it cuz thats weird

4. do not give speeches in crossfire, it’s so annoying

5. speaks

1. i start at a 28.5 ish (ill adjust based on how good the round is)

2. I'm a college student who flies to tourneys so if you give me paper that will make me very happy and likely to boost your speaks it will also make my rfd better cuz I don't like laptop flows

3. -.5 speaks for “starting with an off time road map”

4. -1 speaks if you miscut/misconstrue/lie about evidence

5. +1 speaks if you make me laugh

6. please don’t call me judge im literally 18 (you can just not say judge but if you NEED to address me specifically just call me soph i guess)

7. you will get high speaks if you and your partner have good energy together (i wont dock you speaks if you dont cuz you have enough problems at that point)

8. i’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric

9. i’ll drop you w 25s if you say anything offensive

10. at any camp/single pool tourney- if you read a k/theory on novs and it is obvious that they are novs prior to initiating i will drop you with 25s

As a judge, I highly value speaker clarity. I expect debaters to articulate their points in a clear and understandable manner, and their arguments should be comprehensible to all participants and the judge. Debaters should be confident speakers, and engage in a persuasive manner, while maintaining poise.

Lastly, the importance of straightforward, clear, and concise arguments is paramount. Debaters should present their points logically, avoiding unnecessary complexity or ambiguity. Clarity and brevity in argumentation facilitate better understanding and enable effective engagement with the topic

Hi, please add me to the email chain <3

Email: RuizLayla@gmail.com

My name is Layla, please introduce yourself to me and get to know me when you enter. I’m big on respect and the community of debate. I love to talk <3

EDIT: For clarity, please address me like a HUMAN. Basic salutations are expected, you should be properly greeting each judge.

3 years Policy at LAMDL, LD & IPDA 3 years at Hofstra University.
Program Manager at the American Debate League

Speaker Points:

- I will deduct points for any type of discrimination. This should be an educative and safe space for all.
- Speed is fine, but please slow down for tags and don’t sacrifice clarity for speed. If I cannot understand you, you will see me stop flowing.
- I appreciate humor <3

General Thoughts:

-You can debate however you’d like, I don’t have preferences on what arguments. But prefer quality > quantity.
- Please be sure to explain acronyms clearly before using them.
- I do not flow CX
-I am new to the topic, please be sure to effectively explain your plan to me

- I don’t like extinction arguments without a logical impact chain.

As a parent of a debater, I am relatively new to judging Public Forum debates. While I may not have extensive experience in debate, I am committed to ensuring a fair and respectful round for all participants.

I value clear and coherent arguments. It is important that debaters articulate their points in a manner that is easy to follow. I appreciate well-structured speeches that guide me through your arguments logically.

Respectful discourse is paramount. I do not tolerate yelling or aggressive behavior in the round. Debaters should engage with each other’s arguments in a manner that maintains the decorum of the debate.

While I understand the importance of evidence in supporting your claims, I also value your analysis of this evidence. Explain how your evidence supports your case and impacts the debate.

Clear and effective communication is key. Speak at a pace that is understandable. I prioritize the quality of your arguments and delivery over speed. I find signposting helpful.

My decision will be based on which team has presented a more compelling case through logical arguments, effective use of evidence, and clear communication. I will consider the strength of your rebuttals and how well you address your opponents’ points.

Remember, debate is not only about winning; it's about learning, improving your skills,.and having fun. Good luck, and I look forward to a great round!

I am a parent and a lay judge with no debate experience except as a volunteer at two previous events. I have no preference for whether you stand or sit. I do prefer that you make clear statements about each contention. Please signpost. Please state your impact. Also, you should make a solid recap of why you should win in the final speech.

Have fun!

Hello! My name is Lea, and I did PF in high school (am currently a freshman in college).

I will flow rounds.

Please be respectful to your opponents. I understand that rounds can get heated, but there is a fine line between competing and being rude.

I love Ks. I am not as familiar with Theory shells, but I will try to follow along if you explain it well.

Please do not spread but you can talk fast if it’s comprehensible.

Make sure your impacts are topical.

Have fun with crossfire!!!! I will not flow it but do recommend extending conversations from cross in the next speech.

Weigh in every speech after constructive.

Read trigger warnings for arguments that need trigger warnings.

Please time yourself, but I will time you and cut you off if you go 10 seconds over time.

My email is leassaba@gmail.com if you have any questions or need to send me your case. Also, please include me in any email chains before/during round.

Good luck!

Please speak at a slow pace. I will only write down what I hear and what I can take note of, meaning I will judge based on what I see in the flow. I will (try) not to make any assumptions about what you are saying, nor will I include anything that I may know in my judging.

I will seek clear communication of arguments, evidence, and impacts. I need to see why your side wins clearly for me to vote off you and how you will best solve the proposed problems and have the strongest real-world implications. I want to see effective and explicit weighing. Please send all speech documents to the email address mentioned below in advance

For All tournaments :

Please send docs to my Email since my wifi has been lagging, so I can make sure I don't miss any piece of evidence: deepasach@gmail.com

jonahpsah@gmail.com, put me on the chain

First year out, did PF for 8 years, semifinaled the prestigious 2018 middle school tournament of champions

I'm a flow judge, tech > truth etc. Everything said in a speech is true until someone says otherwise.

have fun/be funny; it's high school debate; I think rounds should be relaxed. that being said, I will do my best to take the round seriously. debate takes a lot of work and I know what it feels like to have judges who aren't trying their hardest, so I will do my best to match or exceed your effort.

