Craig J. Albert
October 2016

I was a policy debater for Bronx Science (1971-1975) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975-1979). I flow the round and I vote based on the flow.

I am the quintessential blank slate (whiteboard); you are the chalk (dry erase marker).  Pretty much everything is debatable but you need to do the work; I will not do it for you. 

I like it when you show me that you are thinking about the round while you are in the round.  Issue perception and flexibility count for a lot.  Being able to take an argument from one part of the flow and apply it elsewhere is a great skill.

Left to my own devices in a PF round, and unless I am persuaded otherwise, I simply believe that I have been asked to decide whether the resolution is more likely true (in which case it is to be adopted) than false.  You are free to argue any paradigm or method of analysis that you please.  If the debaters do not argue a mode of analysis, then I will use a private, undisclosed mode when trying to weigh at the end.  Usually that involves trying to understand the arguments as meshing with one another and then weighing probabilities, benefits and harms.  It's a mistake, though, for the debaters to make the judge go to a default analysis mode.  As I have told decades worth of debaters, “Your job is to write the ballot for the judge; don’t trust the judge to write it on his own.”

I do take the rules seriously, so if you foolishly wanted me to abandon a rule, you would need to make an argument as to why. I encourage you to read the NSDA’s rules because they represent the starting point of the debate; you were invited to the tournament to debate under those rules and you accepted that invitation.   In other words, you could try to deviate and it might even succeed, but there would be some very heavy lifting involved and you probably would not have the time in which to do it. 

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Years debated : 4
Last POLICY debate – 2013
Judging HS Policy Debate since: 2012

I debated as a 2A/1N for most of my debate career. I have run all arguments but gravitate towards arguments that discuss race and gender, as these are important subjects to me. However, I appreciate a good straight "policy" debate and have no problem watching non-critical debates. Creative, logically presented and well executed arguments are ultimately easier and more enjoyable to watch than a debate lacking criteria for analysis, or a framework that allows both teams to state what they believe to be the truth without analysis or comparison.
I try to be a blank sheet and let you decide how I should vote, but I will naturally compare what you say to what I know or believe to be true. This means that if you say something I consider to be factually incorrect, it decreases your ethos. That does not mean that I don't think you can educate ME in a debate. I am mostly flow oriented in my decision making and do my absolute best not to vote you down for things the other team does not say. But, be detailed - my understanding of certain literature might allow me to understand the unstated intricacies an argument, but my lack of knowledge on another might mean that i do NOT catch the nuances of your argument the way you hope. Don't JUST use buzzwords. The best way to make sure I don’t intervene is to make sure I UNDERSTAND your argument, so EXPLAIN. This is particularly important on the micro level when debating PICs, ADV Cps, etc. 

I believe in looking at ways to solve problems at the micro and macro level. It's awesome to discuss the broder aspects, but you can use things that are inevitable for the greater good. In other words, you can fight the battle and the war. 

Warrant and compare your your arguments, close as many doors as you can in the debate. and be clear about it. Impact calc and internal link contestations and explanation are the key things i look at in determining who won.

I understand the idea of debate as a performance in multiple ways: 1) The debate space can allow for music, poetry, etc but as said above, please establish a framework or lens that allows me to determine why you should get the ballot, and why your debate is important, and why/how you meet that burden. 2) On a broader scale, switch side debate and changing what you argue is an example of performance in which you have to get someone else to believe with certainty what you are saying. Despite being flow oriented I expect to be convinced that your arguments are better than your opponent's, rather than making a decision based off technical issues.
I will be honest I hate theory debates (with the exception of topicality) only because I find them awful to flow and even more awful to evaluate the 16 sub points are often not fleshed out or compared in a way that offers a compelling conclusion. In this case, esp if the theory debate is shallow, I tend to err aff. I hate having that bias but my voting record speaks for itself.
I look to evidence for two reasons – to make sure the warrants you're extending are true and in cases where the debate isn’t fleshed out enough, to determine who is (more) correct in their analysis. 

I appreciate a lively debate in which people seem passionate, and love humor to alleviate the sometimes overly aggressive atmosphere in debates. Just some ideas if you are looking for ways to get good speaks with me.
As a general rule, I defer to an offense-defense paradigm, unless told otherwise.I think debate is GOOD, unless told otherwise.Debates should be fair and educational. You might want to tell me what "fairness" an "education" actually are, though.
Yes, speed is fine.
Yes, you can go to the bathroom. 
No, I will not be timing your speeches or prep.

This is my sixth year as a parent debate judge. Two students in high school who have debated every year. My son is now a college debater.

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I was a professional historian and academic for 20 years, and I value evidence and sources as well as argument. (I now do strategic communications.)

I find that there is plenty of time during the round for teams to present arguments cogently and marshall evidence. Usually the debate gets repetitive towards the end. So don't rush. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and recently at Waring School from 2005 -2025. I have coached national champions in both policy debate, public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I also coached the 2024 NSDA National Champion in International Extemporaneous speaking, although I take scant credit for his success, but that fact may explain why I favor fact based public speaking over debate jargon, tricks, and games. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Keep a reasonable speed. I don't appreciate when teams are condescending towards their opponents. Don't throw cards without providing logical warrants, I will not weigh those arguments.

 

 

 

 

I did PF for Walt Whitman and graduated in 2013. I coached at Whitman for threee years, and Riverdale Country School for one year

Speed and technical debate are both fine with me, but you need to be clear. This means signposting, warranting your arguments, and weighing explicitly. I am not going to do work for you, so if you don’t literally tell me why I should vote on something I will not vote on it. I am not going to do any analysis that you do not do for me in your speeches.

I am open to any type of argument. That being said, I can be easily persuaded by opponents’ claims that particular interpretations are unfair ways to view resolutions. If you do anything risky, you need to be able to A) defend why what you’re doing is fair and B) obviously win it if you want me to vote on it. The one caveat to this is if you run anything that is discriminatory in any way (racist, sexist, classist, etc.) I will get really, really angry. Please do not do this, I don’t want to hear your genocide is good contention even if you are down four and not breaking.

Summaries:

If you are first summary, I do not need you to extend defense on arguments that your opponents’ have not gotten to go back to in their rebuttal. If your opponents do not answer that defense in their summary, I am fine as having that as a reason not to vote for them on that argument as long as you extend/explain that they didn’t answer that response in your ff. Any offense you want to go for in final focus need to be in first summary though, including turns on their case (if you don’t extend the turn in your first summary, but extend it in final focus I can evaluate it as defense on their argument but I won’t vote on it).

If you are second summary, you know what your opponents are going for so my standard is a little higher. Any defense you want to extend in final focus need to be in your summary. Only exception to this is if your opponents switch what they are going for in their first final focus (don’t do this please), and you need to remind me that they never answered the defense you had put on that argument.

Weighing:

Weighing needs to be comparative or superlative in some way. The structure should generally be phrased as x is more important than y because or x is the mot important issue in the round because not just x is important because.

I don't have a very intricate paradigm, but to help guide you, I have made a list of things I don't like and things I do like.  

 

Things I DON'T like 

• Spreading (you can talk briskly, but don't try to spread heavy-breathing style)
• Squirelly arguments (aka arguments that use sketchy evidence and have tenuous links to the resolution)
• Misconstruing evidence
• Off-Time road maps

Things I DO like 

• Cases that are 3 contentions or LESS (greater than 3 contentions usually means they're underdeveloped)
• Signposting
• APPROPRIATE amounts of sassiness in CX (be polite, but be assertive)
• numbered responses in rebuttal 
• Turns
• Topic selection in the form of extension work in the Summary
• WEIGHING AND BIG PICTURE ANALYSIS IN THE FINAL FOCUS (I don't like line-by-line FFs, that's not the goal of the speech and it makes it very hard to judge the round) 

 

 

Ann Bird Paradigm/Philosophy

 

I am an attorney.  I see PF debate as similar to an attorney’s oral argument, where  the goal is to convince the audience to adopt the speaker’s point of view.  The key is to make the process as easy for the audience as possible. 

