I am a new parent judge. Please do not SPREAD. Good luck and have fun!

Please add me to the email chain: baxteremily22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for four years at Caddo Mills High School and am on the LD team at UNT. I'm familiar with policy and critical arguments, so run whatever you're comfortable with. I will vote on anything, so I'd be best considered a tab judge if you're doing the work and telling me why they matter.

Tech>Truth. I'll only vote on the dropped argument if you explain to me why the drop is significant.

Depth>Breadth. Self-explanatory - if you are running more than 6 off, there probably isn't much warranting going on. Evidence quality is also important, and comparing evidence is super useful in making decisions, but I won't do the work for you.

Affirmatives. I prefer plantexts, but I'll listen to anything, just be able to explain later on in T and FW debates why your method of education is best for debate. I'll listen to performance affs, too.

Counterplans/Disads. I'll easily vote on them. If AFF has impact framing and you don't, I will likely vote aff. I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the cases.

Kritiks. Just reading all of the blocks you've written for your K won't help you win the round. Do engage with the other team's arguments and actually contextualize your link to whatever they've read. Generic links can make it really easy for me to vote aff. I love specific links to the aff, and will heavily vote on them. I know some lit but don't assume I know what your kritik is about. Please explain and paint a story for me. That said, I expect there to be framework, a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making.

Theory/Topicality.I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. I will listen to Topicality arguments, and think when theyre are done right, I will vote on them. Please impact out your standards and voters! I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory/topicality, that tells me that it's a time suck, and I will not vote on it.

Speaks. Just don't be rude. If you say something offensive/homophobic/racist/etc, that will not be tolerated, and that will be reflected in your speaker points and possibly your ballot. I'm completely fine with speed just put me on the email chain and signpost.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging PF for about two years. I have judged some LD as well.

For PF, I appreciate evidence based arguments, with details when needed. PF is time sensitive, and so manage your time carefully when you get into detailed explanations.

Speed is fine as a long as its clear and understandable.

Be respectful to others. Although this is a tournament, make it a fun. educational experience.

Please add me to the email chain at abhijeetc23@gmail.com

Good luck !

I am a new parent judge. No SPREAD and speak clear please. Have fun and good luck!

I'm a parent judge and pretty new to most events, but I am somewhat familiar with PF and extemp.

PF-

I can understand theory and K's, but I don't prefer it. I'm not a huge tech judge, so I'd prefer if you just stuck to the debate topic. I like to look at using theory only if it's necessary, such as to respond to opponents unfair behavior. But please, for the love of God, do not read your case in Spanish. I don't care if you're "Spanish", I don't understand it and I won't vote for you.

I prefer a clean debate, meaning simple and easy for me to follow. Signposting, telling me where to write, and making arguments clear would be helpful. Speaking fast is okay but please no spreading.

If you can please share your case to susiechang770@gmail.com before the round starts.

Good luck!

email: davidcui824@gmail.com

plano west '24

max: 300 wpm - any faster, don't expect the right decision ????

PF

tech > truth

i agree with Satvik Mahendra's paradigm

LD

flay

i did it like once

1 - trad, policy

2 - T/theory

3 - Ks, performance, friv theory

K: make the link clear, will need judge explanation i haven't judged many

tricks: i know very basic tricks, i dont understand TT so please explain them well

phil: probably dont read it on me, explain a lot, i don't know anything abt it

theory: competing interps > reasonability, no rvis, drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability on friv, please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments

Policy

0 experience, i know the args not the topic tho so be good on the explanation, look to my LD paradigm for args

dont be mean and have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Philosophy:

As a parent judge, I am committed to providing a fair and unbiased evaluation of the arguments presented by both teams. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and the effective use of evidence in debates. My role is to assess the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Experience:

I have experience judging debates for 1+ years. I have observed various debate formats and am familiar with the general rules and practices of competitive debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to objectively evaluate the arguments and evidence presented during the round. I do not have preconceived opinions about the topic and will base my decision solely on the merits of the arguments made during the debate.

Argumentation:

I appreciate well-structured arguments that are supported by evidence. Debaters should focus on providing clear contentions and solid reasoning.

Rebuttals:

Effective refutation is crucial. Debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments, identify points of clash, and provide a clear summary of their case in the final rebuttals.