Collapse (for your own good)

When deciding the round, I will look to the following: I'll evaluate weighing, then look if there is any extended offense being won off of the weighing, then to any other offense.

If it isn't in summary and final, I won't evaluate it (so extend case/whatever you're going for). Don’t just say “extend this argument/card,” you need to re-explain the argument/its warrants. I'm not really afraid to drop a team that is winning bc they screwed up their extensions. The one caveat is that I'm ok with the weighing debate unfolding kind of late: if there is new weighing in second summary, you can respond in first final.

Regarding speed: I can flow just about anything under 300 wpm if you are clear. Please slow down for tags tho. Significantly, like there should be a really clear difference between tags and card text… like even in policy they do that, it barely takes more time

If it isn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, it's dropped. (This applies to offense and defense, but not weighing.)

It's not 2017, defense isn't sticky

cross is binding? obviously? what is the point otherwise? obviously bring up anything important in a speech. I will pay at least some attention to cross though so don't lie, it's kind of obvious

I don't care about presentation: wear whatever, be silly, swear if you want. this also means that the whole jostling-for-perceptual-dominance in cross stuff is unnecessary (in fact it kinda pisses me off). I'll give speaks based on how good the content of your speeches is, not how pretty you say it.

Unless evidence is a) going to decide the round and b) contested in a way that I can't resolve, I won't call or look at anything. I think evidence debates are the same as any other argument: something is true unless it is responded to. If someone indicts your ev, that indict is true until you say otherwise, and I'm not going to check it to make sure. The only time I will look at ev is if teams can't agree on facts about the evidence itself (eg. the date it was written, author quals, etc.).

An argument with evidence obviously carries more weight than one without, but I like when teams make a bunch of analytics, especially in rebuttal.

I'm ok with postrounding, if you disagree with my decision you don't have to dance around it with polite questions (as long as you aren't rude). It is entirely possible that I screw up a decision. I will say 2 things though: first, if I screw up it's probably at least partially on you. anything that can decide the round should be clearly laid out for me. second, you may convince me that I'm wrong, but that won't change anything. I can't change the ballot, so all that will happen is that I will feel kinda bad and you will still have lost. So by all means, go ahead and prove that I'm wrong, but it will only do so much for you.

FW: two thoughts: a) a group being underprioritized is not enough a reason to prioritize it: explain why there are fewer intervening actors or it leads to better real world policy etc. b) read it in case or rebuttal... I'm not gonna evaluate framing in summary, that's obviously so unfair.

Ks: I think Ks are awesome, I wrote/read some in high school (cap, securitization, orientalism). That being said, I was still in PF, so I'm not that familiar with most K lit. I also think Ks can be read kinda poorly, so make sure you have at least a link, impact and alt in your case (and that you extend them). It's pretty clear when people read args that they don't really understand themselves, and if you can't articulate your argument and I don't get it I won't vote for it.

theory: I will not lie. I find most theory rounds tedious and kind of boring and not that important. I learned a lot in debate, but I don't think I would have learned much more or less if everyone did or didn't disclose/paraphrase/whatever. That being said, I ended up having a lot of theory rounds, and I'm comfortable judging it. However, if anyone feels actively unsafe/uncomfortable, you don't have to whip out a shell: just tell me/message me on FB and I will stop the round.

I'm not a fan of reading progressive arguments on inexperienced kids -- it will not lead to better norms/interesting discourse, it's just kinda mean. If you are being a jerk I'll tank your speaks so just use your judgment. -Maya sachs

If you read dumb stuff (you know exactly what I mean) you're getting like 0 speaks. I just don't think friv theory/tricks/whatever are that funny, and beyond that I have no idea what benefit anyone gets from them.

shoutout to my boo thang george tiesi #thepartnership

Hi everyone! My name is Richael, and I'm a sophomore at Harvard College. I've been judging debate for 2 years now, so here’s a little insight into what I’m looking for:

Clear and Confident Delivery:
I really value when you speak clearly and confidently. It makes your ideas easier to follow and shows that you truly believe in what you're saying. Imagine you’re telling a story to a friend—speak as if you’re sharing something important and exciting.

Quality Over Quantity:
Instead of throwing out lots of ideas, I prefer a few strong, well-developed arguments. Focus on one or two key points and really back them up with clear reasoning or evidence. This way, your arguments feel solid and convincing rather than scattered.

Connect With Your Audience:
Debate isn’t just about the words; it’s about how you deliver them. Keep your tone natural and engaging so that everyone, including me, can easily understand and appreciate your points.

Good luck today!!

This is my paradigm

Hey, this is Dhrishni from Mumbai, India. I'm currently a first year in Northeastern University. I don't have any traditional experience in Speech and Debate but I am looking forward to it.