 

The most convincing arguments are:

 

1.              delivered slowly enough to allow the audience to hear, understand, note, and also think about as they are presented;

2.              well organized;

3.              simple; and

4.              relatable.

 

The first speaker should give listeners an outline of the entire argument at the outset, and the last speaker should explain how that outline was fulfilled.  The argument should not require the audience to accept more than three or four subordinate points, and it should not have more than one or two sources of evidence or support for each point.  Finally, the argument should demonstrate why the proposition impacts and/or reflects the lives of the listeners.

 

I will reward debaters who present a convincing argument without regard to whether I am actually convinced.

Parent judge. Please speak clearly. Don't spread.

Like well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning. Cross fire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Summary and final focus are key. Arguments need to be extended effectively. Prioritize, weigh and crystalize. No need to add a new argument in the final focus.

Have fun!

E

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

William Cooper
Lecturer in Instructional Communication, University of KentuckyExecutive Director, Kentucky High School Speech League
Associate Director of the UK Tournament of Champions--Speech
NFL Two-diamond Coach

formerly of Manchester Essex Regional HS, MA, and Arthur L. Johnson HS, NJ.
Current as of 2016

The Short Version:
Make good, clear, true arguments. Each resolution has lots of them on both sides. Make them. Make them clearly, and make them in a well-thought out manner. I'm not fond of blippy arguments, nor of spreading. I am judging your analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of the topical material. Make sure your cards say what you say they mean, and that you explain, in your own words, why the cards matter. Tell me why you win the round. I don't care if you call it "voters", or "points of crystallization", or "focal points" or "Bronx cheers". Give me reasons. If you're giving voters down the flow, then say you're going to a voter BEFORE you state it.

The Longer Version
I am open to all effective argumentation, but do not assume that your listeners understand the groundwork behind those arguments. I should not have to fill in the steps of your argument. Likewise, tell me where on the flow you are; I can follow you all around the flow, but....guide me and your opponent with you; if we lose you, you may very well lose. Roadmaps and signposts are both welcome.

I have a very low tolerance for plagiarism, including verbatim team cases.

Speaker points are simple, and my scale is based on my expectations for a given tournament. Absent any tournament rule to the contrary, I start at 26 points, and go up and down from there. I do consider both the tournament and the division in awarding points. I don't expect to give many 30s during a season.. A 30 means I felt "WOW" at the end, or someone pulled off some tour-de-force of public speaking.

I pay attention to definitions, observations, burdens, overviews, and underviews. These need to be addressed--many times one sentence can take care of each of these.

Theory arguments are based on something which happens in the round, including the opponent's definitions and/or interpretation of the resolution. Calling one's opponent on a theory violation is a call for judge intervention--it survives the round regardless of rebuttal, extension, and/or impact analysis. It can not be dropped. You are asking me to decide if something is fair or unfair. I will do so. Tell me--briefly--why it's unfair, and then do what you can to win the round on substance.

If you choose to argue from a very specific stance in the round, you are welcome to do so. Note, however, that an opponent who establishes a general truth/validity on her side of the flow will defeat the use of a specific focus. One can not establish a general truth from a single example--even if the truth is, in fact, true for that single example. That said, I have voted for plans in the past when the round has gone that way.

If you are going to talk rapidly, talk clearly. If you are not clear, I will stop flowing. If I stop flowing, you didn't say it. I will fold my arms across my chest. It is your job to adjust.

I will be very unsympathetic to arguments which say, either explicitly or implicitly, that we should 'ignore' or 'disregard' the US Constitution. Having sworn four oaths to defend and protect the Constitution, I find I can't accept an argument which asks me to ignore it. Make good solid constitutional arguments, not just brush it aside.

Lynne Coyne, Myers Park HS, NC. 20+ years experience across formats

GENERAL COMMENTS

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. I see myself as a critic of argument , or in old school policy lingo, a hypothesis tester. The resolution is what I vote for or against, rather than just your case or counterplan, unless given a compelling reason otherwise.

Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the debates I judge, clarity IS the problem not the speed of spoken word itself. I reserve the right to yell “clear” once or twice…after that, the burden is on the debater. I will show displeasure… you will not be pleased with your points. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable but I recognize that low point wins are often a needed option, particularly in team events. The debater adapts to the audience to transmit the message-not the opposite. I believe I take a decent flow of the debate.

2. I generally dislike theory debates littered with jargon (exception is a good policy T debate that has communication implications and standards—if you’ve known me long enough this will still make you shake your head perhaps). Just spewing without reasons why an interpretation is superior for the round and the activity is meaningless. Disads run off the magical power of fiat are rarely legitimate since fiat is just an intellectual construct. I believe all resolutions are funadamentally questions of WHO should do WHAT--arguments about the best actor are thus legitimate. I am not a person who enjoys random bad theory debates and ugly tech debates. I judge debates based on what is said and recorded on my flow--not off of shared docs which can become an excuse for incomprehensibilty. I look at cards/docs only if something is called into question.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a dual function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well. I try not to intervene on personal preferences that are ideological, but I believe words do matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene.

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

5. Answer questions in cross-examination/cross-fire. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex. Enter the content of CX into speeches to translate admissions into arguments. Do not all speak at once in PF and do allow your partner to engage equally in grand cross fire.

6. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc..

7. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. A dropped argument will rarely alone equal a ballot in isolation.

8. An argument makes a claim, has reasoning, and presents a way to weigh the implications (impacts). I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments. If an argument is just a claim, it will carry very little impact.

9. Kritics are not my strength--and I have a real problem with running multiple ideologies simultaneously that have inherent contradictions. Policy questions are all WHO should do WHAT so link your critical stance to the resolution, an action engagement by the other team/individual, or a plan/assumption of the resolution. I am less likely to be persuaded by a debate infrastructure kritic than any other--many of these seem to aim to win a shiny trophy based upon hijacking the suffering of others rather than an authentic engagement with the specifics of any round.

POLICY

At the NCFL 2023 I will be judging policy debate for the first time in a decade. Here is the warning: I know the generic world of policy, but not the acronyms, kritiks, etc., of this topic. You need to slow down to make sure I am with you. As in all forms of debate, choice of arguments in later speeches and why they mean you win not only the argument, but the round, is important. If you are choosing to run a policy structured argument in another format--better be sure you have all your prima facia burdens met and know the demands of that format.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

4 years of public forum for Bronx Science (2011-2015).

3.5 years coaching public forum at Walt Whitman (2015-present).

2 years coaching public forum at debate camp (2015, 2016).

Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak. However, I will always prefer quality over quantity and will clock you heavily for blips. The debaters make the evidence good, not the other way around.

Evidence: If it's not an out round, and you don't ask me to do so, I will probably not call for evidence. Don't be shady and DO NOT miscut your cards.

How I evaluate the round: Develop clash as the round progresses. Weigh clearly and convincingly. I'm fine with extending terminal defense, but I need offense to be clearly extended throughout the entire round. Signposting is your friend. I appreciate a well-executed logical response.

Speaks: I will clock you for rudeness and arrogance. You can get a 29.5/30 by building a strong narrative. RuPaul references get you extra speaker points

Debated pf for four long years

I did Public Forum debate at Regis for 3 1/2 years. I will flow what I can understand and follow so I'd prefer if debaters didn't speed read, but as a former debater I can follow most speeches that are moderately fast. Additionally I prefer debaters to engage each other on their arguments, instead of the debate just coming down to disputes over whose evidence is more reliable. Obviously evidence is an important part of PF, but if the judge needs to look over 4-5 pieces of evidence at the end of the round to make their decision, the debaters didn't do a good enough job explaining them or following through on their other arguments.

LD:

I cannot flow spreading, so please don't do it.

In making arguments you cannot skip any steps. I know how to evaluate debates, but I am new to LD, so there are lots of arguments that most LD judges know all about that I am unfamiliar with. That does not mean you can't run them in front of me - you just have to be able to fully explain everything part of the argument, avoid jargon where possible, and be crystal clear about why you winning it matters for the round.

PF

- Please time yourselves

- I appreciate concision, but I think evidence too often gets misconstrued when it's paraphrased. I understand paraphrasing is common now, so I reserve the right to check evidence at the end of the round even if the evidence is not challenged by the debaters (I won't look for holes in the evidence - I just want to make sure what was said matches the original writing).

