Tech>Truth

Email: ellabeutel@gmail.com (pls add me to the chain)

First-year out from Belvidere North High School. Debated PF all 4 years. (3 years nat circuit).

Arguments and Extensions:

-I will vote for any argument as long as it is cleanly extended and has a claim, warrant, and impact at a minimum (it should also preferably be weighed especially turns)

-2nd rebuttal has to respond(frontline) all offense, otherwise, it's dropped.

- pls condense case extension as the round goes on

-Anything new brought up after 1st summary I won't buy (unless weighing in 2nd sum)

Speed:

-I am comfortable flowing around 200-250 WPM as long as you are clear.

Evidence:

-If bad evidence is pointed out I won't drop the team just the argument. However, please don't misuse evidence its counter-productive for education.

Weighing:

-Pls weigh and make it comparative (tell me specifically why what you are arguing matters more than what your opponents are).

-Pls only go for and weigh the arguments you are winning(I don't need you to extend your whole case just pick a contention and tell me why you are winning).

Speaks and Prefs:

-I won't give below a 26 unless you are offensive.

-I don't mind light sarcastic debate just don't make your opponents too upset.

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions before the round starts please feel free to ask!

Hello! My name is Harris Dorgan. I'm judging for University High School, where I did PF debate for 4 years.

For my overall philosophy on debate, I tend to let teams debate how they are prepared to debate,so things such as your decision to frontline is up to you. Also, I judge on my flow, so flow your responses through rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Below, I have some points on other elements of debate.

Speed of delivery: As mentioned before, I did PF for 4 years so I can handle speed but I prefer clarity over quantity of arguments.

Format of summary speeches: I don't have any specific preferences other than that I like to see a clear structure. I don't necessarily care what that structure is, as long as I can see and understand the structure you choose.

Extension of arguments into later speeches: If a brand new argument is brought up in 2nd summary or later, I will not weigh it.

Argument vs style: I value argument and style equally.

Hello!

I am a former policy debater and relatively new to public forum.

I appreciate clash. Don't be mean or yell at each other.

Thank you!

-Adam Hoefler

Somaliland Topic Stuff

- Please be resolutional. The actor is the African Union; not the UN or Ethiopia.

- Don't advocate for anything racist, neocolonialism or colonialism.

Tech>Truth

Email: gabekroepel@gmail.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com (For the email chain).

I graduated from Belvidere North High School. I debated all 4 years (3rd nat circuit) in PF. I have also qualified for NSDA nats(3x), NCFL nats(4x) and the TOC(2x) in PF. Currently doing IPDA and speech at the University of Illinois Chicago.

For online debate, just assume I am ready before every speech.

GENERAL STUFF

Timing

I will be timing but time yourselves.

If you go over 10 seconds pastime, I will just stop writing. I’m not stopping you unless it’s like a minute.

Don't steal prep time.

Speed

I can flow anything ~200-250 WPM (800-1000 word constructive and rebuttal) assuming you're clear.

250 is pushing it, so send speech docs for 1000ish word speeches and up.

Arguments

I'll vote on anything that makes sense and isn't blatantly offensive. If it's offensive, I have no problem stopping the round, giving you the L and 20s.

It's not an argument without a claim, warrant and impact.

Extensions

Defense is not sticky in Varsity (It is sticky in Novice) (If someone drops something on their argument, you must extend it.)

2nd rebuttal has to respond to all offense, otherwise, it's dropped.

Condense case extension as the round goes on.

Collapsing is better

If everyone drops defense, I will default on the weighing.

If one side extends an impact without a warrant, and one side extends a warrant with no impact, I will default on the warrant with no impact.

Cross

Don't assume I'm listening.

If evidence is brought up. Bring it up in an actual speech, or I'm not weighing it.

Cross should be an opportunity to project your case. Make it clear you know what you are talking about

A concession MUST be brought up in speech, or I don't care.

If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I will hate my life. (Lower Speaks)

Evidence

I won't drop a team for misusing evidence, just the argument. Unless it's an entire constructive, obviously.