Cross-Examination:

I expect cross-examination to be conducted respectfully and to serve as a tool for clarifying positions and uncovering weaknesses in arguments.

Time Management:

Debaters should adhere to time limits. I will keep track of time, but I expect participants to be responsible for managing their own time effectively.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, strategy, and overall performance. High speaker points will be awarded to debaters who demonstrate strong argumentation skills and effective communication.

Respect:

Respect for opponents, partners, and the judge is essential. Any form of disrespectful behavior will be penalized in my assessment.

Decision Making:

My decision will be based on the quality of the arguments presented in the round. I will carefully evaluate each team's contentions, evidence, and refutation before reaching a decision.

Preferences:

I do not have strong preferences regarding specific debate styles or content areas. My primary concern is the quality of the arguments and the debating skills displayed by the participants.

Final Thoughts:

Debate is an excellent opportunity for personal growth and intellectual development. I encourage all debaters to approach the round with enthusiasm, integrity, and a commitment to constructive discourse.

i'm basically like a flay judge, tell me what to vote for and why.

Please treat me like a lay judge. Go slow and keep it simple. :)

Don't get super technical because i don't believe that's the way pf should have to be

3 min summaries mean please collapse and weigh

i dont like it when teams waste 20 extra mins in round not even looking at cards but pulling them up, so if u have to spend more than two mins trying to find called cards itll start eating into your prep - have your cards prepared

IN CONGRESS:
I expect to see plenty of clash. The event is called congressional DEBATE! Utilize questioning period effectively, and ask targeted questions. Analysis is the #1 priority

I mainly judge PF events. I am an avid history and current affairs buff. I also do research on resolutions that are being debated so I can follow positive and negative arguments.

As a judge I will be evaluating debaters for their overall persuasiveness, which in my view has 2 elements:

1. Logic of argument: The argument must be coherent and it must be in the context of the resolution. It is important not to drift away from the resolution. Drift happens when a debater discusses implications of the resolution and then implications of implications and so on. Use the resolution as a guide and tie your arguments back to the resolution at hand. And, successively build your position, while undermining your opponents arguments.

2. Presentation style: This includes clarity of speech and body language. Debaters have limited time so they must speak at a good clip but it cannot come at the cost of clarity in speech. Vigorous but respectful disagreement with opposing team is expected. Before, starting your speaking time give a one sentence overview of how you will proceed. For example, "First I will refute my opponents positive or negative points, then I will explain and provide evidence of the points I made in my opening remarks", etc. Finally, a word of caution about "spreading", it does not work. If your goal is to read out loud as many words as you can in your allocated time, you will almost certainly loose points.

The golden rule is not to loose your audience. As a judge, I am the audience and debaters will have my undivided attention. But if a debater loses me, they will lose points.

I competed in Policy Debate and Extemp at the Varsity level in High School where I lettered and was awarded Distinguished in the NFL. I also competed in numerous public speaking events and contests both in an academic and business environment. Hosted a radio program, acted in legitimate theater, commercial stage productions, conducted commercial seminars nationwide, and acted in motion pictures and a member of SAG.

I look for developed, effective, public speaking delivery utilizing your personal style. I do not like spreading in any Debate. I reward logical arguments, persuasive rhetoric, solid evidence based on quality not quantity. You must be able to convince me to win the ballot. I reward those who can adapt their arguments as needed to make their point. Don't rely on reading a manuscript from a computer without fleshing out the information as appropriate. I reward debaters who are well informed on the topic and are able to apply evidence that supports their contention.

Decorum, respect, and courtesy, are required from all contestants. Bullies will not prevail or be tolerated. All students are respected regardless of their culture, background, or individual preferences.

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps. Be clear when you speak -- enunciate.

In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.

In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.

I am primarily an interp coach. If I am judging you in debate, please do not assume I know anything about the resolution or any of your cases. I will judge based on who makes the best argument, with warrants and supporting evidence. Be clear about what you are arguing and why you are winning the debate. Speak clearly and confidently, do not be rude or condescending.

Good Luck!

Hello,

My name is Atul Kapoor. I am a lay judge with a solid amount of judging experience. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace with emphasis on quality of your argument rather than quantity. Do not spread and do not overload your speech with debate jargon. I will do my best to judge only off what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Please add me to the email chain at kapoor.atul@gmail.com.