- I accept logical defensive responses made in crossfire as part of the flow. Cross is still not for reading cards.

- I don't think defense needs to be extended in late round speeches unless it is answered. The alternative to this would be to allow extensions through ink, which is wrong.

- I try my best to flow. I won't vote for things I don't understand. I don't want to keep you in the dark about whether or not I understand something, so my face should give away when I am confused.

- If multiple arguments flow through to the end of the round and there isn't good, explicit weighing, I will vote for the argument that was best constructed/most persuasive to me. Since how I feel about arguments is pretty nebulous, you should weigh early and often. Do not leave it for the last moment. If you can't think of anything productive to do in crossfire, set up weighing mechanisms.

I debated Public Forum on the national circuit for 3 years between 2010 and 2013.

I am open minded. Weighing in the final speeches is critical to win my ballot. Just carrying an argument throughout the round and saying "extend" a bunch of times doesn't really do it for me.

Be clean in your argumentation and do your best to engage with your opponents case and arguments. I can follow technical stuff, but don't find it particularly compelling. I appreciate creative approaches to topic though and will reflect it in your speaker points. I wish creativity won rounds but good argumentation is the ultimate decider.

Most importantly, have fun. The best rounds come about when everyone is enjoying themselves.

I competed in PF for Newton South High School in Massachusetts between 2010 and 2014 and coached for St Francis High School in California between 2014 and 2016. However, I consider myself a flow-leaning “flay” judge and I place a huge premium on warranting (meaning, the “why” behind your arguments).

What I’m looking for:

• Framework. You should be telling me how to evaluate the round in every speech. In summary and final focus, reiterate your framework and give me the key voting issues.

• Good warranting. I don’t care if you impact to nuclear winter if the links are weak. And “Smith 2019 says…” does not count as a warrant on its own. Tell me WHY something is likely to happen.

• Respect for your opponents.

Things I’m NOT looking for:

• My number one pet peeve is unethical evidence practices. Shady card-cutting (e.g. with creative ellipses, barely any context, or tiny font sizing for parts you don’t want your opponents to read) is a no-no. If asked, you MUST be able to immediately produce the page preceding and following the part of the evidence from which your cards are cut. Also, it is completely disrespectful to your opponents’ time if they call for a card and you hand them a 50-page paper without telling them where to find what you’re quoting. If that happens, the offending team’s prep time must be used to hunt for the quotation.

(Also note – except in extraordinary circumstances, I will only call for cards that have already been called by teams during the round. It is the primary responsibility of the debaters to evaluate the quality of evidence.)

• Extensive theory. Look, I get it, the rules of PF are in flux and a lot of things fly today that wouldn’t have flown ten years ago. With that said, I’m pretty biased against arguments that rely exclusively on theory, particularly kritiks.

• Spreading. I can flow only slightly faster than the average layperson.

Education:

University of Florida

Bachelor's Degree in chemistry, PhD in analytical chemistry, MBA, DMD

General:

I have never participted in debate, however I do have judging experience from the Sunvitational and New York City invitational. I am a tabla rasa judge to this topic, meaning I have not researched the topic or have any preconceived beliefs about it. I will consider each round a blank slate, so all information must be provided by the teams. While I understand some debate jargon, please consider me a lay judge for all intents and purposes.

Treat this round like I am the jury of a trial. I am an educated citizen of the United States with no prior knowledge on the topic. All arguments must be strengthened by evidence, logic, or both.

Speed is an important factor in my decision. On a scale from 1 (conversational speed) to 10 (speed reading) I am comfortable at a 3, but will disregard anything above a 5.

Weighting and Preferences:

I will weigh persuasion extremely heavily. I will be taking minimal notes during the round, so I will appreciate clear, articulate, and concise arguments and evidence. I believe skilled debaters can communicate their ideas effectively with as few words as possible. If one can persuade me to vote for their side, I will. This is why it is crucial that the debater outlines why I should vote to their side during their final focus speech.

Evidence is crucial towards any claim, unless it is a logical conclusion that is reasonable to understand. I weigh evidence based and logic based arguments equally. Impacting arguments is important, so make sure I understand why each argument is relevant to the round.

Please do not waste my time on counter plan accusations. Unless an argument is EXTREMELY obvious in demonstrating a plan of action, I will ignore the accusation.

Please note that since I am acting as a jury, I will accept any argument as long as it sounds logical. It is up to the other team to disprove a claim or explain why it should not be counted. It is not my job to analyze each piece of evidence. I do not like it when teams are picky about evidence. Source comparison is okay as long as both teams are being reasonable.

Please read all acronyms fully at least once, or I will start to think about what they mean and miss your argument.

I will give points to teams who sound educated and well researched on the topic. I ask teams to only read their first speeches from paper, and not read directly for other speeches. Debaters should be able to explain rebuttals and strengthen their arguments in their own words. This will persuade me more and will be weighed in my reason for decision.

I do not have any seating preferences and I will not be keeping time. 

If you have any questions or concerns about my preferences, please ask me before the round with the other team present. I will give light feedback after each round upon request but will not disclose my reason for decision until after the tournament. Good luck to all debaters!

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

Civility in the round is important.  Insulting or behaving in a disrespectful manner to opponents or your partner is disfavored.

Use of jargon whose meaning is not explained may be ignored unless its meaning is obvious to me.

If you want to win, you need to explain why an argument justifies my vote.

Spreading is tolerable.  Incomprehensible spreading is just incomprehensible.

Don't assume that I am familiar with the evidence that you are citing.  I occasionally look at evidence, etc., but I don't like spending a lot of time doing that.

I debated policy for Bronx science between 2006-2010 and traveled nationally. Earned 3 TOC bids in my experience. Did not debate in college but stayed involved with the team.

General preference toward classic policy style over K

Less familiar with current topic - so extra context on topicality debates are preferred. Less fond of when rounds are won on theory.

I was a policy debater at Bronx Science in the 1980s and currently run the upper school public forum debate team at Nightingale Bamford. I flow and can handle speed, as long as it is clear. I listen to crossfire, but do not flow it. If there is something important said in CF that you need to win, please apply it during your next speech. No new arguments in summary or final focus, please. Also, it makes me a little crazy when people call for a million cards, and/or when a team takes 10 minutes to find evidence. You can be on the internet now and everyone is working off computers--there is really no reason on earth not to be able to provide your evidence if called for.

Lastly, and most importantly, I like debaters to clearly explain their arguments, and to weigh them. In a perfect round, debaters would be assertive but polite, enjoy themselves, and make it easy for me to know how to vote by weighing in the back end of the round. Overviews are find and can help frame things if there is something you want to emphasize, etc. Mostly just be clear and imagine what you would like to RFD to say....then say that ;-) Good luck and know how important this activity is and how much respect we judges have for you all. Best of luck.

I have been a parent judge on and off since 2013.

•analysis > evidence. not everything needs to be carded. I give higher speaks for solid analytical responses that show conceptual understanding of the topic. I rarely call for evidence.

•arguments that work in the real world preferred over gimmicky arguments (e.g. long, relatively implausible link chains to huge impacts).

•for virtual debate: set up a way to share evidence with the other team before the round.

•style: I prefer depth over breadth i.e. choose your 1 to 3 best responses rather than listing a bunch without explanation and a clear link chain.

•speed: I can not promise to keep up with rapid speed. Don't assume that I know every acronym related to topic.

•cross: I don't pay close attention to cross. Say it in a speech if it's important.

•theory/progressive debate: I don't like theory and I rarely vote on it.

I did public forum debate for four years in high school. I can handle most speed, however, I will get frustrated if you are speaking incomprehensibly fast with no argumentative purpose. Because the summary and final focus are so important, but short, I believe the best teams are able to begin boiling down the round in the summary. I prefer teams to extend warrants for voting issues in the summary and impacts in the final focus. I am willing to vote on any argument as long as you are winning the logical warrants, not just the impacts. A study I do not understand coming to a conclusion about the resolution is not a reason for me to vote for you, I need to know why and how that conclusion is made. I have no tolerance for misrepresenting evidence. I will certainly drop the argument with the misrepresented evidence from the flow, and most likely drop you. 

