Personal Info: My name is Moazzam Ahmed and this is my first year judging for PF debate. I work at Microsoft and am looking forward for the debate rounds. What I want to see: The first thing I care about is your confidence in the round. I want to see speakers speak clearly, project their voice and stand (or sit) tall as you make your points. Avoid stuttering and slurring your words, as well as avoid being fidgety and moving around unnecessarily. Next, to judge on your content I will look for pragmatism rather than contention points & speech being disorganized. You may also get bonus points from me by using global references to your points of contention (if applicable). Last but not least, make sure to be respectful to your opponents and remember to have fun.

Vann Berryman

vberryman@auburn.wednet.edu

Assistant Coach, Auburn High School, Auburn, WA

Coached: 6 years

Competed: 1 year in policy

Hello,

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. I find myself voting a lot on de-linked arguments. You could make a sick case for your argument, but if your opponent de-links it then it's gone.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

in policy, please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut out that wack garbage version of policy.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you won't get a 30. This is rarely an issue but be attired properly. I understand that debate attire isn't accessible to everyone, but if you come across like you don't care about the round, it'll be hard for me to give high speaks.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (that actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Insulting an opponent personally.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

If you want it, I’m happy to send you my flow. Just let me know.

I am a new judge in 2022 and excited to be a part of debate!

Similar to other judges, I believe that quality, well-structured and supported arguments are much better than quantity. It is better to have 1 or 2 strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

I greatly appreciate good speaking skills and professional presentation. Please enunciate, make periodic eye contact and speak slowly and clearly. If I do not hear it and cannot note it for consideration, unfortunately I cannot refer to it when making my final decision. Demonstrate that you know your material well enough to not read directly off of the page.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not. I prefer clarity of evidence and impacts, with valid reference to resources.

Be sure to advance arguments, clearly respond to your opponents arguments and attempt to discredit your opposition. Unaddressed arguments will carry more weight. Please make sure that you and your partner are cohesive.

Other points:

Please sign post - this will ensure that I properly note ideas and contentions.

Please avoid use of complex debate jargon.

Be respectful of your opponents, do not interrupt, and be polite through the competition.

Please no observers.

This is high school debate. It's a fun, learning experience. I don't expect anyone to be perfect and would hope that you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win or not.

Quality over quantity.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. In other words, don't spread.
2. Also don't yell at me. I can hear you just fine.
3. Bonus points if you actually adjust your speed and tone appropriately to your speech.

Evidence

I like evidence, empirical is good, but logical and reasonable is also important. Don't be afraid to evaluate sources, not all sources are created equally. Don't ever have a hanging contention. Don't try to lawyer me with bizarre definitions and loopholes. Use reasonable and common definitions. Don't spend more time on the rules of debate (especially if you are trying to convince me how to vote) than on the actual arguments in the debate itself.

Human life, empathy and giving a preference to those marginalized are things I value.

Organization

I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots. Circle back to your contentions. Be sure you hit your impact and magnitude. Tie everything to your value.

Hello, I am a lay parent judge with one year of judging experience in Public Forum. I am new in judging congressional debate. English is not my first language.

Truth > Tech. Please speak at a reasonable pace. I will be taking notes but not flowing. Please do not be rude. No debate jargon. Please do not post round me.

Make your arguments make sense to me. If I still do not understand the logic of your argument at the end of the round, I will not vote for it (or I'll have a hard time voting for it).

Please do not just say "drop their Contention One because..." I will not drop it unless you tell me very clearly WHY I should drop it or why it's important.

Speaking matters. Be clear and confident. Realize that I won't understand your argument if I can't hear your argument.

Tell me very clearly why I should vote for you.

At the end of the day, this is a high school activity. Try to have fun and don't give me or your opponents a hard time :)

I'm a 47-year old speech and debate parent who works at Amazon. As I flow, I look for thoughtful engagement with the other team's arguments, ideally reaching a Hegelian synthesis.

Hello, I am an English Second Language parent judge with science background. Please speak slowly and clearly, without debate jargon. Be nice and have fun!