As a judge for this Public Forum debate, I prioritize clear, logical arguments supported by credible evidence. I expect debaters to engage directly with their opponents' arguments, offering thoughtful refutations and maintaining a well-organized case structure. I value articulate communication over speed, and I discourage spreading. I'll assess each team's ability to effectively construct and deconstruct arguments while maintaining a respectful tone. My decision will be based on the strength of arguments, quality of evidence, engagement with opposing views, and overall presentation. Good luck, and let's have a substantive and respectful debate!

Hello, this is my 2nd year judging at the high school level. Follow your natural style of debating, and it is important that you maintain respect for each other. I will actively take notes, and with regard to keeping time, I expect both teams to maintain it accurately, but I will keep an eye on it as well to ensure we stay on time during the round.

Look forward to the event, and best wishes!

I am a parent judge. I want to hear arguments with good logical links, supported by evidence. Quality of arguments is more important than volume of arguments, and probability weighted impact is critical. If you are claiming a low probability/high impact event there must be good links for how and why the situation becomes significantly more likely in your world or it will mot be valued in my weighing. Non-unique arguments, idealism, and tenuous links will not be weighted highly. I put a high value on how effectively you respond to your opponents case, but I also expect you should extend your arguments through eaach round.

Greetings!

I am an experienced high school social studies teacher with 28 years of teaching a variety of A.P. level courses in both history and economics. I have been judging forensics tournaments for a few years and have judged many tournaments in this time over a variety of different categories. I have judged at Yale, Princeton, Harvard and Des Moines, Iowa as well as many, many local tournaments on Saturdays throughout the year.

I am comfortable with participants who speak quickly, however, it is important to remember that when speed hampers clarity and emphasis (intended or not), it may be better to slow down a bit. Often, "less is more" when it comes to building a convincing case. Depth of reasoning can outweigh a long train of sparsely supported claims. I appreciate participants who demonstrate a wide variety of sources, statistics, and data as well as those who are able to show why their contentions and assertions matter in the big picture. Civil, professional decorum is also important. Substance and presence work together to create the most persuasive position. Lastly, I prefer debates where debaters adhere to responding to the posted debate topic question.

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

Background

I debated for Delbarton for four years so consider me more of a flow judge.

Email Chains (For Varsity Only): Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by end of constructive. If case is paraphrased, also send case rhetoric. I will not accept locked google docs. Additionally, teams should 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)
.

Please add matthew.seb15@gmail.com and greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain.

Evidence

Have cut cards. Don't send me a link and tell me to find the part you're talking about

Evidence ethics matter, make sure your evidence says what you claim it does. I won't vote for anything with fabricated or grossly misrepresented evidence.

I might call for evidence after the round if needed.

General

Generally tech>truth. But I won't vote for anything racist, sexist, etc.

I can handle speed, but don'tsacrifice clarity for speed. If you're going to be speaking fast send a speech doc

I will not flow cross so anything important said in cross should be brought up in the subsequent speech.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all defense and turns.

Extend offense and defense in summary (this means case, turns, responses, etc) nothing is sticky. Evidence extensions should extend both the card tag and the warrant (eg. simply saying "extend Jones 20" is not a sufficient evidence extension). I don't usually flow author names anyways.

Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow). Off time roadmaps are encouraged.

Proper extensions for offense are important, I will not vote for an argument that is not properly extended even if your opponents drop it. In order for me to vote for an argument (including a turn) you must extend both the link and impact (hopefully with lots of warrants).

Please do comparative weighing,ideally start in summary but new weighing in 1st final is fine.

If I don't understand your argument I will not vote for it

Theory

I have some experience with theory and have voted for it before, but I'm not a theory expert by any means so make sure you properly explain and implicate your shell as with any other arg.

In general I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I will not hack for those args you must win the shell for me to vote for it.

I usually default to reasonability and have a very low threshold for responses on frivolous theory, i.e. (don't say good luck) and will drop it if your opponents tell me it's dumb. If you have questions about whether your shell counts as frivolous probably don't read it in front of me.

Do not read theory in novice, I won't evaluate it.

Ks

I have judged common Ks (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization) before but in general am not super familiar with K lit so run them at your own risk. I will evaluate any arg you want to run but make sure you explain and warrant your K really well in the back half because if I don't understand it I'm not voting off it.

Do not read a K in novice, I won't evaluate it.

If you have any questions before round feel free to ask

Heritage ‘23 - sharvaa@mit.edu

Background

- I did PF all of highschool and qualified to GTOC a few times.

- (Varsity) My one request is that both teams send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their evidence and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.

Speed:

- No spreading. Constructive should be at most 850-900 words.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid weighing that is not comparative

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- If the ev is bad, I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I refuse to evaluate unless linked to miscut ev or in-round safety violations.

Hi debaters! I'm new to debate this year; going too fast doesn't help me understand how you are actually debating within the round. I don't have a great understanding regarding this topic, so I expect arguments to be understandable and well supported. Please be respectful to each other and have fun!

If someone wants to start an email chain pre-round, use this email: Senghas.Jacob@gmail.com

Debate Coach for Wayland High School, 2019-Present.

Debate Coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2017-18.

Former Extemp speaker and PF/Congressional Debater with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2008-2012:

MA HS State Championships 2012, Congressional Debate, 6th Place.

