Hey my name's Max and you can call me Max.

NSU Class of 2027

Email for email chain: mgbassin45@gmail.com

I've been a debater all my life but I started policy debate last year. I can vote on anything but I am a K debater. For my opinions on other arguments refer to Jacob Bosley's paradigm as he always has good opinions all the time.

Tech over truth of course. That doesn't mean you can lie because I will catch you.

Will pay close attention to detail. Prefers clear and confident speaking over speed. Will keep personally bias out of the decision making for the debate, more specifically not judge based on the topic but rather how well put together the debates are individually.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Preferences for arguments:

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

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

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

PF:

Policy/LARP

Traditional

K

Theory

NO TRICKS WHATSOEVER ITS AN AUTO LOSS

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

Hello I am a first time parent judge. I am unfamiliar with the topic so please keep arguments to a simple level. I appreciate slow speaking with clear articulation. Summary and final focus are important to me as it will make it clear how to vote. Given that, please make sure to do comparative weighing in summary and final focus that mirror each other.

General Philosophy:

As a judge, my primary goal is to create a fair and supportive environment for all participants. I value clarity in arguments, effective use of evidence, and the debaters' ability to engage with each other respectfully. I believe that the best debates are those where both teams articulate their positions clearly and respond to each other's arguments thoughtfully.

Criteria for Judging:

1. Argumentation:

- Clarity: Are the arguments presented clearly and logically?

- Structure: Is there a clear flow to the debate? Are points well organized?

- Depth: Are the arguments supported by relevant evidence and examples?

- Engagement: How well does each team respond to the arguments of their opponents?

2. Delivery:

- Presentation: Is the speaker confident and articulate? Are they engaging?

- Pace: Is the speaking pace appropriate, allowing for understanding without losing clarity?

- Use of Cross-Examination: How effectively do speakers use this time to challenge their opponents?

3. Rebuttal and Refutation:

- Are the rebuttals effective in addressing the key points made by the opposing team?

- Do the debaters demonstrate an understanding of their opponent’s case?

4. Overall Persuasiveness:

- Which team made the more compelling case overall?

- How well did each team persuade me to adopt their viewpoint?

Expectations for the Debate:

- Respect:

I expect all participants to maintain a respectful demeanor towards each other, their opponents, and me as the judge.

- Time Management:

Adherence to time limits is crucial. Each team should be mindful of the clock and ensure they cover their points within the allotted time.

- Preparation:

I appreciate well-researched arguments and the strategic use of evidence. Teams should be prepared to defend their claims.

Post-Debate:

After the debate, I will provide constructive feedback to both teams. I will highlight strengths and areas for improvement, focusing on the arguments made, the quality of delivery, and overall strategy.

Final Thoughts:

I am looking forward to witnessing the creativity and passion that each competitor brings to the table. Please feel free to ask any questions before or after the round—I’m here to support your learning experience!

Hello, my name is Vishal Gadani, and I am a parent judge for this event. This is my first time judging Public Forum, and I am excited to participate and learn through this experience.

I prioritize clear articulation, logical reasoning, and well-researched arguments over speech length or quantity of points. Please speak slowly and clearly, as clarity is key to helping me understand and fairly evaluate your case. I am committed to judging based on the arguments and evidence presented in the round while avoiding personal biases. Since this is my first time judging, I might not be as familiar with advanced debate terminology. If something is unclear, I will do my best to interpret it fairly, but I encourage debaters to focus on making their arguments accessible and well-explained. I will be aware of most Public Forum rules before the round, but please clarify any rules that you think I should know of. At all times, be respectful to your opponents and avoid speaking over each other.

Thank you, and I look forward to an engaging and thoughtful round!

Flow and respond to what the other team says.

I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.

Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.

Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.

Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Aff's that don't defend the resolution.

Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.

Judge pref disclosure

Disclosure

Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.

Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.

Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.

Bataille

Baudrillard

Settler Colonialism

Deleuze

Psychoanalysis

ontological argument

epistemological arguments.

In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.

PIC's

Condo CP's

Topical CP's

Consult CP's

conditions CP's

A Critique of Full Text Disclosure

Spreading bad

A Critique of Disclosure

Vote only for women

This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.

So what is left you might ask:

Case debate

Topicality

Da's

CP's that are not listed above.

Other things you might want to know:

1. Da's can have a zero-risk.

2. Aff adv's can have zero risk

3. Solvency can have zero risk

4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.

5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.

I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.

Updates:

PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.

I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.

1. I am more truth over tech.
2. You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
3. The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
4. Probability is more important than possibility.
5. Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
6. Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
7. The big questions on the topic matter.
8. Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
9. Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
10. I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
11. Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
12. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!

Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.

If you have questions before the round ask me.

UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.

UPDATE: 9/25/24--- From everything I have read about public forum debate there are several key elements that make it different form policy debate.

1. accessible
2. conversational format
3. advocacy

Link debates are more important to me than your impact. If you can't win a substantial risk of your link then more than likely you won't win the debate. Comparing the risk assessment of the links (Pro vs Con) is very important.

I am a parent, but have worked in education for 30 years as a science teacher, school assistant principal, and college adjunct instructor. I appreciate respectful discourse and logical reasoning and I am excited to judge in my first tournament.

Hi my name is Tali I am a parent judge and both my daughters did Congressional debate.

I value a strong and respectful debate, make sure to keep decorum throughout the debate.

Please do not spread as I will not be able to understand you and wont be able to judge the content of your work.

I prioritize persuasion based arguments over the technical aspect of it.

Speaker points will be gained and lost based on your ability to clearly articulate and argument while also being able to negate your opponents arguments.

Overall I hope to see some great debates and good luck to everyone!

New parent judge, english not my first language and please go slow, be polite
no theory, truth > tech

Background

I am a parent judge in my second year of judging. My background is in science and engineering and as such logic and well constructed framework and thought tend to rule the day with me.

General Paradigm (LD)

I am open to however you would like to construct your approach but as a judge still in the learning phase I appreciate clear roadmaps well constructed arguments over highly technical approaches such as Trix and Kritiks. They can be used but you run the risk of me missing them if they are too subtle/complex.

Flow

I prefer to take notes/flow and will admit spreading is difficult for me. I will favor quality over content and although I won’t deduct for speed, but if I don’t understand what you’re saying I won’t be able to judge on it.

Debate

I value and will vote on strong, case-based arguments. I am looking for debaters that are active in the debate, use time well and solidify arguments clearly and have voters in the 2AR and NR.

Some additional things to consider:

• Theory is new to me, please explain well

• Presumption: neg

• Permissibility: aff

• Careful of Trix, I will likely miss them

• I expect strong rebuttals from your own flow. Please don’t just ignore your opponent and reiterate your case in AR/NR. Show me you understand their argument and know how to defeat it.

My name is Susy Lopez, I started to studied Law at the age of 16 years old; I also studied Political Science and sociology back in Colombia, South America. I did my masters in Criminal Law in the Universidad Complutense in Madrid, Spain. As soon as I graduated from Law school I participated as a defense attorney in several burglary cases and in sexual abuse cases, this prepared me to have an open and non judgmental way of thinking.

I have been a Judge in several debate competitions, this incoming one ill be my fourth event where I participate as a judge, I enjoy Public Forum and dramatic interpretation, but I'm willing to help in any debate where I am needed.

Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions.

Susy Lopez

I prioritize clear and concise speeches structured with a clear contention, supporting evidence, and explanation of why the argument is important. I value logical progression and arguments that are easy to follow. Give me an off-the-clock roadmap (basically whether you'll be going over your case or your opponent's case first) and go down the flow in order so it's easy for me to follow. Give me voters (reasons why I should vote for you) at the end. As a new judge, I appreciate when arguments are presented straightforwardly rather than relying on me to infer implicit details. Please speak at a clear, steady pace. Overly fast delivery will make it difficult for me to follow. Eye contact and organized presentation are appreciated. Ensure that your arguments are explicitly stated and well-explained. No jargon please!

Thank you! Have fun, and I look forward to judging your round!

Add me to the email chain: rithikamathew2005@gmail.com

I have judged three debates so far, and I am well aware of quality arguments. I look for depth of analysis, direct clash of arguments, evidence without it driving the debate, and the human element of persuasion. Please do not spread/speak too fast to ensure I hear and evaluate all arguments by both teams.

As a debate judge, I focus on evaluating argument quality, logic, and delivery. I believe in the importance of collaboration among judges and participants to create a supportive environment. Clear communication is essential, ensuring competitors understand their strengths and areas for improvement. I foster trust to encourage respectful dialogue and openness. By being adaptable in my evaluations, I consider the unique contexts of each debate.

Hello Debaters

My name is Sujatha - I am parent to a middle school debater and a first time judge. I am excited to be at Sunvite, my first judging event, and to hear your arguments. My goal is to ensure I actively listen and evaluate your debate with fairness. I will also do my best to provide you with thoughtful feedback. As I am new to judging, a conversational pace will help to ensure I fully capture and understand your points.

Thank you and good luck for a great debate!

Email: Benjaminredler@gmail.com

Lay

I am a parent judge with limited judging experience. I would prefer that you speak slower and more clearly. Also, assume I am not familiar with the current topic.