Speed
I will try to take notes/flow as you go, but I will not be able to follow your arguments if you go too fast. Try to slow down as much as possible.
Timing
You are welcome to keep your own time, but I will keep official time as well, including prep. Please do not steal prep by talking during the opponent's speech time - I will deduct speaker points.
Evidence
I might read a little literature related to the current topic, but don't assume I know everything that you're talking about.
Arguments
I will listen to anything as long as it makes sense.
Speaker Points
I'm usually not too generous with them, but I'll reward good effort, politeness, and logical argumentation.

Read this entire PF paradigm before the round please. It will cover almost every question you might have.

Background:

I competed almost exclusively in Public Forum debate from 2010-2014 at Cypress Bay High School in Florida before going on to debate NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at Texas Tech University. In college I coached PF teams in Florida, namely at Nova High School, West Broward High School, and C. Leon King High School. My first coaching job out of college was at Coral Springs High School. I tend to do more coaching/observing than actual judging at major tournaments. 

Style:

If you have to trade off clarity for speed, don’t go for speed. My ears can only pick through so much mumbling and if I don’t clearly hear it, it won’t be on my flow. Also, keep in mind that you should try to slow down on your taglines and citations as they are crucial to making sure I'm on the same page as you. Especially for online debates, I would highly recommend slowing your pace from your usual speed in front of flow judges. I'm still flowing intensely, but I would prefer if you slowed down just a tad bit as I am growing increasingly concerned with the new trend towards speed. Otherwise, I am open to just about any style you might have. I try not to penalize teams for having a different regional style than what I might be used to. Off-time roadmaps are not only accepted but encouraged. Second speaking rebuttal doesn't have to respond to the first speaking rebuttal but it will certainly help your case and make life easier for your summary speaker.

Speaker Point Scale:

I go by a pretty standard scale moving in increments of .5 points (where applicable). You’ll never win my ballot just by being the better speakers, but I certainly do appreciate everything that goes into a great presentation/speech. Proper eye contact, appropriate hand motions, clarity, good posture, projection of your voice, etc will win you marks. Low-point wins are rare but totally a possibility based on what happens on the flow.

< 26 = You said something incredibly offensive and I'm considering dropping you on face value.

26-26.5 = You definitely have room for improvement.

27-27.5 = You’re an alright speaker and might even break.

28-28.5 = You’re a great speaker and will probably break.

29-29.5 = You might be in contention for a speaker award with speeches that good.

30 = You impressed/entertained me in such a way that I had no choice but to give you the maximum amount of points.

Framework:

If you have a framework then it should be warranted if you want me to take it into account when making my decision. The more clearly defined a framework is, the more likely I am to buy into it. I’m open to just about any type of framework but it’s all about how you use it in the later speeches to win. Absent any framework, I’ll just default to stock-issue impact calculus to figure things out.

Critical or non-traditional arguments:

I predominantly dealt with these arguments in NPDA/NPTE Parli but I'm open to hearing them in all forms of debate. Don't be overly concerned though, 99% of PF rounds that I watch don’t end up being like this at all and I’m perfectly fine with that either way. I think teams that run these types of arguments just to confuse or exclude their opponents ruin the experience for everyone and should be dropped, but otherwise, it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me why they get to run what they want to and why that matters. Likewise, it’s up to the opponents to tell me why they don’t get to and why that matters as well.

Crossfire:

What happens in crossfire doesn’t ever make it onto my flow until you explicitly tell me to refer back to it in one of your speeches. I’ll still be listening so stay on your game and keep things engaging. Be extra mindful of respecting your opponents in crossfire to avoid things getting too heated. This is especially true in Grand Crossfire when most teams are fed up with one another and really start to turn up the heat. It's not life or death, it's just crossfire. Don't use crossfire to make a speech or grandstand, use the time to go back and forth on questions to clarify points of clash in the debate. And don't be rude. I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Additional comments:

I try to refrain from intervening under any circumstance. I try to sign my ballot using the path of least resistance for the relevant issues on the flow. Your best bet of getting there comes from your ability to weigh arguments against one another, starting at the very latest in summary and then again in final focus. If you don’t weigh, you leave things up to my interpretation and we may not have the same interpretation of how the round went. That being said, the summary doesn’t need to perfectly mirror the final focus, just have some consistency in what arguments you go for. I'm going to try and be as laid back as possible primarily because I want everyone to be comfortable. Do whatever has brought you competitive success before or whatever you enjoy the most and I guarantee it’ll make for better rounds. At its core, competitive debate is a subjective activity in persuasion and no matter how long of a paradigm I give you, there will always be a human element to these things. If you want disclosure and comments at the end of the round, I’d be more than happy to offer what I can within a reasonable amount of time (assuming the tournament allows for disclosure). Otherwise, the ballot will be filled out rather extensively (in my atrocious handwriting if we're unfortunately on paper ballots).

If you have a problem with any of this, I recommend you strike me ahead of time. Absent that option, cross your fingers.

Flow judge, former Policy debater.

HOWEVER I do try to honor the spirit of PF, which is that you should be able to convince the 'person on the street'. I want to hear an argument that would be intelligible to a person without a debate background, not too heavy on the jargon. Give me a clear argument and tell me how to weigh.

Speed is okay as long as you articulate.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched some rounds on this topic.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

I went to the TOC 3x, have worked at CBI and Capitol, and have coached Bronx Science and Scarsdale. Please believe me when I say I can understand fast and technical debate but I absolutely abhor it and my decision will reflect that. I want you to treat me as if I am a small child, or maybe a Labrador, and make things excruciatingly, brain-deaddeningly simple for me.

chrslv15@gmail.com. Please include me on any email chain

Try not to spread. Conversational speed

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I am a frequent tournament administrator (e.g., LD at Greenhill and Apple Valley, Speech at Glenbrooks, Emory, Stanford, and Berkeley). I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. I don't know trends and norms nearly as well as I used to when I was coaching high school debate. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, Affs should defend the resolution and propose action that solves a problem. The Neg should defend the status quo or propose a competitive alternative. HOW debaters choose to do that are up to the debaters to decide. Any team may choose to question the method or framework chosen by the opposing team. Although I have the experience with Affs who read topical plans, I will not reject an Aff team simply because those don't do that.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other, then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. There are some topics where a plan may actually be reasonable/necessary to contextually the topic. And even if the aff doesn't read a plan per se, examples of what it means to affirm are often helpful. Whether it's fair for an aff to have a fiat power over a specific plan is subject to debate. However, "plans bad because this is LD, not policy" is a really bad argument as to why plans are bad in LD.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I'm a former competitor and mother of a child participating in POI. I'm a College Professor and have experience judging most speech events. I rank based on the successful completion of each event's elements, originality, structure, content (including the quality and reliability of your evidence), and your delivery (articulation, voice modulation, etc). I appreciate clarity and clear markings for the judge. I believe in inclusivity and diversity in forensic experiences, and therefore won't be taking into account your surroundings or the quality of video.

Good Luck!

Currently in PhD School at University of Maryland
Part-time coach for Cypress Bay High School (Manatee, FL) and for North Broward High School for the 2017 TOC

Previously coached at:
Pacific University (OR), California State University Long Beach, Cypress High School (CA), Southwestern Community College (CA)

I competed in parli at Willamette University for 4 years from 2001-2005, then coached parli/speech at Pacific University for a year (the year they had a debate team!), then coached parli at CSULB from 2009-2011 and I was the Director of Forensics (and speech/parli/policy coach) at Cypress High School from 2010-2012. I am current a fifth-year PhD candidate  at University of Maryland. I guess you could call me tabula rasa, but see below. Presentation skills are not important beyond making good arguments in debate rounds. Again, see below. On case arguments are somewhat important depending on the round—see below.