I don't base my judgment on your crossfire, so please don't use it to persuade me. Crossfire is for you to understand your opponent's case and address it in your next speeches. Pretend I'm not listening during crossfire. Make your case in the next speech.

If you're presenting an extinction argument, make sure it's believable. For instance, arguing that affirming or negating healthcare for all could lead to nuclear war and extinction seems far-fetched. If your opponents present an extension argument that seems implausible, address it. It shouldn't only be me thinking it's not plausible.

I assess your speaker points based on clarity, articulation, appropriate speed, and eye contact.

I will do my best to disclose my decision when I am allowed to, and will leave feedback on the ballot. Above all, remember to have fun and be respectful to your opponents!

Best of luck!

Hi

About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.

I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget, I will need things explained to me.

All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything--with one exception. I am not a fan of disclosure theory, generally, unless something has occurred which is clearly abusive. Even here, though, it's hard for a judge to adjudicate it. Best to have your coach take it up with Tab.

Probable real world impacts are generally more meaningful to me than fanciful magnitude impacts.

That said:

For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.

For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.

For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans are fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.

Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.

World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, and I have judged some this year, 23-24. Candidly I don’t know enough yet to have deep thoughts on preferences.

Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.

I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.

As for SPEED, I understand most debate forms are not "conversational" in pace, exactly. But if I cannot understand you, I cannot write anything down. I believe debate is an oral advocacy activity, so I do not want to be on the email chain. If I don't hear it and understand it, I won't credit it.

Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.

IE's:

For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.

For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any assertion, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."

I am a new parent judge . The following is my paradigm as a congress Judge:

Welcome thank you for having me as your judge. I believe that a fair and respectful debate is crucial for a productive exchange of ideas and arguments.

I. Role of the Judge:

• My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments made by the debaters, determine the order of the winner of the round, and provide constructive feedback.

• I will not show any bias towards any particular debater or team and will judge solely based on the arguments presented in the round.

II. Evaluation Criteria:

• Quality of Evidence: Debaters must provide credible, relevant, and well-explained evidence to support their arguments.

• Relevance: Arguments must directly address the resolution and be relevant to the debate topic.

• Organization and Clarity: Debaters must clearly articulate their arguments and structure their speeches in a logical and easy-to-follow manner.

• Delivery: Debaters must present their arguments in a clear and confident manner, using proper debate etiquette and avoiding any personal attacks.

III. Points of Order and Decorum:

• Debaters should follow the rules of proper debate etiquette and refrain from making personal attacks or interruptions.

• If a debater feels that their opponent has violated the rules of debate, they may raise a "Point of Order" to bring it to my attention.

I would like to thank the debaters for their participation and efforts and I wish you all the best of luck and I look forward to hearing your arguments.

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• 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

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. 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 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

• 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 gajillion 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)

• 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

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

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!

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

I am a lay judge and have judged ~4 PF debates.

Organized speeches carry a lot of weight

Bring your evidence – if you are going to repeat your evidence do so in a slightly different manner – be creative not repetitive.

I favor common sense and appreciate logic in your arguments.

Be clear and articulate your points. Do not hesitate to emphasize articulation so that I can easily follow.

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

PF Debate

Basically the same as above; theory is cool with me. Also, this is PFD, not CX--we don't really need to be spreading

I should be treated as a lay judge, but I have judged a few WSD, LD, and PF rounds.

Overall Notes

Please speak at an understandable and coherent speed, if I cannot follow along with what you are saying I will not be able to write down your arguments. Ensure you go at a moderate pace, not just barely slow enough to be understood. Additionally, make sure your arguments are understandable for the average person that has not done extensive research on your topic. Finally, complex jargon will likely go over my head because I have not judged this activity or a specialized event.

Debate

Refrain from running tricks, theory, etc. Simply debate the topic at hand and explain things to me as if I do not have prior knowledge.

Speech

Make sure your pieces are memorized, interesting, and that you engage with the audience enough during your speech.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me, and I will be happy to answer if I am able to.

CONFLICTS JOHN PAUL II HS, JPII, PLANO ISD

I teach AP World History, World History-Honors and World History at Clark HS - Plano ISD. At my previous job, I was the assistant debate coach for four years where I specialize in research in all forms of debate, foreign and domestic extemp.

