Hi I am the President of Truman Forensics. I have been debating for a few years but I also did a bit of speech. I mainly compete in LD but I have also done policy, extemp debate, duo, and extemp speech. I have gone to NSDA nationals as an undefeated auto qual and I won SPDL for LD 2 years ago and got 3rd in Policy last year. All this is to say I know what I am doing and will be able to judge you well.

The only ground rule I have is to make sure to respect your opponent/opponents. If you talk over them and try to overpower them that does not make you a good debater and it will not improve your chances of winning. For speech if you are on your phone or talking while someone else is speaking that is also disrespectul. Stay mindful of proper etiquette in rounds and you will be ok. Just be respectful this is not real life so do not treat it like it is life or death. We are all here to have fun, do not be the one who ruins someone else's experience.

Debate Info

FRAMEWORK PLEASE!!! If you have clashing frameworks and do not address it this goes from an LD/Policy round into a PF round. (Unless this is PF then ignore this XD )The whole point of LD is that everyone has different ideas of what is most important and what we should value in life. No matter what the topic is your framing of the round will always be important. If you do not cover or undercover framework be ready to see it in my ballot and RFD soFRAMEWORK, FRAMEWORK, FRAMEWORK!!!!

I am a pretty progressive debater I like seeing out-of-the-box cases and new ways to debate the same topic. My only thing is that if you plan on using a progressive case make sure you know how to fight and defend it. If you undercover your opponent's case while trying to extend your case that is not a good look. I like a good line-by-line or at least making sure to address each contention and its main points. If you are a traditional debater that is ok too just make sure you do not undercover framework and that you clearly explain why you are winning and why I should vote for you. Remember debate is not just an argument it is an in-depth conversation and I am the audience. If you lose me then you lose. So make sure to talk directly to me and you will do great.

If that does not help with your event then just know that I listen to each argument and wait to see what is flowed over vs what is not. If you forget an argument in your middle speech you can not bring it back up in your last one. Make sure you say everything important.

Speech Info

If I am judging a speech event just know that I am not extremely experienced and will most likely base my decisions on the NSDA judging criteria. Just make sure to hit all the key points, be expressive and interesting, if you lose me while you are speaking then it will make it harder to judge. I do not want to see you just reading I want to see you acting and moving in someway even in events where your feet should stay planted.

If you are in extemp or impromptu then I have more experience with these and know I will be judging you based on your flow and how well you keep your themes consistent. If you are all over the place and it is hard to listen to and follow then it will be hard to judge. So just stay coherent and keep a good flow of ideas and you should be fine.

Most importantly no matter what event or category of event you are in, JUST HAVE FUN!!! Win or lose it is about the experience and you should all plan to have a great one. Forensics is what you make of it so no matter what I decide you guys have already done the hardest part of just showing up and giving it your all. That is accomplishment enough and you should be proud of that!!

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds. Please respect each other and have a great debate

I am a traditional judge and I judge only Public Forum. I prefer quality over quantity. I prefer articulate and understandable speaking, not speaking as fast as you can to get your entire script spoken. I expect respectful conduct at all times. Thank you for your hard work and dedicated preparation. I look forward to competitive rounds.

1. Clarity of thought and how you make your point.
2. Eye-contact: maintain good contact with all involved and not talk to one person.
3. Tone- should be assertive and not aggressive.
4. Overall body language/ gestures when in debate- avoid being dismissive about your opponent.
5. Time management.
6. Send me a case (or I will drop your speaks): srkapure@gmail.com
7. Do Not Spread (If you spread I will vote against you, IF BOTH teams spread my decision will be a coin flip Heads: aff Tails: neg.

I am more of a traditional judge, the national organizations have defined what formats should be and their rules, I believe they should be followed, like LD and PF should not be policy, K's belong with policy. Besides that, I prefer cases that actually use evidence, pieces and speeches that I can follow, and do not prefer speed . Be respectful and remember, in debate, evidence wins the day, sign post and provide road maps.