I will take the easiest, most defensible way out I can. Typically this is a dropped argument somewhere in the debate that is weighed well in the rebuttal, so to facilitate this, I like mechanisms that put certain arguments ahead of others and give me the easy-out I want. Speed serves this function, as do critical and procedural arguments, so I am perfectly fine with all three. In my opinion, intervening is a worse crime then voting for a crappy argument, and I will do what I'm told. The easiest way to get my ballot is to not drop anything and weigh arguments well in the rebuttal.

I am a parent of a Hunter College High School PF debater. I have judged both LD and PF, with more experience in LD. I can handle speed, but probably not full on spreading.

 

I can be sympathetic to arguments over frame and theory. But, in my opinion, the main ethical context in a debate round is the round itself. So any arguments about frame and theory, or alleged abusiveness, should be shown to be rooted in the resolution itself or in the conduct of the round being debated.

 

Signposting can be either implicit or explicit. Dropped arguments are more of a factor when they are shown to be important arguments rather than tangential ones. A coherent account of voting issues is very useful to me as a judge, as is weighing of impacts.

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013 and I do flow.

State the resolution (amazing how many forget to). I like frameworks but they're not musts. Introduce important acronyms.

When it comes to evidence, I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources ("Smith of Harvard" doesn't tell me much) and how the evidence supports your claim. I will ask to see evidence if I sense it's been misused.

Please weigh in summary and especially final focus.

Speak clearly. I'm not a fan of spreading.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST EXTEND it in every speech, BEGINNING WITH THE 2ND REBUTTAL. That INCLUDES defensive case attacks, as well as UNANSWERED LINK CHAINS AND IMPACTS that you want to extend from your own case. JUST FRONTLINING WITHOUT EXTENDING the link and impact stories MEANS YOU HAVE DROPPED THOSE LINKS AND IMPACTS, and I won't evaluate them at the end of the debate.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Please send speech docs in a static format (Word Doc or PDF - Not a real-time editable Google Doc) to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
5. Read tags to cards, or I won't flow them.
6. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
7. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
8. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(Sorry for the insane length. This is more an ongoing exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go.)

1. 2nd Rebuttal & Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in BOTH the 2nd Rebuttal & Summaries. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the 1st rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts in the 2nd Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. If you want to go for C1 in any meaningful way. you not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card(s) you want me to extend. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the 2nd Rebuttal and/or Summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril, especially if you are the team speaking 2nd. Also, if you do properly extend your links and impacts, and your opponents don't, call them out on it. I am very likely to boost your speaks if you do.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Bad Debate Practices

A. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.

B. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. This penalty will apply even if you have the cut cards available at the bottom of the document. That's still card clipping, and is bad. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

C. Read Tags

I can't believe I'm having to write this, but READ TAGS to your cards. "Anderson '23 furthers..." or "Jones '20 continues..." without anything els isn't a tag. It is hard enough to flow the super blippy cards that seem to be everywhere in fast rounds these days, but if you don't give me a tag, it makes flowing functionally impossible. Have some respect for the work your judge has to do to get everything down, and give us a tag so that we can both be more accurate in our flow, and also be able to know what to listen for in the cards. Simply put, if you don't give me a tag for a card, I won't flow it. I don't have time to go back to the speech doc and read every card after you read it in an attempt to reconstruct what argument you think it is making so that I can then take a guess at what you want me to write down. That's what a tag is for. That's your job, not mine. If you want to go fast, that's cool. But you have to meet your judge at least part way. Read tags. That's the price you have to pay for spreading.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

In general, I tend to start any evaluation of theory arguments through a lens of competing interpretations, as opposed to reasonability. However, I can be moved out of that evaluative framing, given the right well-warranted arguments.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat & Plans – For policy resolutions, while teams cannot utilize a "plan or counterplan,"—defined as a "formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation"—they can "offer generalized, practical solutions (GPS)." If you can figure out what that word soup means, you are a step up on me. The PF wording committee seems hellbent on continuing to give us broadly-worded policy resolutions that cry out for fiating some more specific version of the resolution. I used to be very much in the "Aff must prove their advocacy is the most likely version of the resolution" camp, but I am starting to move away from that position. I'm pretty certain that a 12 plank proposal with hyper-specific identification of agency, enforcement, and funding mechanisms would constitute a "formalized, comprehensive proposal," and thus be verboten as a "plan" under the above quoted NSDA rule. But does a single sentence with a basic description of a particular subset of the resolution meet this same threshold? IDK. I think there is room for interpretation on this. I haven't seen anyone get into the weeds on this as a theory argument, but I'm not sure just saying "plans aren't allowed" cuts it anymore, especially given the direction the topic committee seems to be moving. Does that also arguably leave open similar room on the Neg for some sort of "counter-solution" or an alternative? I honestly don't know. I guess that means I am open to debates on this issue, if people want to try to push the boundaries of what constitutes a "generalized, practical solution." One thing I am certain on, though, is that if you do attempt to offer some sort of plan-esque "GPS," you probably should have a written text somewhere in your case specifically committing to what exactly the solution is your are advocating. Moving target advocacies that can never be pinned down are insanely abusive, so if you are going to go the "GPS" route, the least you can do is be consistent and up front about it. It shouldn't take a series of CF questions to figure out what exactly it is you are advocating.

Multiple conditional advocacies – When teams read multiple advocacies on the Aff and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round (assuming that you also extend the other team's link and impact stories), and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it, or kick out of it properly. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure as arguments, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. Ditto for conditionality arguments, arguments on the nature of fiat in PF, or other arguments about intrinsic or severance-based alterations of advocacies mid-round. However, I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, I will likely shift to the extreme end of reasonability, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

7. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - I used to think that since PF teams don't get to fiat a counterplan, they don't get to fiat an alternative either. But as my ideas on plans vs "generalized, practical solutions (GPS)" evolve, so do my thoughts on alts. I used to think that the only alt a Neg could get was some variation on "reject." But now, I think there is more wiggle room for a traditional alt under that "GPS" language. I think most alts definitely are generalized solutions (sometimes overly generalized to their detriment). The question is, then, are they "practical" enough to meet the "GPS" language in the NSDA rules. Maybe, maybe not. My gut would tell me more often than not, K alts are not practical enough to meet this threshold, but I could certainly be convinced either way in any given round. That being said, I see no rules-based problems with reject or "do nothing" alts, although they usually have some serious problems on the solvency end of things, absent a good ROTB arg. And of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

8. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. Aren't you cool. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...") which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles (focusing mostly on national circuit PF), and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last few administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their root cause, “Alt solves the case,” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I have been coaching and judging since 2013. I'm a flow judge, and I am fine with speed to a point. However, if you see me put down my pen, it means I've stopped flowing because you're speaking too quickly.

When it comes to argumentation, don't assume I am an expert on the topic at hand. I'm leaving all my prior knowledge and opinions about the resolution at the door, so you need to clearly explain your framework (if you have it) for the resolution, and your claims/warrants/impacts should be clear throughout your debate. Make sure to signpost your speeches so I know exactly where you are on the flow. In rebuttals, make sure to actually clash with your opponents' argument, and if you're cross-applying (which I love when it's done correctly), just mention the contention you're using to do so.

In cross X, make sure to give your opponent time to respond to your questions, and give your opponent the chance to ask questions. It will hurt your speaker points if you're rude or show a lack of respect towards your opponent during cross x.

As the debate winds down, make sure to crystalize the point you want me to vote on, and be sure to weigh those points with the points your opponent has.

Pretty much, I'll vote off the flow, so just be sure to make it as clear to me as possible the arguments you've won and why you've won them at the end of the round.

UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach

In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.

Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.

Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.

Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.

Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.

For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.

I've debated policy debate 4 years in high school and 3 years in college as a part of the Rutgers Newark Debate Team. I have used all kinds of arguments; I am familiar with both traditional and critical forms of debate. I willing to vote for any argument provided that it is warranted. I really value responsiveness, if an argument is dropped a team could spin that into a victory, but there needs to be a clear explanation of all the steps to impact and explain why said impact is something I should vote on. I willing to vote on T or Theory but if you want to win on those arguments, there has to be a bigger emphasis on clear-cut definitions, examples, and overall impact of violations. I'm comfortable with both traditional and k affs.