GENERAL INFORMATION

Decades ago at Jesuit of Dallas and Georgetown University in the 1970s and early 1980s I debated. While I began in Policy/CX, I gravitated towards Model UN debate on the college circuit. As a teacher I was the Academic Decathlon lead coach for 15 years and assisted with it later as an administrator for a total of 23 years. While coaching I learned to judge LD, PF and Domestic and Foreign Extemp. Since 2015 I was the Assistant Debate and Speech Coach at John Paul II HS and have added PFD. Since 2021, I have worked in Plano ISD and now judge as Plano and my school need me.

My degrees are a BS in Foreign Service and a Masters of Arts in Modern History. I am bilingual in Spanish and German and have been a teacher since 1988. I have also been a public school district coordinator of social studies, foreign languages and gifted education as well as a high school coordinator of curriculum. I have taught college and currently teach AP World History. I am a national consultant for AP World History and a national reader of AP essays.

JUDGING, PARADIGMS, PREFERENCES

I am familiar with almost any and every topic you will have. I was trained to be a diplomat and opted not to work for the Central Intelligence Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency on moral grounds. I am a voracious daily reader of newspapers, magazines, fiction, history, politics, economics and religion. And I have a strong philosophical background thanks to eight years of a Jesuit education. I am not a big fan of theoretical arguments so much as substantiated points and I really need to be able to follow your case. Roadmaps and sign-posting help! I am a big-picture judge. Defending against a single card or argument is not as important as the whole case. And I would rather see a few well-articulated points than a lot of little points which seemingly bury me and your opponent under minutia.

As a judge I am very traditional - I prefer old-school value and criterion! I hate spreading – do not lose accuracy and articulation for speed. Please stand when you present. And while I know students like to flash cases, somehow I grew up in a day when this was like giving away the playbook. I like it when debaters ask to see each other’s cards and evidence. I do not like shocks or oddities that involve contradiction of reality and thought. But as I have told my own debaters after returning from summer camps, I will try to accurately and intelligently judge any debate. Be forewarned however.

Just because I speak German and am familiar with Kritik theory does not mean that I am a fan of it. I am also not a very good judge of Kritik so run it at your own risk. Please take time to explain your K to me and do not assume I have read your authors, content, etc.

If you have any questions before the round starts please don't hesitate to ask. I will try my best at the end of each round to highlight a few things each debater can improve upon – I will even suggest cases, reads, and cards. I do not like to disclose because I have to read my notes and think sometimes before making a final decision. I do give low point wins but rarely. My hopes are that you will always debate to the best of your abilities.

Lastly, debate should not be a diatribe or show of hostility. For me while debate can be confrontational, in so many ways I am a British barrister or solicitor. I would prefer that all debaters be civil towards each other – treat the room as if you were in a court of law. And this judge insists upon professionalism and correct decorum. I would rather not have to cite any participants for contempt in speaker points. And I deplore racism, ethnic bias, gender bias, homophobia, and religious bias either for or against a faith or lack of faith.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Your evidence is important. And just dropping a card, a name and a citation is dumb without an explanation to what the source believes and why it supports your argument or refutes your opponent’s argument. State or question the qualification of authors and compare their warrants. This is critical in Advanced Placement historical writing and in all debates I judge!

It is my opinion that current debaters waste Cross-Examination time far too much. Learn to use it well. Please ask and answer questions.

While Policy has a 2AC, LD does not have it in the same way. This means that AC has to use the 1 AR much more aggressively than Policy. I like to see 1 AR go on the offense on as many of the negative positions, points as possible. This scores voters for me.

Please tell me why you should win, why your opponent should not win and prove it. It is likely your final statement in a court of law. And you can win or lose on how you handle voters. I vote on what I have been able to flow and understand. This begins with who in my opinion won the framework debate. Then I look for evidence to either substantiate my belief or refute it.

PFD

I love PF. As with other types of debate, I prefer substance to delivery and style. Content is rarely a problem for me. I read constantly. My first year with PF I researched and presented Catalonian independence as my first venture into teaching PF. For me it was part of being a Spanish-speaker, an FC Barcelona fan and a historian of European history and politics!