About me:

• Hey Guys my name is Isaac! I'm a sophomore at the very High School you are in, I went to State for Congress and Nationals for World Schools. I do a plethora of speech events and I like to consider myself a pretty good speaker.

• I use he pronouns but not him... 'Cause I'll never be him... :(

• I did Open Pufo for a little bit last year before making the switch to Congress so I may be a little rusty on the lingo

• I'm not very good at flowing but who gives a crap. I did a crash course so I'll do my best but if the round get's too messy with impacts I'll give it to the better speakers or personal bias, so try to stay organized!

Random things:

• Don't be a jerk, but I understand it can get spirited

• Weighting is super important so please do that

• Numbers makes you sound smarter and more credible so use them if possible.

• Ask any questions you have about my paradigm

• No new Information in Final Focus, it won't be taken into account!

• Time yourself, i will keep time too but it helps everyone to time yourself, also don’t go over the time too much, I'll keep it up to personal judgment, it is novice!

• (The Extra Bullet Points wont go away)

Constructive:

• Please clearly state your contentions and subpoints so I can start my flow correctly

• Make sure to cite years!!

Rebuttal:

• You can go over your case if you want

Summary:

• Please use this time to crystalize the WHOLE round and your case, don’t specifically use this as a second rebuttal in a way

• Restate your impacts and the blocks you had in rebuttal but just the most important ones

• Please signpost where you are getting everything from

Final Focus:

• Take the time to tell me why you win over the other team and go in depth a little bit

Cross X:

• I will not flow but I will listen

• If you want something to be noted bing it up in rebuttal or summary

• When time is up I will let the other team answer the question

Speaks:

• For constructive try using your hands to convey your side

• No monotone voices, i need some life

• If you want a thirty

• Sound

• Cool

Extra:

• Gotta be good but if you can get a Fnaf Reference or Baseball reference, or anything else cool that I get, that's some points in my book!

• Bring me food Max Points

• Guess my favorite MLB player, Max Points, and a win in round (Kidding! Maybe...)

• Don't be dumb! (Also I'm sorry for the empty bullet points, I can't delete them)

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

I like competing in PF but not judging PF

• call out your opps if they go overtime - i won't be timing
• make summ and ff extra clear bc i can't flow everything (voters + weigh)
• theory and K's dropped - this is pf
• aggro cx preferred (but don't be rude)
• if card sharing takes over 2 mins i will either deduct speaks or move on
• if the whole debate is abt definitions i might lose my mind
• if u wear a pink tie and/or green suit i will give extra speaks
• also applies to if u take off your suit b4 speech like rex
• quote jiadong gu, mike liu, or harrison tang and i will give u a rlly good detailed feedback
• extra points if u make me laugh but use like or um at least 3 times then i will deduct speaks

2 worlds WWW

I am a new parent judge that is judging for the first time. Please don't rush your words and make sure to be very clear and understandable. Please bring out the specifics in your case and connect them to the topic. Be very respectful while talking.

hi I’m parent judge, my daughter is in public forum so I have a bit of prior knowledge. For flow, please have a medium pace, I won't be able to catch or write down your arguments if I cannot understand them.

general

• I prefer empirical evidence over theory etc. weigh impacts and explain to me what I need to vote on

• critical arguments should provide substantial evidence, or I will not buy it

• make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples and have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. no paraphrasing.

• the focus should be winning the debate on the actual topic, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is most important. it is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round.

constructive

quality > quantity. a few well-developed arguments are more persuasive than ten less-developed arguments.

rebuttal

if you can't fill time rebutting their speech, start talking about your own arguments. cards are good to bring up here, cite them before or after (its up to you). go line by line on their arguments, tell me what you are responding to. off time roadmaps are appreciated.

summary

first summary is the last time to bring up new information, I don't want to see you bringing up new evidence after this.

final focus

extend and weigh.

Please be kind to each other. Racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia, ableism, islamophobia, etc., will not be tolerated, period. If you do any of these things, I will drop and report you with the lowest speaks possible. A good round will be enjoyable and valuable for all participants. In turn, I will evaluate the round on your ability to make arguments.