Tell me to call for the evidence and specifically tell me what's wrong with it in the round.

If someone reads Bradford 13 900 million people into poverty, my response threshold is the following as the card has a lot of problems. Just say this 1st, We've had 2 recessions since the card was written, nowhere near 900 million have ever gone into poverty. 2nd, No recession has ever been that big, it has no historical precedent.

Analytics with a warrant can beat evidence without a warrant.

Weighing

If it's not comparative, don't make it.

If it's fake, don't make it.

If you aren't winning an argument, don't extend it.

Weighing should be the same in summary and FF, unless new weighing is brought up by the other team.

If no weighing happens, I will vote for the cleanest link in the round. If both links are clean, I will default to Impact weighing.

My personal weighing preferences: Probability>Severity/Magnitude=Scope=Irreversibility>Extinction.

All personal preferences will only come into my decision if the weighing isn't comparative, or there isn't warranting to prefer the weighing.

Speaks

I won't give anything below a 26 in varsity (Unless you're offensive in round, then you get 20s).

For novices and middle schoolers, I won't go below a 27 (Unless you're offensive in round).

Prefs

Sarcastic debate makes the round fun. Don't make your opponents too upset.

If time allows, ask me questions after the round or come find me for more feedback.

Speech Structure

Do your thing. I don't care how you structure speech, just do it how you normally do it. (Voter issues, your case their case, etc.). I would rather hear you debate your best, then bend to my preferences badly.

Disclosure

I will disclose in every round. (When the tournament allows).

Postrounding is the best form of education, so go for it.

IL CIRCUIT SPECIFIC STUFF

Prog

Absolutely not instant L and 20s.

Arguments

Don't run crazy stuff. 90% of the time on this circuit if it's crazy, it makes no sense.

Pls have links.

I think trigger warnings are a good norm, but it matters less on this circuit.

Responses

IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE

If it's a turn, weigh it, or it's just defense

NAT CIRCUIT SPECIFIC STUFF (If you're an IL debater, stop reading. This isn't for you.)

Progressive Arg

I'm not an experienced judge or debater with this type of argumentation. I'm telling you right now, I might evaluate progressive argumentation wrong, so do it at your own risk.

Theory

Not a lot of experience, still a risk to run.

I'll vote on theory shells, except for round report theory or theory against a team where there was no actual abuse. I don't like voting on theory.

Paraphrasing theory-I don't think paraphrasing is a reason to vote a team down unless it's all of their evidence. At most, I'm dropping the evidence in question.

If you read frivolous theory, you undermine the point and even if you win I will give you low speaks. (You will probably get the L)

I think PF is too short to do meaningful theories. If abuse is committed, a theory shell isn't always needed. Tell me about the abuse, and let me judge the round.

RVIs are stupid, you still need to tell me why not to evaluate an RVI.

K's

I STRONGLY dislike K's.

The majority of the time in PF K's are used to win ballots, not to invoke actual change in the debate space.

If your opponent reads a norm setting K, and they haven't read it the entire tournament they are breaking their norms, just call it out. I will look at the wiki, if they didn't run it I will probably vote against it. I personally don't think you should break the norms of a K just to "get into elims".

If I evaluate something wrong, It will be with a K.

Speech Docs

I want speech docs for case and rebuttal

Summary and FF shouldn't need docs unless something new happens (Which it shouldn't).

Arguments

Anything you want.

Anonymous Opt Out>>>>>>Trigger warning

Responses

IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE

If it's a turn, weigh it, or it's just defense

For GBX '24: The tournament requires that we use the Tabroom doc share. DO NOT set up an email chain, follow tournament rules, please.

Also per the tournament invitation, "Each round’s decision time deadline is based on the Tabroom pairing start time. If the judge does not enter a decision in tabroom by the decision time, it is within the Tabroom’s power to flip a coin to determine the winner of that debate." DON'T BE LATE, the tournament does intend to enforce this.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

My paradigm is pretty simple. I practised debate for all four years of high school, so I understand the technical debate terms. I am a truth over tech type of judge because I am in the debate community. Therefore, the cost of my vote will not be based on untruths. I won't make the connections for you in a round. I base things on the flow of the debate and will cast my vote based on that.