CX

While this was my initial introduction in 1973 to Debate at Jesuit, later I was lost to other types of debate. I wanted to be a diplomat rather than a lawyer. And as a devout Catholic with strong Jewish tendencies, life is often more about abstract issues of faith and philosophy rather than the law which the old Romans so loved. Ergo I found I like other forms of debate. However in a crunch when a tournament needs to push a ballot and procure a judge, I would do it. But like my Latin, my CX is rusty. I understand more than I know but am really out of touch. So it is best if you assume nothing if you have me in a CX round. I will have a lot of ideas about your topic as I have successful CX students in our program. They constantly ask me for research.

Bottom line - I am a Stock Issues Paradigm judge. Avoid spreading - speak slowly. After all slowing down still means you could be speeding! And flesh out your arguments.

COMPUTERS

Computers have become a part of debate whether I like it or not. All debaters should have to suffer making cards, carrying vast card files around, and developing both research skills and muscles. OK, enough reminiscing.

Flash, jump cases and documents in a timely manner – before or at worse, immediately at the end of a speech to allow them time to prepare. I will not count the time against you.

Debating with a laptop is a choice but also sadly a necessity. If your opponent does not have one, be prepared to show him/her your laptop or surrender it to him/her as needed. Your need to prep is outweighed by your opponent’s need for that information.

--Speech--

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I enjoy the traditional format of extemp speeches, but prefer them to be as conversational as possible. if you're going to have a standard opener that you use religiously, be sure it makes sense. also be sure it isn't the exact same as every other person on your team. Use what YOU know and lean into that so that conversation flows naturally.

How much evidence do you prefer? quality over quantity for me. cite your sources with the date included, and use varied sources. at least 3 different ones! and make sure if you're bluffing that i can't tell you're bluffing.

Any preference for virtual delivery? acknowledge the camera if we're competing virtually! make sure you are in a space where you can be seen and heard.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? CONVERSATIONAL. Do not make it seem like this is the umteenth time you've competed with this piece. The beauty of oratory/info is that this is, or should be, your passion piece! YOU wrote every word. and if you're going to speak on something for 10 minutes over and over again, you should love it. And no matter how many times you've run it, it should feel like the first time every time. Your topic is near and dear to you and it's your job to make it near and dear to us. Universality is key. Though I may not be a part of the community or group or conversation, I need to understand why i MUST become a part of it or aware of it. Your passion and excitement for your speech should be palpable. Make it feel like the first time every time because for most people in the room it is the very first time we've gotten to hear this speech. and you have ten minutes to use this room as your platform and speak on what's important to you. make sure we leave this room talking about YOU! Your goal should be for us to be at our family dinner table telling everyone who will listen about this moment we took away from your speech. your gestures need to make sense and be natural. do not simply fall into gestures that you see being done just for the sake of doing them. if you wouldn't normally use particular hand gestures or vocal variations DONT DO IT for the sake of a round.

How much evidence do you prefer? I need enough statistics to not feel like you're just giving me your own personal think tank. back up what you're saying with multiple different credible sources. offer viewpoints that challenge yours, and then back them up with your facts.

Any unique thoughts on teasers? Your teaser sets the tone for the entire piece. Think about how you want to introduce us to the next ten minutes that we are going to watch!

Any unique thoughts on introductions for Interpretation events? Make them personal to YOU! Tell me why this piece matters to you while also telling me about the piece. What qualifies you to speak on this? Why should we listen and care? If you don't know who/what you're speaking on don't waste your time. oftentimes we are lifting up and bringing awareness to a community or an issue that is very delicate. use your intro to tell us why you're doing this and why it matters. Even in HI!!! i LOOOOVE a good tie in to real life. leave us talking about what we learned regardless of whether we are laughing, crying, or everything in between. take me on a JOURNEY.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc: Make every movement a moment. I should be able to snap a photo of you and tell what you're doing and where you are. make movements and pantomimes intentional and thoughtful. break the mold! take me somewhere I've never been.

What are your thoughts on character work? you absolutely must BECOME your character. you need to study people who have experienced what your character has experienced. embody them wholly. whether it's in a humorous or serious way. do not halfway commit to something and expect us to buy in.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)? Author’s intent- doesn’t bother me too much. Appropriateness is BIG for me. You’re in HIGH SCHOOL- crude sexual humor and excessive cusswords just aren’t necessary. It’s also cheap comedy IMO. If you’re that “mature” aim higher for your content. A few innuendos are okay, but don't get crazy. There are far more ways to get laughs then to take it literally below the belt.

