Hi there! My name is Ishana, I've been debating public forum for five years. My pronouns are she/her/hers

Since we are debating online, I really appreciate cameras on for the whole round; regardless of if you are actively speaking. Additionally, please speak loudly and clearly (no mumbling!) so I can understand what you are saying.

So a few things:

I look for both evidence and logic. If you are bringing up evidence for the sake of bringing up evidence, I will not flow it if I do not find a clear connection to your case. Statistics/facts can only help you if they are backed up with reasoning and good explanations. Tech>truth

Weighing is VERY important. If you do not weigh your impacts (explain why yours are better, more important, ect) I will most likely give the ballot to the opposing team (given they do weigh). I love impact calculus and it is a great way to do this.

I do not have a pre-determined bias; I will vote solely based on your debating skills and your knowledge of the topic.

I’m a flow judge and follow speed, but please be sure to be clear and stay organized. I will tolerate spreading as I understand there is limited time, but if I cannot understand you due to speed, the argument most likely won't be flowed.

I will not be deliberately flowing cross; if you say anything important, repeat it in a speech. However, I will be taking into account what happens in cross- talking over opponents, answering questions properly, ect. Please don't be rude in cross. Additionally, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross.

I shouldn't even have to mention this but like I said before be respectful to each other. I don't want to hear any cursing or comments against race, gender or anything of that sorts. Remember you're here to have fun, so please try to be civil to your opponents, both during and after the round.

If you have any more specific questions, just ask me before the round! Good luck!

Hello!

I am a sophomore at Stuyvesant High School with 3 years of PF experience

email: acheuk60@stuy.edu

General:

• Tech > Truth usually
• I will stop flowing if you are over 15 seconds overtime
• I don't evaluate cross unless its brought up in speech
• minimal spreading (speed is fine but don't go ham)

YAY:

• EXTENSIONS (but not in rebuttal) <-- I won't evaluate arguments that aren't extended through round
• Collapse
• Weigh (tell me exactly where to vote, I'm not doing the work for you)
• INTERACT with other team's weighing (i want to see clash)
• Frontline in second rebuttal
• I love GOOD turns (they have to have impacts)

NAY:

• No warranting
• Being problematic
• Hogging crossfire
• New arguments in final focus
• obvious stalling or abusing prep

Please be respectful. I'm doing this for free and would not appreciate being yelled at/ watching people yell at each other. Rudeness = low speaks

Have fun!

Hi - I've judged several tournaments over the last year and I love hearing different points of view.

First -- make sure I can understand you. If you go fast and mumble, I won't hear your points and will have a hard time following your arguments. Ideally, enumerate your points so I can follow them and keep track of them throughout the argument. If you go fast, make sure I can get your points! Otherwise, focus on what's most important and share that with me.

Second -- use your time! If you have 4 minutes, make the most of it.

Third -- Cite your sources. It is important that you do this so I can compare evidence. Then tell me why those points are important.

Fourth -- (but probably most important) Be respectful. Good sportsmanship and being kind is important to me. If you insult or talk down to the other team, I will not be impressed.

Lastly, listen to the other team.

Good luck!

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Hello all! I am a current PF debater, and generally value Tech > Truth.

My email: dianehe@hunterschools.org

If you’re a novice or in middle school, I wouldn’t stress out over techy stuff. I will likely approach your round as more of a lay judge. The important thing is to just have fun!

For everyone more experienced, here are some techy reminders:

Please(!!!!!) signpost throughout your speeches.

You should collapse wherever you can. While this isn’t necessary, it will definitely help you save time.

You should clearly extend through summary and final. If you plan on extending an argument, you must respond to everything your opponent has said against it and/or explain why your argument still stands despite their responses.

Weighing is essential to debate, and will most likely make or break a close round. You should be weighing wherever you can. If you can’t think of anything else to say, just start weighing.

If you make a US military joke, I will give you +0.5 speaker points.

Current high school debater, does PF and some parli

• Don't go hyper tech on me or be really fast/incoherent, I will probably not catch it. I prefer a more flay style of debate, so slow down, provide good warrenting and analysis, and make the round somewhat interesting

• Tech > truth to an extent. I need really good warrenting for extinction impacts if the resolution is something minor, but other than that i'll vote off it

• Please signpost or tell me where to flow something. If I don't know where to put it, it's not going down

• Extend and collapse. no extension = no way to win

• Includes extending defense on their case

• No new responces in back half of round (first summary is last chance)

• Good warranting is lovely, good warrants with cards are even better. Please do not say "wEll sMiTh 22 saYs" without any warrent

• Weigh turns and don't concede them

• Probably won't pay much attention in cross, but bring up anything important later in the round

• Please weigh, and weigh well. Winning weighing and case wins you the round

• Time your speeches and prep time

For novices/middle school/new debaters

• Relax before the round, you’re going to be fine. Take up all your time, if you run out of things to say just weigh (i.e. Why your arguments are more important)

I don't like progressive debate or just non-topical stuff(includes theory, K's, tricks). Unless the other team does something egregiously wrong, please do not read prog. I will probably not evaluate it correctly anyway.