I learned debate, math, science, English, Spanish, finance, social justice, art, and just about everything I know through Vern, and I hope you will do the same. It will maximize your chances of getting the ballot.

Go to Nova to learn or teach debate this year!

I prefer email chains: andrewli19002@gmail.com AND germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com

Debated for 3 years, qualled 2x to Gold TOC.

General: Tech > truth. I am willing to vote for any argument that has a claim, warrant, and implication extended throughout the round. I'd prefer you keep it under 300wpm and go slower in the backhalf, but you can try pushing it if you're clear. Overall, I am best for strategies that prioritize clash, not skirt it.

I am not a fan of overly generic, prewritten backhalf speeches, and you'll benefit from making sure that you contextualize your analysis to what your opponents are saying. Also, send any evidence you read before speech in the email chain; there is zero reason not to — you should be disclosing it all anyway.

In my opinion, most PF rounds are way closer and far more subjective than people give them credit to be.

Substance: I look to weighing first. Judge instruction is heavily underutilized and you should try to make the round as easy to evaluate as possible so I don't need to find a place to intervene.

I often find it difficult to vote on arguments that contain poor evidence ethics or arguments that lack major lines of warranting during extensions. The bar is not insanely high but it is there. Avoid these so I don't give a decision you dislike.

I am a big fan of impact turns since I think they force debaters to focus on one area of the debate early in the round and do their own analysis to break the clash as opposed to the current meta of spamming out as many arguments as you can in a short amount of time.

Theory: This is probably one of the easier things for me to judge. I like good theory debates and will do my best to not intervene on any shell you're winning. Don't forget to weigh in these rounds.

Ks: I agree that these arguments have a place in PF when done right by teams who know what they are doing. With that being said, I have a pretty high threshold for the execution of these rounds, and often think the short nature of PF speech times leave much to be desired in terms of warranting, clarity, etc. If you are not confident in meeting this threshold, I would heavily discourage running a K on me.

Non-negotiables

-I will not evaluate new arguments in 2FF unless they directly respond to new arguments in 1FF.

-You must follow NSDA speech times.

-Outside help is not allowed.

-There will be only one winner and one loser.

-I will not evaluate any argument soliciting speaker points.

-Any clipping/evidence challenge must end the round and have the round staked.

Misc.

-Anything outside of this paradigm means I don't have much experience with it and would prefer you to explain more thoroughly (run at your own risk).

-Be nice.

-Time yourselves and your opponents, get to and start rounds on time (if possible)!

-Keep off-time roadmaps brief.

-Produce evidence fast.

-Don't flat-out lie to avoid clash or refuse to directly answer clarifying questions in CX. That's obviously a waste of everyone's time.

Hello and thank you for taking the time to read this and all you do as a judge to make our events happen.

Some concerns were appearing at various competitions and tournament directors asked the coaches to address.

1. Positive feedback is great, however, unless they win, there should be some insight on what the competitor can do to improve

2. Reason for Decision or RFD - it is imperative that you provide specific insight as to why one side one or the rankings that you provided

3. It is okay to use repetitive comments, however, please see one and two - there needs to be specific insight for that round and that set of competitors.

If you are new, simple language can be, the pro side won because … then add language as to why their specific evidence was better, address specific evidence so they can grow as competitors. If in speech, blank placed first because … their poise and delivery was slightly better than second place and was a difficult decision to make, both did an amazing job. You need to have reasons as to why one side won or ranked as they did, have details so the competitors can grow from the experience.

From tournament directors, nice insight on what not to do and what to do, please take a moment to read

While students want to know who won and why, coaches want to know how to help our debaters improve! While not dismissing the role of persuasion and speaking skill, we would like ballots to indicate what debaters can do better with their arguments in the future.

Before you finalize your comments on a ballot, be sure you have included 1) a specific argument that you voted on, 2) specific feedback on arguments made in that particular debate. If your ballot could apply to any topic, it needs to be more specific!

Coaches are teaching debaters to craft smart arguments, to put together evidence to support their side, and to respond to their opponents’ arguments. While teaching students how to fine tune their "selling skills," does happen, priority is given to argumentation over performance style.