2012 Harvard Semi-Finalist.

Collegiate debater for the University of Vermont in the British Parliamentary/WUDC format, 2012-2016:

Binghamton IV 2012, Octofinalist, Top Novice Speaker;

Vienna IV 2014, Finalist;

Ljubljana IV 2014, Semi-finalist;

Pan-American Championship 2014, 2nd place;

Northeast Regional Championship 2014, Semi-finalist;

Northeast Regional Championship 2015, Finalist;

Brandeis IV 2015, Semi-finalist;

Empire Debates 2015, Semi-Finalist;

Malaysia WUDC World Championships 2015, Finished in the top 10% of teams but didn't break, took a round from a world finalist (not an achievement but I'm proud of it so it's going here);

National Championships 2016, Octofinalist;

Winner of countless irrelevant speaker awards.

I am the parent of Lexington High School Debater and promise to judge the debates fairly and on merit.

I will be respectful of the participants efforts and time and expect them to be same towards the judges, their opponents and audience members.

I am a parent judge, and have done debate in high school. I look at both argument and delivery when judging.Please use moderate speed and speak clearly.

Hi debaters! I’m a parent judge, which means I value clear, logical arguments presented in an easy-to-follow manner. I don’t have a deep background in debate jargon or theory, so avoid overly technical arguments and prioritize explaining your points clearly.

Here’s what I look for:

1. Clarity & Persuasion – Speak clearly and make sure I can follow your reasoning. The more understandable your arguments, the more persuasive they are.

2. Evidence & Logic – I appreciate strong reasoning supported by real-world examples or clear logic.

3. Respect & Decorum – Be polite and engage with your opponent’s arguments thoughtfully. Debating is about convincing, not overpowering.

If I don’t understand an argument, I can’t vote on it. Make sure to weigh impacts and explain why your side should win. Looking forward to a great round—good luck!

Please weigh!!

I would like strong links and warranting rather than evidence that tells me something is broadly bad.

Tech > truth.

I will flow.

I did Canadian parliamentary in high school for four years and now do APDA at Harvard.

I will not understand if you spread.

I would prefer clean crossfires but will mostly not intervene unless there's a serious concern.

I prefer traditional LD. I will not understand KS/theory if you run it.

Please be respectful and use the round as a learning opportunity!

I am an international student at Harvard. I have experience in APDA, BP, and the World Schools formats.

I hate intervening. Please weigh so that I do not have to intervene. Weighing must be done on the impacts and ALSO internally within arguments to prove which team accesses impacts more

I appreciate creativity and am happy to hear clever and novel arguments. However, you must actually make logically robust arguments; I do not reward cleverness for cleverness' sake. In almost all cases, raw evidence claims are less persuasive to me than well-reasoned arguments (which can of course be backed by evidence). I find it extremely off-putting when debaters are unnecessarily aggressive to others. Make an effort to be respectful; chances are it will also make you a better debater. I’m fine with speed

I tend to make decisions very quickly, so don't take this personally. Rounds can be very good and very close but still very clear.

I am a parent judge with limited experience judging.

For PF, I will do my best to make decisions based on the merits of the arguments, the evidence provided, and the defense of the opposing arguments.

For Speech events, I will focus on content and delivery.

1. Weighing and comparatives
2. If you are using technical/in-depth discussion of a particular field (eg: pharmaceutical industry), make sure to elaborately explain your thought-process and and explain the terminologies.
3. Sign-posting and setting the metrics for the debate
4. Logical analysis and not just assertions
5. Same paradigms for rebuttals
6. You should speak at a reasonable speed.
7. Do not use offensive language

This is my inaugural year judging. I am thoroughly enjoying the experience of meeting so many talented young people. The following are my preferences:

1. Please do your best to make eye contact while speaking.
2. Feel free to talk at a pace that's comfortable for you, just as long as it's not excessively rapid.
3. I appreciate politeness especially during cross-fire with your opponents.
4. Don’t bring up any new arguments in 2nd summary or final focus.
5. Please be mindful of the time and avoid extending it unnecessarily.

This is my first year judging. Please speak clearly and slowly. Make sure to make all your points clear. I have experience in Varsity PF debate.

I am lay parent judge who has recently (early 2024) started judging PF debates. I appreciate a straightforward approach that is slow, clear and effective – if I can't follow your arguments, it'll be challenging to vote off of them. Please make sure to repeat important, uncontested arguments throughout the round. Last but not the least, be respectful and kind to other team members and have fun!

Hi debaters!

I am a first-time Judge for PF debate. I am a journalist, who is also a TV commentator and global fact checker.

As a parent judge, I prefer conversational style speech as I am better able to follow what you're saying. NO SPREADING PLEASE.

Absolutely no derogatory language against your opponent or anyone else. Debate is supposed to be a safe and inclusive space for everyone, so any racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and bigotry in general will not be tolerated.

For me, Facts matter

I want you to convince me of the argument as if I have no prior information on the topic.