For online debate, I prefer cameras on, but if you really don’t want to or can’t it’s fine.

If you have any major questions, feel free to ask.

Hi, I’m Amit! I’m a PF debater at Brooklyn Tech. I’m not too picky, but there are a few things I prefer!

email: amitkakumanu2009@gmail.com

(credit to Emma Smith for parts of this!)

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. I feel like explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

-- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

Im a sophomore and debate PF at Hunter College High School. he/him

Tech > Truth but keep in mind the squirrelier the argument, the harder you have to work and the lower the bar for the opponents response. (ie. don't run woolly mammoths)

I don't love spreading (~250 wpm) but if you're going to do it be understandable and send a speech doc before you start speaking.

I don't flow cross just don't be mean.

Signposting is very important

Warrant everything you say, especially your impacts: I'm inclined to believe a very well-warranted analytic over a piece of evidence without one.

Clearly extend your case. Don't just extend your impact, you need to defend every part of your case, including UQ and warranting. If you don't extend something and your opponents point that out, I'm dropping it from the flow.

Don't extend through ink. Just don't. If it matters its worth repeating.

I hate blippy responses, esp in rebuttal. 1 good response is better than 5 crappy ones, and spamming barely warranted turns on your opponents case is not going to get you a W. People like that make debate suck :(((

Be consistent in the back half!!! Idc if you said it in case, if it wasn't in summary, it can't be in final. That includes pieces of defense and specific cards.

Final Focus should be full of rhetoric. It doesn't matter what type of judge I am, a good final focus makes the round real simple and plays to your emotions. Still do all the important things like extending and weighing, but I want yall second speakers to make me feel something.

Weigh!!!!! Please please please weigh. It makes my life so much easier and I will love you for it. And not just Magnitude and Scope those are boring :(. Pre-reqs are cool but I think Timeframe is v underrated personally. Use jargon if you want (it can be helpful) but I value an explanation over spamming terms. Clearly state when you move on to weighing so I can mark it as such on my flow plz.

Meta-weighing is cool I like it do it if you know how.

New weighing in second final (besides meta-weighing) is not so hot, so do it at your own risk. I'll allow it in first final. Weigh in second rebuttal if you want.

Don't run prog unless you're willing to explain it to me like I'm 5.

Don't be a meanie (racist, homophobic, etc.) or I'll be a meanie with ur speaks.

Yall will do great dw, and most importantly, have fun. Debate is a game, after all.

Hello! My name is Elais Navarro and I am currently a junior in high school, and this is my third year doing Public Forum debate.

I will keep time but I also encourage you to have your own timer for reference.

Please try not to rush through your speech, aim to speak at a moderate pace to make sure all of your arguments are communicated clearly.

For all speakers I am looking for clear presentation of arguments with conviction and respectful language. With second speakers I am specifically looking for how you refute your opponents arguments while not losing sight of your own. For summaries and final focuses I am prioritizing how you can crystalize and weigh arguments, and ability to avoid any new points. I will consider speaker’s ability to communicate their arguments with maturity and grace in my final decision.

Good luck!

hi i'm emily! i'm a sophomore at horace mann and i've debated PF for a few years on the natcirc

emilysdebateemail@gmail.com.

TLDR:

debate is a game play to win

make the round clean and easy to evaluate

if you're not a decent person, i'll stop the round, drop you, and give you the worst possible speaks

How I evaluate:

i'll look at weighing/framing first, then evaluate the best link into said weighing. if you are winning the weighing and have a risk of offense, i'll almost certainly vote for you:

- if team A is winning the weighing, i look to their side first. if they're winning their link into the weighing, the ballot is signed.

- if team A isn't winning the link into the weighing, i'll then look to team B's case. if there's offense on team B's case, the ballot is signed.

- if there's no offense in the round, i'll presume neg (this happens pretty rarely tho!)

General Stuff:

- speed is chill but if you're going over 250 wpm send a doc. slow down on implications, analytics, and tags, but you can speed up on the evidence. that being said, i would rather judge a well warranted narrative debate than the dumping of 30 different blippy responses in rebuttal, but debate how you want to debate.

- metaweighing is key. if both teams are reading different weighing mechanisms, tell me which one i should evaluate first, otherwise i am forced to intervene on the weighing debate, and that's not fun. generally, i evaluate prereqs > link ins > probability (if it's not link defense) > mag/scope > timeframe > SOL. that's how i'll evaluate weighing absent metaweighing - so please metaweigh!