Experience: High school Cambridge (AICE) ELA teacher and assistant debate coach (3rd year) - LD/PF

Education: B.A. History, English Minor. I did NOT do Debate in HS, so I can never be that judge for you.

EMAIL CHAIN: ssigler2015@gmail.com

If I look stoic or disgruntled, it's only my poker face. - See if you can get me to crack a smile. - I may break character if something I find funny/odd is said... : )

Debate (Judge/Coach)

Behavior: Debate can get quite competitive; be kind nonetheless. Do your part to make everyone feel welcome - especially for novices. Don't aimlessly complain about parent/lay judges. Instead, talk with them more on your event. If you want a competitive field, you need students and judges that WANT to stick around for the long haul; they won't if they feel excluded or hurt. Please don't push them away by your words or actions : (

Basics: I flow online, or, if needed, on paper. Anything I don't catch is on you. Contentions should be numbered and please signpost throughout. I hope to leave detailed feedback on the ballot based on my flows, but I have more time to do so for Prelims than Elims. I generally will NOT disclose verbally unless on a panel.

Type: FLOW/FLAY is most accurate, currently... not true tech but striving to be.

Win my Round: Tech > Truth. I will evaluate and vote on a variety of args, but see Prefs. You should have very clear -extensions--> of key warrants / cards / links / impacts in all speeches; otherwise, I can consider anything dropped, and my flow looks like Swiss cheese. My bar is decently high, and I need to hear it consistently in each speech. Please give VOTERS and WEIGH.

Pet Peeve (Last Speeches): Not sufficiently extending a contention you're winning into the 2AR/2NR/FF makes it more difficult for me to vote for you. Your impact doesn't trigger if I don't hear the warrants/link chain past Constructive, and, conversely, if you extend the warrants/link chain I need to hear the direct impact again. This can and does make or break rounds. Avoid my judge intervention, resolve my uncertainty, and... extend.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS/LD: I will evaluate what's in front of me, but I feel Prelims should be lean Trad and Elims lean Prog. Default to Competing Interps and no RVIs for Theory, but it's seldom truly merited.

Pref: Trad, K's (e.g., cap, set col, anthro, fem), CounterPlans, DAs, phil (Kant, Rawls, Mills, etc.)

Don't Pref: Theory (esp. Disclo, tbh), High Theory / postmodernist phil

Strike: Friv Theory, Trix, Performance

Spreading: I really do NOT enjoy listening to spreading, yet it is part of the sport, and I WON'T drop you for it. However, PLEASE do not spread against novices and discourage them from debate. Send me your case for Elim rounds, when I'm more ok with speed. SLOW for tags and citations before picking up. The fastest speaking I actually follow sounds like an excited friend telling a story, and not the fastest reader in the world.

Likes: Unusual or unique frameworks and contentions (I'd much rather hear something new than be able to preflow your team's same Aff for the 4th time); clear weighing; analyzing your or the opponent's evidence (i.e., that you actually know the cards beyond the tagline or stats and can explain its relevance in-round); good clash; consistent extensions; clean rounds.

Dislikes: Running cases you are clearly unfamiliar with or don't know how to read; passive-aggressive rhetoric or shouting when you really mean to say, "I don't know how to respond;" relying too much on a single "trump card" without contextualizing it in-round; not using the full allotted time or trying to go over time; "giving up" when you feel outclassed, and its inverse: steamrolling less-experienced opponents.

Speaks: I avg. ~28 and go up or down. It's based on case, style, and talking me through the flow. I may give one 30 per tournament if I'm really impressed with you (yes, this may be highly subjective if I have had some really poor rounds before yours, and your debating gives me a sigh of relief). I'm also a sucker for a low-point win.

PUBLIC FORUM/PF: Most of what applies above retains for PF as well. I pref Trad but you can still try to flex more prog/techy cases, if you want. I do not flow Cross or Grand. FF should be writing the RFD for me. Update: Post-Sunvite '25 - My bar for extensions in PF is the same as in LD; nothing is sticky. Summary should have both Offense and Defense you expect me to keep flowing. Try to never "go for everything" and always collapse in Summary, unless the opponent is clean conceding a contention/sub and you want another easy route to the ballot.

CONGRESS: I do not regularly judge Congressional Debate, but I spectated it throughout the 2024 NSDA Nationals, and I have some experience coaching. I highly value decorum and the role-play of the debate. Students who consistently contribute in session, through a combination of incisive questioning, strong speeches, and active participation in the chamber, will receive top ranks. Your presence should tangibly make the chamber better. I do enjoy unique speeches and angles (even on the very rare occasion, abstention speeches and votes may be merited). POs will ALWAYS make top 6, unless you do something really abusive to get dropped. An excellent PO is like a sports referee: fair, intervenes minimally, keeps the game flowing.