That being said, remember to have fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me at: Saurabh@newsmobile.us

This is my third year as a 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)

For Public Forum: I love a good clash. You’ll get credit for a clear, logical argument. Dynamic arguments are very effective. Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

For Congressional Debate: I value the quality of your argument, the delivery of the speech, the depth of your questions, and your leadership/interactions in the chamber. In-round awareness shows you are engaged. You can still present unique info when you have lower recency. Be civil…lack of decorum shows lack of leadership ability.

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

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of the Bronx High School of Science. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible in a meaningful way.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

Hello! I am a parent judge, who would prefer if you could talk clearly and slowly (AKA avoiding talking at the speed of light). Additionally, I look for points that are supported with evidence: stick with the facts as much as possible. Please limit the use of debate jargon. Lastly, I heavily weigh confidence and speaking style, so be mindful. Best of luck to all teams.

TL:DR I am standard PF Tech over Truth, except I don't like judging progressive args. (No progressive args unless there was an abuse in the round)

Long Version:

Speaks will range from 28.5-30: I'll make the decision based on strategical decisions in round, not on how you actually speak.

Front line the arguments you are going for and turns in 2nd rebuttal.

First summary needs defense extended on the arguments frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. If nothing is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal first summary doesn't need defense.

PLEASE START WEIGHING IN REBUTTAL OR AT MINIMUM SUMMARY

If I can't weigh your impacts against the other team's I will have to intervene and you won't like that.

I don't care about evidence whatsoever, UNLESS a team tells me to call for evidence in a speech, then I will call for it. Warrants plus no evidence > evidence but no warrants.

Nothing above 300 WPM.

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

Background

I have experience in PF, Parli, Extemp, and Duo, with the majority of my judging in PF. I also coach PF. My goal is to evaluate rounds fairly and consistently, with an emphasis on clear argumentation, weighing, and impact analysis.

Before the Round

• If both teams arrive before me, go ahead and decide if you’re doing an email chain (include me—my email is at the end of my paradigm).
• Ensure your flow and prep materials are ready before the round begins.

In the Round

General Expectations:

• Delivery matters! Persuasion is key in PF, and speaking style affects speaker points.
• Utilize your prep time wisely.
• Be clear in stating your contentions and framework.
• Speed is fine, but don’t spread—I value clarity over speed.
• I am flowing, so make it easy for me to follow. Off-time roadmaps should not exceed 10 seconds.
• Rebuilding and extending arguments is critical. I need more than just tagline extensions to continue evaluating an argument.
• Weighing is non-negotiable. Tell me why you are winning the round and how to evaluate the debate.

Argumentation:

• I value logical and well-warranted arguments. Just because something is dropped doesn’t mean it’s automatically true if it’s poorly warranted or irrelevant.
• However, I can’t make arguments for you. Logical responses to outlandish or stretched arguments will be accepted if explained thoroughly.
• Avoid spending excessive time arguing over minor details, such as one source (there are some exceptions depending on the topic) or definition. Focus on big-picture clash and impact analysis.
• Link debates are often more important than impacts. Without a solid link, your impact won’t matter.

Weighing and Framework:

• Provide a clear weighing mechanism and carry it throughout the round. If your opponent’s mechanism goes uncontested, I will use theirs.
• If neither team provides a weighing mechanism, I will default to evaluating dropped arguments, clash, and overall impact.
• PF is different from Policy. Running most theory or Ks in this format is not optimal, especially given PF’s speech times. These are often used as “gotcha” strategies in PF, which detracts from meaningful engagement with the resolution.

Crossfire and Evidence Calls:

• I don’t typically flow crossfire, so if you want me to consider concessions or notable points, you must incorporate them into your speeches.
• Evidence should directly support your claims. Misrepresenting or cutting evidence out of context will lower your speaker points and may cost you the round.

Final Thoughts

Debate is about logic, reasoning, and engagement. Be creative, dynamic, and clear. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to ask before the round.

Remember to be considerate and respectful during the round. Disrespectful behavior or insensitive comments will lower your speaker points and can cost you the round. Debate may be competitive, but you are discussing real people and potential decisions that could have real-world consequences.

Most importantly, enjoy the opportunity to debate meaningful issues!

If doing an email chain please add me -gabri3ll30422@gmail.com

tech > truth. please read the speaks section at the bottom of my paradigm :)

did PF for lambert and now coach lake highland, current soph doing APDA, here’s my competition record if that matters to you

add me to the chain: sahilsood@college.harvard.edu & lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com

order of prefs: good theory > friv theory > traditional K's > meme cases (spark, ddev, etc)> substance > non-T aff > trix > any identity args (plz don't read these unless u rly want to ig), but i’ll eval anything

notably, the above are just preferences -- higher prefs will make me happier, but thats about it, it won't make you more likely to win. debate is a game. i do not care what you do to win the game. anything/everything is fair game. i have no biases/beliefs about how things should be done -- tell me how I should vote, and i will vote in that way if you win whatever argument.

send me full case and rebuttal docs with cut cards. no exceptions.

i am completely tab rasa. if you don't say it, i won't think it. if i have to presume, i will. i default to the last-read, uncontested presumption warrant in the round. this means if you say presume 1st speaking team in 1st case and no one responds to it, you dont need to extend it -- i will default to your model of presumption since it is conceded, similar to that of an ROTB. in the absence of presumption warrants, i presume neg.