TLDR-

Tech judge. Be nice to each other. I'll vote on the flow and what is implicated. Please collapse, weigh, frontline, implicate, all those great things.

Overall, debate your best, engage with the topic, we are here to learn

Theory

I will evaluate and vote on theory. I probably won't evaluate friv as seriously. but dont make debate a resource-exclusive activity, I'll drop you if you aren't playing fair, and you probably know if you are taking advantage of your opponent-so don't do that.

Speed

I can't flow above 300wpm. If you plan on going above 250 let me know beforehand and send me a doc.

Basic Philosophy

I vote on what is warranted and implicated throughout the round and, by extension what is weighed (your weighing should be easy if you can implicate everything you say in the round).

Evidence

I don't care if you paraphrase but have a cut card and citation readily available; if it takes you a long time to find something, I'll assume you don't have it.

Progressive Weighing

Just be good at it. If you run structural violence framing, you ought to be weighing on it and not a mechanism of scale.

Rebuttal

Number your responses, you probably should collapse in second, you definitely should frontline in second rebuttal (if you are going for it fl it), you can read a DA in second rebuttal but it's probably not strategic.

Summary & Final Focus

YOU MUST EXTEND, defense isn't sticky, extend offense, weigh in summary

Prep

don't take prep between cases, I'll probably drop your speaks

Speaks,

if you are entertaining, pleasant, and make good arguments your speaks will be good

read a content warning. If you don't and you should have ill evaluate theory on it

I am a parent judge. I have judged roughly 40 rounds in the last 18 months and I did policy debate in college.

I would consider myself a flow judge and you should expect that I will vote on the flow. I expect clear links as well as impacts, one without the other doesn't mean much. I expect to see debate on both the links and the impacts.

I prefer it when you can explain your arguments in some context. If you just read cards and don't tell how they tie to together, that's likely not to be compelling. Reading me a random set of arguments that aren't really anchored in your case or your opponent's case or reading them in a random order so I don't know what you're arguing against may leave you in a spot where I can't put them in context and, thus, you don't get much value out of them.

Tell me a story in final focus about why you won and about how I should interpret the flow and the weigh the impacts. Repeating your impacts without explaining anything about probability or timeline doesn't have the same impact as explaining why and how your links and impacts outweigh.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow you. Frameworks are fine as long as they're not abusive and I'm open to theory, although I am likely woefully inexperienced in judging it.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, but just enough so that I have idea what parts of the flow I need to have in front of me.

Although I participated in high school debate years ago, I am new to debate judging, so please have patience and help me improve. Some things you can do that will help me:

1. Speak at a normal speed so I can take better notes on your arguments.
2. Use sign-posting to clearly communicate the arguments you are answering.
3. Stay within your time limits.
4. Have some fun!

Thank you.

I am the coach of the Eastside Prep debate team. Prior, I was president of the Pacific Northwest Middle School Debate League, and I coached a middle school debate team for 10 years. While I am a flow judge, and I pay attention to what arguments are followed up on and which ones get dropped, I prefer students to act as if I am a lay judge as I think that debaters should be able to fully explain their contentions and their refutations so a "regular" person can understand them. When judging debates, I prefer that debaters focus on the significance and impact of their arguments, making sure that they are fully explaining how their evidence relates to their overall position. It should be obvious that they understand what their evidence means, not just that they can read it off of a card. I appreciate it when it is clear that the debaters are in constant communication with one another, building off of each other's arguments. Debaters should also be polite, yet firm, during crossfire. Public Forum debate is the time to really engage in the arguments and seek understanding by clear explanation of evidence and significance of that evidence to their overall contention.

Hi!

I'm a high school senior and I compete in Public Forum.

When you're debating make sure to weigh impacts and try not to drop any time. Just make sure you try your best and are respectful in round. The round should be fun! Don't stress too much!

If you make a Taylor Swift reference I'll give you full speaks!