I am a new parent judge and I would appreciate it if you would speak slowly.

I am a lay judge, but I have judged a reasonable number of rounds. You may speak fast, as long as you are understandable. Cite your sources as much as possible. If you call for evidence outside of cross-ex, you will be using your prep time. Also, please avoid asking really long questions during cross-ex, andactually let the other team answer. I give speaker points based on strategy and presentation. I may dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, please start an email chain and add me at subashri.r@gmail.com.

Debate is about having fun, so enjoy it!!

Hi! My name is Jeffrey Song and I did some PF in high school but at the end of the day, I am just a goofy little boy!

he/him/his

Things:

1. No yelling, I have very sensitive ears and I don't want this to devolve into a shouting match. Please be respectful!
2. No racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Will result in auto-down :/
3. Go as fast as you want!
4. Smile :)
5. Saying "nu uh" in cross
6. Low diff rounds :(
7. I <3 larping

The @: jffrsong@gmail.com

Additionally,

1) Guiding Principles and General Beliefs

I firmly believe that debate is a competitive game grounded in important research, critical thinking, and argumentation skills, and that the competitive nature of debate is something to be embraced, not rejected. Debaters who work hard to be the best will have a better chance of winning my ballot: this means both before the round, through thoughtful, in-depth research, during the round, through excellent strategic decision making, and after the round, where I am open to discussions with both teams about how to improve for the future.

I will carefully flow the debate and make a decision based on what I’ve flowed for the team I believe has done the better technical debating. Compared to other judges, I think that I need teams to do more impact comparison and internal link analysis to win an argument that I consider a voting issue. I will do my best to not intervene during my decision: this practically means that I want more in-depth warranting for arguments you think are voting issues.

2) Public Forum

A. General Thoughts

I keep a tight flow and will make decisions primarily based on content and strategy rather than style or presentation. I will give more weight to arguments that are grounded in solid evidence, are excellently warranted when first presented, and fully developed during the back half of the round. In short, I will try to intervene as little as possible, and I am theoretically willing to vote on any argument.

I have no preference on the construction of your cases, but I’ve noticed that cases constructed with cut cards, or those that directly quote evidence, are generally more persuasive than cases constructed via paraphrasing evidence, normally because the paraphrasing sacrifices warrants for additional claims. First crossfire should begin to deal with framing questions and start to center in on the central questions in the debate, setting up the rebuttal.

Second rebuttal should begin to condense the round. I expect that it answers the first rebuttal to enough of an extent that I could reasonably see what you could go for in summary. While there are some cases where the second rebuttal should go for all arguments in the debate, those are rare - generally speaking, I think that the first speaking team comes out ahead when that happens. I find myself voting for teams that more aggressively condense the round more often than teams that go for every single argument, though this is not a hard and fast rule.

Second summary is too late to make new arguments to anything in the first rebuttal speech, including defensive arguments. Obviously, anything that you want me to vote on must be in both the summary and final focus speeches. Similarly, final focus speeches which focus on detailed comparison of a couple of arguments rather than going for many arguments generally win my ballot more often. I generally think that the earlier you begin weighing arguments, the more compelling they are by the end of the round.

If you do not give a significant amount of attention to your evidence's quality, you should consider striking me. The representation and quality of your evidence is very important to me, and ethical violations related to evidence may be a voting issue, even if your opponent does not call you out. In practice, however, I am hesitant to vote against a team if the piece of evidence that I think is questionable was not a) explicitly called out by the other team and b) does not make a substantive difference in my decision. Please make my job easy and call out garbage evidence so that it doesn't feel like I have to intervene to vote against it: though I reserve the right to do so, if I think it's warranted.

B. Critical Arguments

I am amenable to the recent trend of more critical argumentation in PF debate and I will happily vote on well-researched critical strategies in many different forms. That said, I think that these strategies have been executed relatively poorly when I have seen them. Too many teams are relying on arguments which I think are, functionally, “we talked about x group of people or y concept and therefore you should vote for us purely due to our ‘pre-fiat, discourse’ impacts” which I find incredibly unpersuasive. While I think that discussions rooted in critical literature are important and welcome in PF, your initiation of that discussion alone is generally insufficient for me to vote for you. You still need an impact to win the debate, and I will still be weighing your arguments versus your opponents in an offense/defense paradigm to determine the winner of the round. In other words, I do not think that "spreading awareness" or "discourse" is a terminal impact.