Lastly, please weigh! I should be seeing you weigh the conflicting arguments of the round by the summary speech. Should you not use any weighing methods, that leaves the weighing up to me, and you might not like that. :) So, please, use your weighing mechanisms and pay attention to your flow to extend arguments through each speech.

Thanks all!

Flowing

• Tell Me How to Flow: Do the thinking for me.
• Everything you say is flowed, so if you misspeak, please clarify ASAP.
• I do not flow crossfire; however, I do listen carefully and ensure information is consistent.
• Organization, clarity, and coherence are critical. I don’t mind spreading as long as I understand you; I will let you know if I don’t.
• Signposting is an excellent way to make sure everything you said is flowed.

Evidence

• Tech > Truth (only a little)
• Well-flowed arguments hold weight; if an argument goes uncontested, I must weigh it.

Weighing and Voters

• Voters Are Critical
• Weigh each argument against your opponent’s.

Respect and Professionalism

• I understand debate can get heated, but try to keep all interactions civil.
• Hate Speech Results in Loss

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm am a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that my debate knowledge is still fresh in my head.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Hi, I am a former PF debater, for U-High, not to brag but also completely bragging (so you can skip if you want) I won 2022 Novice state, 2023 JV state, and 2024 Varsity State in Illinois as well as a 2x varsity all stater and broke at NSDA Nationals so I am well versed with debate and know how the Illinois and National circuit operates and will alter my judging based on what tournament I am judging however the following generally applies to all competitions. I try my best not to be a bogus judge and will provide specifics as to why I vote how I do in a round.

WHAT I LOOK FOR

Please project and speak semi loud, I lost some of my hearing.

I prefer tech > truth but don't run egregiously wrong arguments without cards. If you do have a card for something egregiously wrong, if your opponents don't call it out I still buy it as much as it might hurt me.

I don't flow cross but points made in cross can be brought into the round in rebuttal and summary grand cross doesn't matter.

I expect people to keep track of their own time. I will track time too but if you're over time I won't cut you off I'll just stop flowing and stare at you and dock your speaks if you go excessively over time. If you need 5 extra seconds just finish your thought I won't weigh the closing statements but it won't hurt your speaks.

Please weigh please weigh please weigh please weigh please weigh please weigh please weigh please weigh please weigh and explain why you're impacts matter more in the round. Write the ballot for me I'm lazy and the less thinking I have to do the better your odds. Big fan of comparative weighing and well done meta weighing.

Call out dumb things like extinction or nuclear war. If you don't say anything about your opponents running it I'm going to be really disappointed in you and default towards extinction or nuclear war because you can't really outweigh it. If you do then I'll be impressed but you could've saved time for more substance.

DON'TS

Don't spread and speak so fast your opponents can't understand you, I'll dock speaks and I'll prefer the opponents.

Don't assume things like if your opponents drop something I flow it and keep track of it without you telling me. In short point out when your opponents make drops otherwise I won't weigh it. Also don't be disrespectful duh, I don't vote based on vibes so even if your just blatantly not cool if you win the round technically you win my ballot, however your speaks will be tanked.

No new args in second summary I will not weigh them

I know theory and K's aren't run on Illinois but in case someone gets creative. Don't. Nationals can run theory but honestly I don't like theory and much prefer resolution debate, I'll try my best to judge theory but generally am not super knowledgeable on theory judging.

RANDOM

Bonus speaks if you make me laugh, bring me an Arizona Green Tea(or any fun tasty drink), or guess one of my favorite music artists.

Also I have borderline narcolepsy so if I look tired I am but its not your fault. However debates that are engaging and keep me awake and on my toes can expect high speaks.

Corny but have fun in debate too, tournaments are tiring and often times boring so get something out of these god knows how many hours.