**note if you read a K of any sort: while I am receptive, you need to do adequate research of your own. I've seen K's in PF work and not work because the speech times are so short. if it is obviously stolen off of a policy or LD wiki, I will be much less receptive. if you choose to run these arguments, run them well.

regardless, win the flow and I'll vote for you

would love if you skipped grand cross and took 1:30 of prep

feel free to post round i think it’s educational

someone pleaseeee call a TKO

speaks:

• 30 to any second speaker who can give a rebuttal off the flow
• 30s if you bring me food (anything with cheese is best, no nuts or beef)
• if you and your opponent both agree, one person per team competes in a push-up contest. winner gets 30s for both speakers, loser's speaks are capped at 29 (but you still need to have the debate after). if you want to engage in this, you must ask your opponents, and you must both agree.
• +.3 to your speaks if you can guess my favorite number or color (each team gets one guess)
• +.5 if you follow ice spice and repost her latest post on your ig story (must be both debaters on the team)
• minimum 28.5's if you read anything that i have preffed higher than substance in my prefs above
• otherwise, i will probably average around 28.7-29 with speaks (i try to be generous)

Hi, my name is Blade Spataro and I did public forum debate in highschool. Please do not spread. I look for logical arguments and also statistics/data. Please be respectful to your opponent.

I am a former PF debater and captain. I have judged most events and will notify you if I am unfamiliar with specifics of your event (sorry speech).

Traditional:

I judge very heavily on etiquette, your behavior in round will influence my decision, if you are rude I will drop your speaks and vote you down with no questions asked.

Other than that, I vote on impacts and clear, well-stated arguments. If you have a creative refutation or can flip your opponent's points, I will take notice of that. I am happy to flow non-conventional arguments, but you have to support them validly - I once voted on TMNT because they offered me an infinite impact in the form of the multiverse.

I offer a 15 second grace period before I verbally stop you.

Circuit:

You should note that I am a primarily traditional judge. I permit spreading in your first speech, but anything that is important should be stated clearly. If I miss something big because you didn't state it clearly and multiple times, its not on me. I also wont flow anything that I don't hear you say. It's not my job to dig through your case or evidence. Tech > truth. No argument is really off limits to me unless I consider it to be disrespectful, rude, or insensitive.

I offer a 15 second grace period before I verbally stop you.

I am a 3rd year parent judge.

I prefer when debaters speak in a conversational cadence. I have trouble following the points and arguments when debaters speak quickly.

I try to listen closely and understand your argument. When evidence is presented fast, and in large doses, it can be overwhelming and go past me. So, I prefer when debaters choose the most relevant evidence and explain why this is critical to their side. Please include me on emails when you share evidence.

I appreciate sign-posting. Help me understand and follow your approach.

I am inclined to appreciate teams that debate well while being respectful of their opponents. I'm put off by rudeness and disrespect.

Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It is not asking the question of what specific action must be taken, that's policy, what it is asking is for us to justify an action to be taken, or arrival at a particular state of existence. I HIGHLY value topical debate, (I mean really highly, like really, really highly). I start with the idea that role of the ballot is to determine who best debates the topic, I like it to remain there, but am open to having that change. I highly (and I cannot stress this enough) value topical debate. I value clarity in the round, and giving me a clear direction as to why you win gives me a roadmap that I can use to find your winning argument, use that time to wrap things up at the end of the round.

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. In my mind, Theory is there to check abusive arguments and tactics, don't make it frivolous please. The worst offender of this in my mind is disclosure theory. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense," tell me why that argument fails to hold water.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Oliver St John

he/him

Background: I did Public Forum for four years at Delbarton in New Jersey, and I am currently studying Computer Science at Boston College. I haven't been involved with debate for a couple years so I may be a bit rusty. I have forgotten a good bit of the jargon so please keep that in mind.

(VARSITY ONLY) Email Chain: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org and ostjohn8@gmail.com to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into email and send it in the email change. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

In round:

I'm comfortable with a relatively high speaking speed, but please prioritize clarity, especially for an online tournament. In addition, make sure to signpost well after constructive speeches so I know where you are on the flow.

Please don't only refer to evidence with the card names. Always include the gist of what the evidence says whenever you mention the authors name as well.

I prefer tech over truth, but make sure arguments are warranted well and that you weigh them properly.

For rebuttal, please warrant responses as opposed to just reading them off and not really interacting with your opponents' arguments. Second rebuttal should include frontlining.

Summary is when you should begin collapsing and weighing, if you try to make any weighing analysis in the final focus that didn't start in the summary I will not regard it. Please extend your responses as well as your arguments, and again make sure to signpost well.

Your final focus should be similar to your summary, while taking into account your opponents' summary. While flowing your arguments cleanly throughout the round is great, you also need to make sure you argue why the impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts and how they interact with your opponents'.

Additionally:

Most importantly, show respect for your opponents, the competition, and yourself. I understand that debating can often get a bit heated, but remember to keep yourself in check or it will reflect in your speaker score, or in worse scenarios, the ballot.

Have cut cards available for when they are called. I understand tech issues and whatnot happen, but if you cannot produce a card in a timely manner the round will precede as though that evidence does not exist.