I am currently a senior and compete in pf, yet I have some sort of experience in several events. With that, my general ask is for you guys to speak clearly, and I do not mind speed, yet make sure that if you speak fast you are still clear, but still keep in mind that this is Speech and Debate, not a competition to become the next Eminem.

Hi! I am Osiris and I am the Senior captain & President at Auburn High School and attending Stanford this upcoming fall. I am also extremely proud to be on the National development team this year. A little bit about my background–I have gone to state for original oratory (2x), extemp, and world schools debate (state champion runner-ups!) and I have gone to nationals for oratory and BQ–I participate in a LOT of different events (world schools is my favorite, don’t be shy to give it a try!!!)

PUFO PARADIGM!

I dabbled a bit in PF last year before switching over to WSD and occasionally congress. I might be a little rusty on the lingo! Flowing is the most important thing–STAY ORGANIZED! Don’t just tell me something, SHOW me. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh! I don’t care how you trade cards or if you even do BUT I will be annoyed if not done before the first speech. Stolen prep is NOT allowed. I don’t mind if you want to time yourself and I will be gracious with going a bit over. Remember, no new information in final focus–I will not take it into account for my decision. Don’t be rude to your opponents (I will factor this into speaker points) HOWEVER, I understand passion and that things can get spirited.

Not keen on judges who call everything “spreading” I like off-time roadmaps! Stay on topic, nobody wants to hear PFers devolve into theory (think nuclear impact/extinction) I absolutely LOVE a good Cross X. If you want a thirty… DO NOT BE DRY BE CREATIVE!

IE's PARADIGM!

I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE "time starts on my first word.." I can absolutely promise that I will not begin my timer before you start talking-that is common sense. My biggest pet peeve is filler words, be cautious with “um, uh, yeah, like…” This is still novice, so I won’t be super strict on this! For high speaker points–I love the use of energy especially using body language. NO MONOTONE VOICES! I will get bored. I don’t mind fast talking as long as you stay clear! We are here to have fun!

Ask me any questions about my paradigm–I am happy to answer and happy that you are here

- I prefer well-developed arguments with solid evidence over a multitude of weak arguments.

- I greatly appreciate debaters who signpost.

- I do not appreciate debaters who spread, use fallacious arguments and/or misrepresent their evidence.

- I appreciate debaters who focus on the broader implications of their contentions and clearly explain why their arguments matter in the real world.

- I value active crossfire engagement. Debaters should use crossfire to clarify, challenge, and highlight weaknesses in their opponents' arguments.

- I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and maintain good eye contact with the judges . I prefer speakers who balance passion with professionalism, avoiding excessive aggression or rudeness; rudeness will result in lower speaking points.

- I prioritize well-sourced, relevant, and recent evidence in evaluating the strength of arguments. I prefer debaters who not only provide evidence but also explain the context and implications of the evidence in relation to their arguments.

I am a student judge who decides the winner of a round based on evidence provided and responses given, please remain mature and professional in the round, or speaker points will suffer.

I have backround in PF

Wait until after 2nd constructive to call for cards.

Don't ask me if I "want an off-time roadmap" either give me one or don't, I do not care.

Hi - Please slow down for your main contentions. Ensure you're well structured - sign posts are welcome. Don't forget to clarify impact.

-Running obscure arguments on your opponents might seem like a nice euro step, but showing probability and a clear link chain will really slam the argument home

- Second rebuttal needs to address turns from first rebuttal, otherwise as k dot said "your rebuttal a little too late."

- First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless you think its absolutely necessary for whatever reason.

- You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches

- In terms of speed if your flow and delivery is hot and clear I'm writing it down.

-Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

Hi!

This is my first time judging. I have the following preferences:

a) Please speak clearly and try not to be too loud.

b) Please be polite.

c) Please explain your arguments clearly

d) Please use off time road map and sign posting

e) Please show clarity on the definitions used in the arguments.

Thank you!

Hello, my name is Wenzhong (Jack) Jiang. I am a parent judge from Eastside Preparatory School. This is my first time judging a debate tournament.