- summary and ff have to write my ballot. i have a pretty low threshold for extensions, but i want good warrants extended in the back half speeches for all offense. defense is NOT sticky - if you want me to evaluate defense it must be extended in the back half speeches. i will NOT grant offense on turns if there is no weighing on the turns extended.

- collapsing is a given - if you don't your speaks are capped at a 28. the number of rounds i've judged where people don't collapse is ridiculously high, so please do. please also be smart about your collapse strategy in the back half, your speaks will thank you.

- 2nd rbtl must frontline terminal defense or it's conceded

Prog:

go for it, but i am not a fan. i would MUCH rather judge a substance round :(. no trix though

Speaks:

- speaks will be based on content, strategy, and speaking

- automatic 30s if: you pay me $5+ (per person) before the round starts or buy me bubble tea/a strawberry acai from starbucks.

Hi everyone! I'm a sophomore and I debate PF for Stuyvesant. (she/her)

My email: sofiapisarevadebate@gmail.com

(I want to be added to the email chain)

How I evaluate:

-Tech>Truth

-Warrant all of your arguments.

-Signposting is very important, esp if you want high speaks.

-Extend your case through all of your speeches, otherwise I won't evaluate it.

-Extensions should not be blippy, you must extend your uniqueness, link, and impact.

-You must be consistent in the back half of the round; if you didn't bring it up in summary, don't bother bringing it up in final focus. I won't evaluate it.

-You must weigh. Please clearly state when you're moving on to weighing, and weigh your turns, or else I won't grant you offense.

-I will evaluate prog if you can explain it clearly and simply.

Some logistics:

-Please do not go over 10 seconds in speeches.

-I'm fine with spreading, but be reasonable lol

Be a decent person, or else I will give you low speaks. Let me know if you have any questions before round!

Hello everyone! My name is Valeria Proekt. I began debating in middle school and have continued debating through high school. This is also my third year judging middle school debate.

A few things to note about my judging:

1. Please fill most, if not all of your time in a speech. Personally, I see it as a poor reflection of preparation if lots of time is left over, or for that matter, used after the clock is up.

2. I much prefer a speech with purpose, confidence, and conciseness, over a speech with lots of crammed information that is read at lightning speed. It's easier for judges, and opponents, to flow a speech that isn't rushed through, and good pacing gives you time to elaborate on each point. Speed debating is a huge pet peeve of mine, so please read at a moderate pace, this should be practiced before a tournament.

3. I will be keeping time, but I recommend you all keep time for yourselves to make sure you don't go too far under or over the clock.

4. Remember, you can not add any new information in your final focus.

5. In regards to jargon and technical language, as long as it is clear that YOU understand what you are saying (and you aren't clearly just using words to sound more knowledgeable without knowing what they mean), I have no issue with it. Feel free to use any topic-specific language you feel is necessary, there is no need to define every term you use unless you feel it helps your case.

6. When determining who won, I examine weighing most of all, followed by scope and magnitude. If an argument is dropped mid-round and is not addressed by the other team, it will not be considered as there is no follow-through.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them! I love answering any questions you might have. Remember, work hard, but also have fun, be confident, and enjoy your experience. I wish you all luck!

My name is Sameeha Saleem. I’m a student judge. I’ve been doing debates in many different formats but specifically, I did public forum debates for two years during middle school.

Important things to consider:

• get to the round as soon as you can

• Be respectful and considerate of your fellow debaters (no discriminatory remarks)

• Before starting, please tell me your name, what speaker you are, and your pronouns

• try to be as clear as possible

• Everyone has their own speeds of speaking and understanding so try to speak at a reasonable speed

•  Will always keep time, but just as a recommendation debaters should also keep time.

• Cards might be called if felt that they are necessary. 

• Always state where you got your evidence for.

• Try to weigh in your summaries and definitely in your final focuses.

• I won't count anything that happens during crossfires unless someone brings it up in their speech. 

• No new points should be brought up during the summary or final focus. 

• Verbal feedback will be given if asked, as well as written feedback on tabroom

HI! I am a former public forum debater, so I flow my rounds. Make sure to be polite and respectful to your opponents during the round. I will be able to understand you as long as you speak at a tolerable pace and articulate your speeches. If I can't hear an argument properly I don’t include it in my flow, and it won't be counted towards my vote. I also don’t flow cross, so make sure that you bring up any of those points later in the round. Lastly, I award speaker points based on debaters who articulate their points clearly.

flow judge

Hi, I’ve been doing pf for 2 years, now judging debates when i’m available

Mainly looking for weighing and numbers so i can understand your arguments better

I will not be judging crossfire and will only take points from cf in consideration if they are brought up in other sections of the debate

Feel free to be passionate in your points, but please refrain from being aggressive or especially rude in the round.

thanks for listening and have fun!