You can feel free to run things like theory and Ks, but please be aware that I am not used to judging them nor did I often debate against them. If you plan on running them, please explain very clearly what the problem is and why I should vote for you. If I don't understand your argument, I won't vote for you. That is a risk you have to decide whether or not you want to take.

Have fun with it! I know debate is very important to competitors for various reasons, but don't forget your time in this circuit is limited and you'll want to enjoy it while you can. Trust me - it goes by a lot faster than you think! Finally, if you want any advice about debating or the college process or whatever feel free to chat with me after round.

Best of luck in round!

I am a parent judge. As an attorney, I understand well-crafted argument, persuasive reasoning and clarity of expression and presentation. Please do not spread. I am judging your debate skills, which means your ability to craft and articulate an argument persuasively. If I cannot understand you because you speak too fast, you are not going to persuade me that yours is the winning argument. This is an oral argument, not a writing competition. I am happy to receive your speech via email, however I will be judging based on your oral skills and your impromtu reasoning skills, and I cannot listen and read at the same time.

I don't disclose speaker points but I will disclose the result of the round. If there is time, I will give oral comments.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Hello, my name is Qibin

This is my fourth year judge, I am a lay judge.

A few preferences:

1) Please don't rush/speak too fast

2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite

3) Please signpost clearly so I know what arguments you are addressing

4) Please weigh in summary and final focus

5) Please have clear extensions of your arguments so I can understand them better.

Let's have a fun and educational round!

Hi! When deciding scores, I'm almost entirely considering the team that brought the strongest arguments and best articulated their points during speeches / cross-ex's. While I do take note of aspects like clarity and ability to handle pressure in cross-ex's, the actual evidence and arguments being presented are what I care most about.

I debated four years pf, ld, and policy in high school and four years of policy in college.

I can flow pretty much everything, and I’ll evaluate all the arguments to the best of my ability. Try to give your arguments impacts and help me create a framework to evaluate the debate.

Update April 2024- some thoughts after a few years of judging pf

I'm considering not allowing off-time road maps as I think they've become super long-winded and silly. It's my preference that you say, "pro case then con case" or vice versa. Sometimes there are extra sheets of paper that's fine, but I've been in too many debates when the off-time road map sounds something like this, "I'm gonna start by talking about the major issues in the round, then I'm going to address some of the things my opponent has said, before frontlining and then weighing at the bottom." That is, essentially, meaningless to me.

I think that debaters should reward punctuality and timeliness. When I was a debater I didn't realize how much judges are on the clock. There is a judging deadline and if the debate starts late, or seems to take forever. Besides extenuating circumstances, I am always trying to be on time and I think it's selfish to make the tournament run late. That means if I only have two minutes left before the decision deadline, I am spending two minutes deciding. It is in your best interest as debaters to give me more time, not less to think about the round.

I've watched a few theory debates this year. I tend to think RVI's are silly. PF theory is not my favorite but I have voted on it before.

I do really like it when debaters make arguments comparative and have a lot of topic knowledge. I'm often interested in these topics and it's nice when you are too.

I won't evaluate "death good", wipeout, or tricks. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory arguments, although I have no problem evaluating theory debate.

Hello!

So glad to see everyone on campus this weekend!

I'm ready to evaluate any arguments you'd like to run. That being said, please

1. Weigh
2. Warrant
3. Have high-quality evidence
4. Consider theory sparingly. I am relatively unfamiliar with evaluating these arguments at a technical level.

Most of all, take it easy. I hope that good argumentation and the best debates are exciting and fun for all involved.

If you'd like more details about my judging, this paradigm by a teammate is quite representative.

Hey y'all, I'm Lux (he/him/his). Feel free to call me 'Lux' or 'judge' in round ('Mr. Sun' makes me giggle, but if you want to call me that, you wouldn't be the first). This is my 4th year competing and 2nd year judging.

email: lsun25@concordcarlisle.org

I would greatly appreciate it if you provided trigger warnings for sensitive topics (suicide, sexual violence, child/animal abuse, death, etc). General/non graphic mentions of said topics are usually fine, but please clear it with your opponents first.

GENERAL :

1. Please write my ballot for me! That means weighing properly, extending, and warranting evidence and responses. If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be pulled through the flow. If something important happens during cross, bring it up in a later speech.
2. tech > truth and tabula rasa, mostly (i'll evaluate whats on my flow and only whats on my flow, regardless of my opinions/biases on the topic).
3. Progressive arguments (theory, ks, etc) are fine. (if you don't know what these are, don't worry about it)
4. Please time yourselves. I'll stop flowing when your timer goes off.
5. I'll allow paraphrasing if it keeps the original spirit of the evidence. HOWEVER, if your opponent calls for the card(s), you need to be able to point to which parts you paraphrased.
6. I tend to give fairly high speaks unless there's a reason for me not to (i.e. bigotry and extreme rudeness)
7. Speed is fine up to ~200wpm, but please be mindful of your opponents (and have speech docs if you plan on spreading)
8. Please weigh!!! I cannot emphasize this enough

PF:

1. Please let your opponents get a word in during cross
2. 1st speakers: try to collapse in summary please
3. 2nd speakers: please, please, PLEASE weigh in ff (and please frontline in rebuttal if you're speaking second)

LD:

I started off in pf, which influences how I judge this event (although to a lesser degree than it used to), and I have never competed LD but have judged it enough to still be a flow judge.