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

Speech (Judge)

All Categories: Your speech should be developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event. I like style and flair, but, as a Debate judge, I'm probably going to prioritize the substance of the writing. Nonetheless, even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. Follow the rhetorical triangle and incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos as necessary for your purpose. Note: My tolerance for any fluency breaks or other delivery errors is slightly higher in prelims than in out rounds, to pref better content.

Let me know prior to round if you require additional clarification on my Speech Judging preferences.

I do not have any strict paradigm. This will be my first event in last several years. I like speaker covering the width of the topic and accommodating counter points in order to advance ones argument. I would prefer source of evidences if it has a potential of becoming disputed. A simple and easy to understand language, clarity of thoughts, confidence and persuasiveness, consistency and flow, meaningful and concise questions to the opponents and adaptability are the important features in a good debate.

Background

I have experience in PF, Parli, Extemp, and Duo, with the majority of my judging in PF. I also coach PF. My goal is to evaluate rounds fairly and consistently, with an emphasis on clear argumentation, weighing, and impact analysis.

Before the Round

• If both teams arrive before me, go ahead and decide if you’re doing an email chain (include me—my email is at the end of my paradigm).
• Ensure your flow and prep materials are ready before the round begins.

In the Round

General Expectations:

• Delivery matters! Persuasion is key in PF, and speaking style affects speaker points.
• Utilize your prep time wisely.
• Be clear in stating your contentions and framework.
• Speed is fine, but don’t spread—I value clarity over speed.
• I am flowing, so make it easy for me to follow. Off-time roadmaps should not exceed 10 seconds.
• Rebuilding and extending arguments is critical. I need more than just tagline extensions to continue evaluating an argument.
• Weighing is non-negotiable. Tell me why you are winning the round and how to evaluate the debate.

Argumentation:

• I value logical and well-warranted arguments. Just because something is dropped doesn’t mean it’s automatically true if it’s poorly warranted or irrelevant.
• However, I can’t make arguments for you. Logical responses to outlandish or stretched arguments will be accepted if explained thoroughly.
• Avoid spending excessive time arguing over minor details, such as one source (there are some exceptions depending on the topic) or definition. Focus on big-picture clash and impact analysis.
• Link debates are often more important than impacts. Without a solid link, your impact won’t matter.

Weighing and Framework:

• Provide a clear weighing mechanism and carry it throughout the round. If your opponent’s mechanism goes uncontested, I will use theirs.
• If neither team provides a weighing mechanism, I will default to evaluating dropped arguments, clash, and overall impact.
• PF is different from Policy. Running most theory or Ks in this format is not optimal, especially given PF’s speech times. These are often used as “gotcha” strategies in PF, which detracts from meaningful engagement with the resolution.

Crossfire and Evidence Calls:

• I don’t typically flow crossfire, so if you want me to consider concessions or notable points, you must incorporate them into your speeches.
• Evidence should directly support your claims. Misrepresenting or cutting evidence out of context will lower your speaker points and may cost you the round.

Final Thoughts

Debate is about logic, reasoning, and engagement. Be creative, dynamic, and clear. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to ask before the round.

Remember to be considerate and respectful during the round. Disrespectful behavior or insensitive comments will lower your speaker points and can cost you the round. Debate may be competitive, but you are discussing real people and potential decisions that could have real-world consequences.

Most importantly, enjoy the opportunity to debate meaningful issues!

If doing an email chain please add me -gabri3ll30422@gmail.com

Hello. This is my first time as a debate judge. I will carefully listen to the topic being presented. I will pay attention to the knowledge of the topic and the confidence of the speaker when doing presentation. Ideas have to be transmitted clearly for easy understanding, at a moderated speed.

Sus out the vibe.

My rules are simple:

- Be respectful of your opponents; condescension, rudeness, eye rolling will result in lower speaker points

- Speak at a conversational pace. I should be able to follow your arguments easily.

- I am a big fan of signposting

- I am not a big fan of spreading

- Don’t misrepresent your evidence

- Mere existence of a card is not enough; thorough explanation of your arguments is

- I also appreciate confident, persuasive speaking with good eye contact and tone.

- Your final focus must reflect what took place during the round

I am a first-time debate judge, so please be patient with me.

Here is what I am looking for:

-Please don't spread excessively to the point that your opponents and/or myself can't understand.

-Please be respectful to the other team and listen to what they have to say.

-Please don't bring irrelevant evidence into the round.

-I would like clear speaking and some eye contact towards your opponents and me.