Since I am new, I would appreciate it if you could speak slowly and deliver the messages clearly.

please have fun and enjoy your debate tournament.

I am an experienced judge in a variety of events, with a particularly long history with Public Forum Debate. I have competed in PFD and other events throughout my education, coached and judged for a decade, and taught courses that consider questions of public policy.

_______________________________________________

FOR INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I try to give a lot of feedback to help you bring your piece to that next level of performance. In judging, I try to evaluate the degree to which you, as the performer,

Here are some of the things I give the most frequent feedback on:

Effective use of all your 'tools' (inflection, emphasis, pacing, pauses, volume, nonverbals, 'tech,' strategic cutting, etc.) to help support and enhance meaning. Do the most important (funny, dramatic, etc.) moments really "land"? Is it easy to tell what a character is feeling, and is it relatable, interesting, and impactful? Are you able to take good advantage of 'opportunities' in the piece? (That is, places where your performance can or does 'wring out' as much humor/drama/etc. as possible from a moment)

The degree to which you use and showcase (and have set yourself up to use/showcase) variety and range in your performance. You're trying to both evoke emotions and enthrall the audience, and that is best supported by a delivery that transitions between various 'speeds' and tones. Additionally, I'm more likely to feel your performance deserves a high rank if you were able to effectively juggle a lot.

The clarity of the piece on a narrative level. Do I always have a clear sense of 'where' we are, and why? Am I lost on the major story beats, character evolution, or arguments? Do I understand where things started, where they wound up, and why that ending is significant?

(Speech events are similar, though the focus is shifted a bit to focus more on things like reasoning, organization of ideas, and use of evidence, as well as clarity, persuasiveness, and effective use of 'voice')

For Interp and Speech events in particular, please feel free to stop me if you see me after a round! I'm very happy to give you feedback on your performance, including suggestions for things you might add, tweak, emphasize, etc.!

_______________________________________________

FOR DEBATE EVENTS:

I prefer to judge from the perspective of a 'policymaker'; that is, while by-and-large limit my judging to what teams actively argued in the round, I prefer arguments that are plausible, well-substantiated, and of prime relevance to the topic at hand. Public Forum in particular was always intended to debate questions of policy in an accessible, sensible, and engaging way, and I encourage speakers to keep that in mind.

Arguments that are logically rigorous, built on evidence from credible sources, and clearly speak to the resolution’s demands are preferred.

Arguments that rest on technicality, are unsubstantiated, do not appear meaningfully relevant, or that are otherwise implausible on their face* will only hold if your opponents fail to address them. Even if unaddressed, particularly 'squirrelly' arguments may fail on their face against a reasonable observer's scrutiny.

Additionally, if you have strong evidentiary support it is in your best interest to helpshowcase that it is strong support.

Spoken APA-style citations (author, year) are fine for a lot of things, such as establishing context and laying a foundation (and other things that probably won't be questioned in the round).

However, if there is (or you expect) a key clash over the veracity, certainty, or magnitude of a claim/impact, that might be a good place to introduce a strong source in a way that shows it is strong.

I have no idea whether (Johnson, 22) is the leading expert in their field or some guy who posted an article on Medium; if it's the former, TELL ME, and don't be afraid to USE the authority of your source to bolster your claims, especially when your opponents are relying on "common sense." If you point out that your source is a relevant expert, your opponents will need to go further than "doesn't make sense to me because [unsubstantiated skepticism]" to undermine the claim.

Convince me that your side’s overall proposition is the best response to the resolution; don’t lose sight of that as you consider the clash between individual arguments, etc.

I do consider 'tech' elements in both wins and speaker points, and will favor teams that perform effectively as debaters. However, I see your ‘job’ as presenting (and defending) a persuasive, plausible answer to the question(s) posed by the resolution –remember that even a skilled, round-dominant, and strategically-minded performance can fail to accomplish that goal.

I expect you to debate the resolution; any time spent on meta-arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.) that neglect that core question will need to be very thorough, convincing, and meaningful, otherwise they likely amount to wasted time. I recommend focusing as much time as possible on the core issues at hand.