I am a lay judge and I am a teacher. I understand the flow to some extent. Please make sure you present well constructed arguments and explain your evidence and refutations clearly. If you use data, explain its significance. Thank you.

Experience judging on local and national circuits. Focused on speaking and persuasion as a foundation for the debate. I prefer well organized debates with respectful clash and clarity in warrants and impacts. Civility is very important in a good debate. Use your time effectively and make sure that you can support your rate with diction and breath support.

NOVICE AND VARSITY PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

 

When it comes to Public Forum debate, it's meant to be a debate style that's easily understood by the mass public. Your case (Aff or Neg) should conform to this style as best you can. Make your case understandable and accessible. You and your partner usually get very interesting topics, so, make the best of it.

Time:

For novice, I usually help keep time to ensure that we're all on track and where we should all be in the round. Please also keep time, it just makes things easier. Also, keep accurate prep time too. Furthermore, even if time runs out and you're mid sentence, I usually let you finish, if you keep going I will cut you off. Time is time. 

Cross-Examination

Very easy to do and I'm very straight forward about this: at this point in the debate it is not really that scripted so I need you to make this as informative and interesting as possible. However, debate is meant to be an exciting and informative exchange of ideas between you and your opponent. The discussion should be lively but not a shouting match. If you are blatantly rude, disrespectful, and/or verbally assaulting your opponent, I will deduct speaker points from you. 

What I Look for in a Round

Please tell me the weight of your arguments. If you do NOT tell me, I will weigh them for you. I generally flow what I can understand. If your case makes no sense or you're speaking too fast, I just won't flow your arguments. Extensions are important. I look for which of your contentions, arguments, and cards can be extended throughout the debate. Turns are interesting...but a debater can be abusive about it sometimes because they think everything is a turn when in fact it's not. So, it's good to know what's a turn but keep in mind I ultimately decide that. Scope, magnitude, and impacts are very important to me. I really look for those in a round. 

 

NOVICE AND VARSITY LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

I have grown fond of the LD debate round. Novices shape their moral philosophy arguments while Varsity gets very complex with their arguments and speed of speech. Very interesting indeed. I really enjoy the philosophical debates, so the more you can philosophize about your case (Aff or Neg) and do it in a way that's clear and concise we should be in a good round. 

Time:

For novice, I usually help keep time to ensure that we're all on track and where we should all be in the round. Please also keep time, it just makes things easier. Also, keep accurate prep time too. Furthermore, even if time runs out and you're mid sentence, I usually let you finish, if you keep going I will cut you off. Time is time. 

Cross-Examination

Very easy to do and I'm very straight forward about this: at this point in the debate it is not really that scripted so I need you to make this as informative and interesting as possible. However, debate is meant to be an exciting and informative exchange of ideas between you and your opponent. The discussion should be lively but not a shouting match. If you are blatantly rude, disrespectful, and/or verbally assaulting your opponent, I will deduct speaker points from you. Please avoid awkward silences and come prepared to a debate. I don't like it when you ruffle papers and are disorganized. It wastes debate time. Also, use all your time in a crossX or speech. If you don't use all your time it gives me the impression you're unprepared and that the round just won't be interested. So, again, be prepared. 

What I Look for in a Round

Please tell me the weight of your arguments. If you do NOT tell me, I will weigh them for you. I generally flow what I can understand. If your case makes no sense or you're speaking too fast, I just won't flow your arguments. Extensions are important. I look for which of your contentions, arguments, and cards can be extended throughout the debate. Turns are interesting...but a debater can be abusive about it sometimes because they think everything is a turn when in fact it's not. So, it's good to know what's a turn but keep in mind I ultimately decide that. Scope, magnitude, and impacts are very important to me. I really look for those in a round. I try to be as non-interventionist as I possibly can be in the round. I like to have the debate round take it's own course. Also, sometimes a lot can happen in an LD round so please sign-post just to make sure we're on the same flow. 

 

 

I am a former LDer (Bronx Science class of 1988) and have judged PF (both novice and varsity) for Bronx Science for four years.

-Don't cheat because I will know

-I've seen some of the best and the worst, the difference is the nuance in argument -Logical arguments > statistics -Speaker points based on civility and soundness of argument, not how fast you speak

Tell me why I should vote for you in logical arguments, not by “extending across the flow” Use words and persuasive speaking, not just cards.

I am a parent judge, but I have been judging the National Circuit PF for five years and judged 600+ rounds (including TOC semifinals). I am scientist so if you are making science arguments please make sure you understand the science..

How to win my ballot

• Speak clearly
• Extend arguments- not cards
• Focus the debate to what you are winning
• Keep theory reserved for actual abuse
• Keep Ks in policy
• Keep aliens and zombies for bad movies and out of debate
• Summary in line with final focus
• Be polite
• Have your evidence ready (you have 1 minute)

How to get good speaks

• Make good arguments
• Make good choices
• Don't yell
• Don't argue with me

Pet Peeves

• Arguing with me after the round- I GIVE SPEAKS AFTER I GIVE MY RFD FOR THIS REASON

Update 3/1/25:

First, don't worry too much about this paradigm - just debate! Especially if you are debating at a CDA tournament.

CDA:

• Be mindful of protected time (1st & last minute of constructive). POIs are for constructives only
• Points of order - I will sometimes not rule immediately in order to keep the debate going, in which case you'll hear "point taken" and I will discuss it after the round.
• No new arguments in rebuttal unless you are responding to a NEW argument made in the 2nd constructive. This is the case even if no point of order is made (but the other team SHOULD make a point of order to draw my attention to it). New evidence that supports an argument already made is allowed.
• Be persuasive, and make eye contact instead of looking at your laptop
• Evidence is helpful only if you can explain it well because you understand it & it supports your case. Logical warrants are also powerful. (In other words, don't alter your style because you think it fits my policy/PF background. If anything I might be extra critical of poor use of evidence)

Experience/background: I'm a teacher who did policy debate a long time ago, co-coached PF for several years, judged many (> 100) national circuit PF rounds over past decade, more recently judging parli & CDA styles for the past few years.

Other notes/comments in no particular order:

In all styles, it comes down to the same thing: it's your job as a debater to convince me to vote for you. It's not my burden to make sense of arguments that are muddled, incomplete, poorly organized etc.

(PF): I'm not currently coaching PF, and you'll risk losing my ballot if you use tons of jargon, esp. with arguments/acronyms etc.

I'm not lay but also not super technical (re PF/policy); I vote off the flow. For CDA/parli, presentation is higher priority, but well-crafted, persuasive arguments are what win my ballot. (Of course these things are related.)

I love good analysis; not impressed by blippy arguments. Ideally you have a coherent narrative by the end of the round.

Evidence: quality over quantity. Understand your evidence. Ideally you should be able to:

- explain any expert opinion you cite (rather than just stating it),

- understand where a statistic comes from & context (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc),

- defend the relevance of any empirical evidence you present, and

- be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence!!! In PF I will call for cards.

Weighing is critical (not just weighing impacts, not just "we win on magnitude" etc.). Tell me why I should vote for you!

Some/moderate speed is ok as long as you're clear. If you can't speak both quickly and clearly, slow down.

No new args in rebuttal, I will not vote on them. (However you can respond in rebuttal to new args made in your opponent's 2nd constructive.)

Extending an argument in rebuttal means more than one or two words ("pull x"); you have to fully articulate it in rebuttal for me to consider it.

cx (for PF): I listen, but I'm not voting off cx. Bring it into a speech.

fw: I have voted off framework in some PF rounds, but only when convincing and directly relevant to args in the round. If you agree on fw, there's no need to talk about it in the round - time is better spent on other things.

k's: I'm generally not a fan in PF, but I'll do my best to be fair and consider whatever you're running. I have voted on them on occasion.

I sometimes avoid disclosing at larger tournaments in order to get things moving.

In the best rounds I've judged, debaters listen well to one another. Good clash is not just "they said this, but we say that." The best debaters can incorporate their opponents' arguments into a coherent narrative of the round.

Good luck!