Email:annikasunkara@gmail.com. I prefer evidence-sharing via email chains

PF: You can speak fast, but please not so fast that you become sloppy/incoherent. If I find that you are speaking too quickly for me to understand you, I will call "clear," which is an indication that you should slow your tempo a bit.

Generally, final focus, summary, grand cross, and cross contribute the most to my decision in that order. Failing to respond to an opponent's argument will require me to flow that over to your opponent. Weighing contributes significantly to my decision. Prove to me that you win through your impacts. DO NOT misconstrue evidence, I call for cards when I need to, and if I see this, you will lose credibility.

If you are blatantly disrespectful to your opponent including repeatedly interrupting them during cross-ex, using rude language, rolling your eyes, etc., you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. I expect you to be confident/assertive yet respectful during all parts of the debate.

I am a new parent lay judge. Signposting will help me best appreciate your arguments, please treat others with respect, and please refrain from using technical debate terms.

Hello! I am a parent judge. A respectful debate is expected and I look for the ability to judge a round by weighing the impacts of the positions offered. Support for the contentions is noted where included. Best of luck during the round and throughout the tournament.

Steven Szwejkowski - steven.szwejkowski@SASchools.org

High school - Renaissance Charter School

BA, Philosophy | Queens College

Although I have not formally competed in a debate league, I did recreationally partake in stimulating discourses in the Philosophy Club at Queens College while I was a student. We had many engaging debates, in which we explored highly theoretical and practical topics, ranging from consciousness to politics. Furthermore, my focus when I was an undergraduate and as of now is twofold: socioeconomic concerns and rational frameworks. To fully understand and extend the material in these topics requires an elevated level of researching, writing, and defending your conclusions, all of which are integral in debate.

As a side not, feel free to be as theoretical as each resolution/topic allows.

The following are two criterions by which I use to assess each debater and round:

Speeches: Must display clear articulation, confidence, poise, and appropriate speed. (Do not spread!)

Cases: 1) Must have clear and relevant contentions. 2) I favor quality rebuttals and the team that does a better job at attacking the opposition's arguments to which they may respond weakly. 3) I will take into account the team who asks better (leading) questions during the cross-examination rounds. 4) Lastly, the team that contains the most uncontested statements, i.e., dropped contentions, by their opposition usually wins under my judgement.

Maintain a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate.
Please be clear and organized in presenting your arguments.
Use logical progression in your speeches.
Support your arguments with credible evidence and sound reasoning.
I will place a strong emphasis on the quality of your evidence and the strength of your logic.

Engage with your opponent's arguments effectively.
Address their key points and demonstrate why your position is stronger.
In the end, I encourage to collapse on one or two points as to why your argument is better than the opponents.

Effective time management: Stay within the allotted time for your speeches.

After the debate, I may provide constructive feedback, however this is prerogative.

Parent Judge.

For PF Debaters:

I would appreciate it if you talked clearly and not too fast. Please do not spread; I need to understand your facts. I would appreciate it if you could minimize the debate jargon. Also, it would help if an off-time roadmap could be given. I'll listen to crossfire, but won't flow it. If anything happens during cross that you want me to consider in my ballot, mention it in a speech. Being assertive is good, but being overly aggressive is not. I value respectful and considerate discourse, even during competitive situations. Keep your tone professional and refrain from attacking other competitors or viewpoints. Please do not throw cards at me without warranting them out.

Finally, as a public forum debater, you should rely on both logic and evidence to construct your arguments.

Please don't forget to have fun!

For Speech:

As your judge, my goal is to provide constructive and encouraging feedback while fairly evaluating your performance. Below are the key factors I will be focusing on during your speech:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value clear, well-structured speeches that follow a logical progression. Make sure your points are easy to follow and supported by evidence.

2. Delivery: This includes your vocal variety, tone, and pacing. Confidence, energy, and appropriate gestures will enhance your message. Speak clearly and engage your audience, making eye contact and demonstrating strong body language.

3. Content and Analysis: I’m looking for insightful analysis and a deep understanding of your topic. Whether it’s persuasive, informative, or another format, your content should demonstrate critical thinking and creativity.

4. Engagement and Impact: How well do you connect with your audience? Effective speakers draw in their listeners through compelling storytelling, emotional appeal, or intellectual engagement.

5. Time Management: Stay within the allocated time limit without rushing through your speech. A well-paced speech reflects strong preparation and respect for the rules.

What I Don’t Focus On:
Minor stumbles or nervousness won’t severely affect your score if you recover well and continue with your speech. I prioritize substance and delivery over perfection.

Remember, I am here to support you in your growth as a speaker. I aim to provide useful feedback that can help you develop your skills for future competitions.

Good luck, and I look forward to hearing your speeches!

Parent Judge!

Please try to speak clearly and at a moderate pace—don’t spread! I need to be able to follow your arguments. I prefer well-reasoned arguments over cards with no backing. Also, aim for logical arguments with realistic, impactful scenarios. I don't like theory and k's.