I can generally keep up with fast speaking, but I definitely still miss things in faster deliveries. It is your best interest tomake sure that the most important things are clear to your judge/audience.Additionally, I prefer speaking with focus, clarity, and word economy over covering that same ground with less efficiency, especially for the purposes of speaker points.

*To a reasonably educated person, not necessarily to an expert.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PiSENj9X4taoU2p1SM3ORhd8Frd80FY69zN8OSukJdM/edit?usp=sharing

Hello, I'm a lay. I've judged in locals, toc bid tournaments, and nats '23, but please treat me like your average lay. Before the round starts, make sure I am 100% clear about who is who and their position.

I don't know anything about the topic so it would be nice if you could restate that for me. I'm comfortable with English but not spreading.

Please SPEAK SLOW and DO NOT USE DEBATE JARGON, as I will most likely not understand it. I don't vote on perceptual dominance or anything but if you talk slower and clearly, I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If I don't understand you then I won't vote for you.

If you dump 50 responses I will remember none. I would prefer if you could just overexplain a couple points and make them really clear to me. Tell me which arguments you are addressing (signpost) and make the back half of the round as clear as possible for me. Do not make this an evidence debate. at that point I will have no idea who won and who lost because I don't know how to call for evidence. If it turns into an evidence debate, I am strongly inclined to vote for whichever team stops talking about the evidence and gives me another reason why they should win.

I will be taking notes during the round but don't think I'm a flow judge yet. -- I don't take notes on cross but I will notice if you're getting destroyed and it'll probably go towards speaks.

Speaks range from 27-29 and I err on the higher side. I don't disclose.

Be respectful and have fun!

• I flow

• Im okay with speed, I am not okay with mumble rapping

• run wtv u want just keep in mind I will unlikely vote for tricks or frivolous theory

• don't bang the table at any moment

• General preferences :

Rabula Tesla, BS>truth>tech, I define BS as any words that come out of my mouth so please quote me to win.

Second re-bundle must line-front and first summary must extend deed feces.

I will literally be weighing your arguments in a round by bringing in a scale. Print out your cases and put them onto the scale. Whoever’s arguments weigh heavier are the ones I will look to first. The same applies to extensions. Every time you extend an argument, please stretch the argument on the piece of paper or else it will not be evaluated. Longer extensions win rounds. As for collapsing, sadly the tournament told me I cannot encourage kids to faint in rounds. Sorry. No collapsing in my rounds or else I will have to report you to tab for my own safety.

Speed:

Unfortunately, with my debate experience, I have developed a fervent dislike of normal speed speeches. If you don't go over 300 wpm, i will give you very low speaks.

Progressive:

As a flay congressional debater, I do not understand Prog. However, I do understand Pog, so if you can yell pog as many times as you read your progressive arguments, I will vote on them. (Example: a is the pog interp, debaters must not poggly paraphrase. B is the pog violation: they paraphrased poggly.)

Speaks:

I believe everything in life has to be earned step by step so speaks start at a prompt 0 and go up .01 for everything you did that I liked. If you have ever done the wonderful art known as congressional debate, your speaks will start at promptly -1. This is a simulation for the real world in which nothing will come easily.

Cross: Debate is an activity that prepares you for the real world. In the real world, you WILL have people who yell at you when they ask questions. So naturally, you MUST be louder to win those confrontations. Thus, whoever yells louder in cross will get +5 speaker points.

• Lay parent judge
• PLEASE DO NOT BE RUDE or you will receive a fat L.
• I evaluate cross heavily so pls leverage it.
• Don't talk fast and be clear, please give organized speeches (signpost and number responses)
• Truth matters > if you say something blatantly incorrect that I catch, that may influence my decision.
• HAVE FUN debate is a game!

LD SPEC:
- keep it trad and no prog

I've done PF for a year now so in general:

• I'm pretty good with speed but I'll tell you to slow down if needed
• I'm not likely to vote for theory
• please be respectful
• please weigh or give voters, it really helps outline the round