We know that judges are not, and do not need to be experts on the topic! However, where a Speech event is judged on comparison of performance, a Debate event is judged on the arguments. What coaches want to know from judges is how well our debaters have used arguments, logic, and evidence to persuade you that their side is right.

Please see next page for examples of what not to do and for what to do

Here are the four ballots one of my teams received at a competition:

Round 1: There was excellent interaction with the judge, maintained strong eye contact throughout. The participants demonstrated impressive preparation on the topic. Cross fire was a closely contested round, with a narrow winner. CODE handled the cross fire round more effectively.

Round 2: Great job everyone! It was so close. In the end, I picked Con as the winner because Con has a consistent effective and logical flow during each round, especially in their summary. Con effectively defended their contentions and strategically attacked Pro.

Round 3: This was as close to a tie as it could be. Both teams were excellent, well-prepared, convincing and well-researched. The half point difference is simply for style that is, if there is to be effective crossfire a questioner cannot constantly interrupt the one asked the question. CON did that until challenged. Both teams had good eye contact, however PRO had better pacing and volume.

Round 4: Good job. I voted for the Pro based on the overall performance. I consider the Pro had slightly more effective rebuttals.

Note that these ballots highlight reasons the judges preferred one team’s style, and do not make any reference to argument choices, what explanations were lacking, or what evidence was needed. We definitely need our debaters to know when they are making illogical jumps or when they are rude in crossfire, but that ought to be secondary to arguments made in the debate. Even where these ballots tell us what part of the round the judge voted on, they do not tell us what made the speeches more effective. The ballot below, from the same tournament, provides clear and specific feedback which would be helpful in coaching students:

The Pro team won because their two contentions - drug deaths and negative economic impact of border delays- seem far more relevant than the Con side's contentions. The Ukraine argument is innovative, no doubt, but not very persuasive - the pro side failed to argue, in their rebuttal, that both budget items are quite minor compared to the real drivers of the US deficit. Even weaker was the argument that increased US border surveillance would, through its very success, cause more harm in Mexico - and that, as a result, the US should tolerate drug trafficking as a way to 'stabilize Mexico'. Again, this is an innovative argument - but it is also untenable.

As you consider your ballots today and in the future, please be sure to include some notes about the debate and the arguments made, and prioritize argumentation over style when making your decision. Think about the information that the debaters give, how the debaters lay out the progression and connection of their arguments and information, and how well they address and counter their opponents’ arguments. The debaters ought to be telling you within their arguments how they think you should vote - tell them who was right, and why you think so! You don’t need to be a topic expert to have an opinion about what they said, and they need to know which messages were persuasive and which were not.

Thanks for your help in teaching our students!

For public forum, I'm interested in the weighing of the quality of sources, and ensuring that the points are clear when said out loud. In terms of sources, quality is determined in terms of statistical analysis. I usually prefer statistics and facts and figures on cause and effect of the policies, instead of hypothetical editorials, even if well thought out. I am open to comparing similar historical events as a source to back up an argument. Crossfire is also very important, as it guarantees the overall confidence of the team and how they work cohesively in their own understanding of the material. I am not a fan of arguing theory; I prefer to stick with the traditional spirit of public forum. If theory is hypothetically a part of both sides' arguments, I will prefer the theories that back up traditional PF.

For lincoln douglas, this also applies. I usually am not a fan of spreading, but can roll with it if need be. Also, I am open to weighing Value vs Value Criterion and how it affects significance.

I am a senior at Germantown Academy. I started PF freshman year and has been doing it for fun since then. Please, no spreading; I prefer that students talk slowly. I take notes as the round goes, but I do not take notes on crossfires. I hope everyone will have fun in debate!

i debate for germantown friends

tech>truth

i would prefer to judge a substance round

FOR EVERY ROUND OTHERWISE SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 28: make an email chain, send speechdocs, and add germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

do not make it a google doc - speaks capped at 28

bring me lemonade for +0.5 speaks NO TURKEY HILL

i think similarly to andrew li