If you would like to use the round for a friendly discussion between both teams of some kind of oppression, that's fine. I won't take anything away from your decision to use the space as you see fit. But, my job as a judge is to adjudicate debates and award a winner, loser, and speaker points. If a team concedes the debate, I will select a winner, award speaker points based on the quality of debating done by each side, submit my ballot, and may choose to leave the room. If either team would like to ask me brief questions, as during a normal RFD, I will be happy to entertain those questions, but at this point in Public Forum's evolution, I believe that the time spent on the vast majority of these friendly discussions would be better spent having a debate about the issues raised during these discussions.

C. Theory:

I strongly dislike judging most theory debates in PF, and I would prefer to hear a debate about the topic than a theory debate, but I'm willing to grit my teeth and vote for you if it's warranted. I will evaluate theory debates through an offense-defense paradigm: the same way I would evaluate any other argument. I find theory with a clear violation and abuse story more compelling - it is an uphill battle to get me to vote on purely potential abuse rather than proven abuse if the other team makes a compelling we meet or reasonability argument. I probably think that reasonability arguments are more persuasive than most of my judge peers.

I am only interested in impacts to fairness/access and education filtered through the lens of endorsing a given interpretation. When answering theory, keep in mind that I am exceedingly unlikely to vote on arguments based on the socioeconomic status of one or both teams or arguments that assert that theory "does not belong" in Public Forum.

I personally believe that disclosure on the national circuit is generally good and paraphrasing is generally bad. I will not hack for these arguments, though it will be a severe uphill battle to win “paraphrasing good” in front of me.

For a variety of reasons, I cannot stand judging disclosure theory debates: initiating such a debate will cap your speaker points at 25. I'll still vote on the argument if I think you win the debate, but I find these debates totally mind-numbing, and would rather hear a debate about literally anything else. If you don’t like theory, I recommend disclosing and reading from cut cards or at least representing your evidence well.

D. Pet Peeves

Long off time roadmaps, blippy or unwarranted arguments that are magically expanded in later speeches, "cards" which are a sentence long strung together as a series of claims, aggressive/loud crossfire with a lot of cross talk, grand crossfire generally, dismissing arguments as "improbable" without warranting that argument, taking more than a minute to send evidence.

If you have other questions, please ask before the round either in the room or via an email. I am happy to clarify anything you think is insufficiently explained above.

E. Final Thoughts

Cowardice is a voting issue.

Case debate is a lost art. Spending 4 minutes on case on the LOC = happier Jeffrey. Have I included that like 4 times in my paradigm? Absolutely.

I probably give defensive arguments more weight than the average judge. Compelling terminal defense can play a very significant factor in my decision.

I think teams make too many bad arguments and should spend more time developing better ones. This doesn’t mean don’t go fast – it means spend more time developing better arguments than bad short ones.

I will look to the written text of your advocacy if it becomes relevant for any reason, i.e. a T interp, plan flaw, etc.

The aff can always read a permutation. Obviously, they have to justify how the perm works in the round, but I don't think there are certain types of debates or rounds where the aff can't perm.

Ask me about my AK account

Whoever can say "nuh-uh" in the silliest tone during cross as a response gets extra speaks.

Thank you for reading this goofy little boy's paradigm!

I debated Public Forum 4 years in High school

All I ask is that you speak clearly and at an understandable pace. If I can't hear you I cannot flow your arguments.

I default to weighing the round off of impacts I suggest making time in your speech for impact analysis especially in summary and final those speeches should be used to crystalize your main arguments not try and extend everything thats been said in the round. Use framing like probability, timeframe, and magnitude to your advantage by comparing directly with your opponents impacts and tell me why your arguments are more important.

Make sure you warrant clearly. Impacts don't mean much if you don't have a solid link chain you can defend and is logical.

I also like hearing unique and niche arguments.

Besides that it's your round debate it how you like.

I'm a volunteer and I'm new to judging, but I've read over some training information and watched some demo videos.

My left ear has some hearing difficulty, so please keep your delivery slow and clear.