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. Reading cards is not good debating, giving full and complete verbal explanations of the specific claims made in the round and how they interact with one another is. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

February2002-Complete-Rostrum.pdf (speechanddebate.org)

Luong RJ PresumptionNov'00 (uvm.edu)

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

Yes, I am a parent judge, yet travelled with my son's team for three years and judged at every tournament. I want you to convince me with your arguments, not with a bunch of PF lingo.  I do not like speed for speeds sake, as I can't flow. If I can't understand what is coming out of your mouth, I can't follow you. If I can't follow you,  I can't vote for you. I originally came from a speech background, I care about speaking technique. Quality of argument over quantity. 

Be clear:

Public Forum's roots are based in "one" going before the general public, persons of diverse education, intellect and knowledge.  I expect the presentation of your arguments to reflect that. Please don't dumb down because I am a "parent" judge.

Be clean: Please do not play dirty, the world is dirty enough. Be clean.

Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending.  There is no room for that.

Use:

Your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story.

Your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled. 

Your final focus to make me vote for you. 

 

Thank you!

 

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing, HOWEVER, Flow is not at the top of my list for winning the arguments. Rather I consider your ability to persuade me as a typical everyday citizen. Your ability to do that is unique. I am expected to come into the Debate room without any previous opinion and with a clean slate, in order to keep my own personal opinion from influencing how I choose the outcome. In exchange I expect the debaters to assume that I do not know anything more about the topic than an ordinary person. It is therefore each debaters responsibility to define acronyms and define anything that an ordinary person would not commonly know.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing however my decisions are determined more on persuasion than flow. I believe that it is extremely important therefore to know your judge and ask the appropriate questions to make sure that what you are saying and how you’re saying is catered to the listener because even if you know what you’re saying but the judge is not able to understand it or appreciate the logic behind it then you are at a loss. In short, KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. Feel free to ask me as many questions as needed before the round begins to clarify further. Best of luck and remember to have fun!

Flow Judge - If it is not on my flow it does not exist in the round.

Speed is fine. Enjoy technically proficient debaters. Poor time allocation is a pet peeve of mine.

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

For Public Forum:

I will flow the round to the best of my ability, but I can't write that fast -- so if you spread, I may not catch everything.

I'm skeptical of evidence that defies common sense -- if you claim an impact of, say, 100 million deaths from something, it should be plausible and derived from a reputable source of evidence.

In summaries and final focus, I'm looking more for the forest than the trees. If you drop or don't sufficiently engage with an opponent's major argument, that'll definitely be a voting issue -- but in general, I'd rather hear you offer a compelling overall framework into which you fit the major points of contention in the round than a rapid-fire list of points that lack prioritization or context.

For Congressional debate:

I'm a fan of both rhetorical competence and common-sense arguments -- a unique or unusual argument is great, but only to the extent that it's also plausible/reasonable (although I might make an exception for an implausible argument that's delivered with sufficient rhetorical verve).

The longer the round goes on, the more heavily I'll weight direct engagement with the major arguments of prior speakers on *both* sides of the topic (don't neglect your own side's best arguments even if they didn't originate with you).

My default is to be generous in ranking P.O.'s who do the job well.

For Lincoln-Douglas:

I did a lot of L-D debate (and some policy) in the 1980's - but modern L-D bears very little resemblance to the 1980's version, and in the handful of rounds I've watched since 2016, I'm frequently bewildered by what's going on.

If you have the misfortune of drawing me as an L-D judge, please do not spread, as I not only can't flow it, I find it emotionally unsettling to witness.

That said, I'm willing to entertain almost any variety of argument, as long as you can explain it to me like you'd explain it to your grandparent.

I am a Bronx Science alumnus, Class of 2014, where I debated PF for all four years and I judged throughout my college career.

Well warranted arguments are the most important element of the debate to me. I also judge on based on the flow, but well extended arguments that are weakly warranted are really difficult for me to value in my final decision.

I appreciate technical arguments and a good guiding framework on which to evaluate the round, but anything overly technical brought in from other formats of debate is not something that I am likely to vote on or value.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round. 

Parent judge (not former debater)

Judge for two years

Attorney, prefer arguments that clearly link contention/warrant/impact 

I flow, am ok with some speed, not full on spreading

unexplained jargon will be ignored

Don't assume I'm familiar with evience, make sure relevence is clear

misrepresenting evidence will drop contention, prob round

signposting helps

weighing is key, unless evidence seems wrong on its face, I wont ask for it,

not overly formal, like competitive spirit, though not condescension/incivility

 

Background

Please add me to the email chain. My email isconradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not documents, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments, so I've summarized some thoughts below.

Speed- Pretty much fine with any level of speed. I'll yell clear if I can't understand.

DAs

fine with most DAs. If reading political DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic link evidence. I enjoy evidence comparison in debates on political DAs

K

K (Neg): I am a firm believer in topic-specific critical lit. The more specific your link cards, the better. If your only link is "you talk about the economy, therefore you're capitalist" or "you function through the state," don’t run it, or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K-Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency evidence that explains what the alt does. 3. A clear explanation of what the post in the in the alt world looks like.

K (Aff): I’m fine with critical affirmatives; however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer arguments that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise.

CPs

I’m fine with most counterplans, although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

I default to perms are test of competition, not advocacy

T/Theory

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps.

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, defaulting to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in-round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

PF

I take aula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize that a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing, I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author's last name and year in the back half of the letter. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

Please collapse

Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clearly if I can't understand what you are saying

Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedures

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note that I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback, I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

I am a former high school and college debater. I have been a litigator for many years. I welcome all debaters to use whatever style they are comfortable with.

I am a parent judge from Acton-Boxborough Regional High School.  Although I flow to some extent, I mainly vote off the way you articulate your arguments.  If you speak well, and your arguments make logical sense, I will pick you up more often than not.  

Evidence

I will never call for evidence unless you blatantly tell me to. If it comes down to that, I will look at the evidence, but I would prefer to not get boggled into an evidence debate.  I would prefer you give me a reason to buy   

 

Speed

I can't keep up with faster speakers, so keep it slow for me.  That makes my job easier, and it heavily increases your likelihood of winning the round.

 

Speaker Points

Speak well and I will be extremely generous.  Speak rudely to your opponents and I won't be.  Simple as that.

 

Weighing

I will never weigh for you.  That's your job as a debater, so explictly tell me why something outweighs.  

 

Jargon

I don't like, nor do I understand circuit-y jargon, so don't use it. 

Etiquette

Debating is supposed to be a learning experience in which you should respect your evidence, your judge and your opponents.  Any rudeness towards your opponents or towards me will result in a loss.  Any falsification or tinkering with evidence will result in a loss. 

Please be kind with the way you debate, and if you have a problem with my decison, come find me after the round for more explanation.  I will disclose after the round, and if you disagree, I cannot change my decision, but I will happily listen and answer any questions you have about the round, and how I feel you can improve.  At the end of the day, it's not about winning or losing, it's about improving as individuals.  

If you don't weigh your impacts, you're going to have a bad time.

 

30 speaks if you make me laugh.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).

Updated for Jan 2017

I'm old now, so I don't care about nearly as much as I used to.

 

My name is Bill. I study Finance at NYU. I did PF in high school. I am a flay judge.

 

I am lay because:

1. I reserve the right to "not buy" generic responses, like: 1. This Contention Has No Evidence, 2. This Contention Has No Warrant, and 3. This Contention Has No Impact. Obviously, if I agree with you, or you can convince me that you're right, I'll "buy" your argument, but that generally requires a specificity that speeches using these arguments tend to lack. 

2. I reserve the right to "not buy" new arguments or reframings brought up in Focus or Second Summary. This is an extreme interpretation of the no new information rule; I also apply it to new impact links which seem forced. I assure you that there always exists some way of presenting your point where you can trick me enough that it will not seem forced. As for why it also applies to Second Summary, it's because first speaking teams can get easily buried by a slimy second speaking team. If you want to force a connection or give an argument a strange spin, do it early enough in the round that your opponents can respond.

3. I will cross-apply things for you even if don't explicitly tell me the connection. This includes obvious enough tie-backs to the resolution (I understand why losing money might be bad for American interests). That said, you shouldn't automatically assume I see things as you do: if I don't see the connection, I will not cross-apply it. Sorry I'm so stupid.

 

I am flow because:

1. Summaries need structure. Your Summary should start off giving me X independent reasons why you win the round. These reasons can be (and usually are) impacts, but making your reasons weighing metrics or points of framework also work (and tend to be more interesting). Feel free to go a little bit off-flow for the purpose of crystallization (but note that you shouldn't be going off-flow until Summary save for a very good reason that you discuss in-depth at the beginning of your Rebuttal).

2. Focuses need sync. You should go for the same things your partner did. Some debaters will tell you that the Focus should repeat the Summary. While I don't think that's necessarily correct, you're doing well if the two of you discuss the same in-round topics. But you should give me a way to weigh the round. This might be weighing metrics, but it can just be a simple tie-back to American interests (for this topic) and an explanation of why your impact is important. 

3. I am fine with drops, I am not fine with extending through ink (resurrecting a dropped point). I will not extend through ink.

4. I will "buy" any initial contention brought out in the Constructive or any response brought out in the Rebutttal no matter how much it seems like a lie. If those arguments do not get pressed and they do get extended, I will ultimately weigh them in the round.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I am a flow judge. I find real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. Of course, it isn't the magnitude of your impact alone that matters. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but I would strongly prefer no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its a LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

Former Debate Coach at Fort Lauderdale High School (FL) and Chaparral Star Academy (TX)
UCF Bachelor’s in English Literature, Minor in Women’s Studies, M.Ed in Curriculum and Instruction

I will drop you (or at least your speaks) if you use abusive/offensive language. Being kind doesn't cost you anything. Don't minimize the oppression of others for a cheap ballot.

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: enhoffman@gmail.com

LD Paradigm: (scroll down for PF)

• Speed: Speed is fine as long as you speak clearly. I haven't coached LD in a few years, so just note that my threshold for speed may be a little lower than yours. Slow down on taglines and card names. I will say "clear" or "slow" if you are going too fast, but if it does not improve, I will not be able to flow. Slow down on anything that you find to be really important because if I don’t flow it then I won’t know it.

• Arguments: I'll evaluate whatever type of arguments you want to make, but you need to do the work. I like K debate, but your alt should not be something like “reject the Aff.” In any situation, make sure you tell me why you win the round. Contextualization is key.

• Theory: Theory is fine if there’s abuse in the round, but your theory arguments shouldn’t be frivolous or a way to exclude others from the debate space. (Don’t run it as an easy way to win against an opponent who you don’t think understands it. I'm highly sensitive to the politics of income inequality in speech and debate and am not impressed with your canned theory shells.) RVIs are fine with me - it’s your round, not mine. I’ll vote on RVIs if you tell me to. With “I-Meets” I expect at least a little bit of an explanation. If your opponent made the effort to make the argument in the first place, you should do at least a little work to explain why you meet – don’t be lazy.

• Speaker Points: Generally, I will award points based on how clearly you articulate your thoughts. However, I will deduct speaks for inappropriate or overly aggressive behavior. I have no problem awarding a low-point win or at least docking your speaks if you are too rude or obnoxious in round. IF YOU BRING MICRO-AGGRESSIONS INTO THE ROUND, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT WITH SPEAKS.

• Extensions: These need to be real extensions if you want me to flow them. You can’t just go around shouting “EXTEND” to everything on the flow – what am I extending and why? Don’t be lazy.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me in round.

PUBLIC FORUM:

Anything in my LD paradigm that could apply to PF still stands, but here are more specifics. I really try not to intervene, but I find it a little more difficult in PF so please do the following if you’d like a fun round and a solid RFD.

• Weighing: I will weigh arguments however you tell me to. I really like framework but I know that’s less common in PF. If you read observations/definitions in your constructive and they go cold conceded, that’s how I’ll default to evaluating the round. That doesn’t mean I’ll do the work for you, so you still have to weigh impacts against this.

• Extensions: First off, an extension includes warrants. If you don’t tell me what I’m extending and why, I won’t do the work for you. I also have a strong disdain for debaters telling me to extend through ink. Just saying “EXTEND” won’t get you anywhere. Also, arguments/responses should be extended through summary and final focus.

• Warrants/Evidence: I really don’t like blippy pieces of evidence (or blippy responses). If you just start shouting numbers or claims in round, without any warrants, I’m not so inclined to buy it. I rarely call for evidence, but I will if I am familiar with that evidence and think you’ve misconstrued what the card actually says. Also, if your evidence has been called into question and has not been sufficiently clarified in round, I will call for evidence.

• CALLING FOR CARDS IN ROUND: I’m alright with it during round and during prep, but please do not be ridiculous. I will not allow for my round to hold up the tournament because you’ve spent 20 minutes “looking for the PDF” or “trying to log back into JSTOR.”

• Humor/Speaks: Some light humor, sarcasm (when funny but not rude), and even clever phrasing/using song lyrics can be fun in round and might even earn you a few extra speaks. Don’t force it though – you will probably sound dumb and make the round awkward.

4 years debating for Stuy, 4 years coaching for Poly Prep

i flow (unfortunately)

- slow, please

- i don't know how to evaluate k's, theory, etc. (if there is an egregious abuse, i'm down to have a discussion or bring it higher up)

- no patience for cards getting called every five seconds-- just do some warranting :)

pretend i'm lay and have fun. i believe in you.

(30s if you win w/o reading evidence)

Name: Mike Wascher

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 8

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery As long as it is clear, speed is not important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Turning point in the debate where the debater should take from the line by line the arguments they envision as being the decision points. Whether it is organized by the same order as the line by line or re-cast in voting issues makes no difference.

Role of the Final Focus Tell me what arguments you win, explain why those arguments, when compared to your opponents arguments, means you win the debate. The comparative work is crucial. If the debaters don’t do it the judge has to do it and that is a door debaters should never leave open.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches While I have no autocratic rule, I would imagine that something you plan to go for would be something that is extended throughout the debate. If argument X is a winner it just seems reasonable to me that it should be included in all speeches.

Topicality Sadly, this argument isn’t advanced much because the time it takes to present it is generally critical time lost on case arguments and the trade off is seldom worth. Having said that, I would vote on a T argument.

Plans Specific plans are, by rule, not allowed. Generic ideas about solving problems necessarily discusses policy options. The general idea of those options is the resolution when were have policy topics.

Kritiks If Public Forum is supposed to be debate about how current events are debated in the real world I find little room for theoretical ideas that are not considered by real world policy makers. If, however, the critical argument has specific links to the topic, (and history suggests that few I’ve heard do) it should not be rejected because it is critical.

Flowing/note-taking I flow the key parts of the argument and sometimes flow authors. I find myself noting dates when they seem to be old (and possible dated). I listen to cross fire and sometimes make notes when I heard something worthwhile.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument and I especially value warrants (which aren’t tag lines) that explain why your claims are persuasive.

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? Not a hard and fast rule with me but I can’t imagine why a winner would be left out.

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? Also not a hard and fast rule with me but strategically it is probably important you get back to some of your case, unless you plan to win offense on turns on your opponents case.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Never!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. The three things I would like to hear more often in Public Forum debates are:

1) Comparative work. Explain why you win the debate not just win some arguments. You can win every argument you discuss but still not have a better story than your opponent. Take the time to explain why the arguments you win form a better story than your opponent’s offering.

2) Warrants. Claims are not persuasive. Why your claim is true, significant, harmful, etc., make for a persuasive argument. The best claim from the most qualified author is generally useless and it is sad when those “Best” authors write warrants and debaters fail to cut that evidence and read it.

3) Paraphrasing. I recognize that the PF world is at this point. I don’t like it. I believe there are ethical issues when one cites three different authors, for example, and none of the three are working on the same argument but rather writing one line that fits in and is found in a google search. I also find it problematic that some think they can summarize a master’s level work in six words. Paraphrasing opens the world to a lot of potential evil. I read a lot on our topics and do not be the person that is misrepresenting an author by a poor paraphrase. It’s as bad as clipping. Given the power to change the world I would mandate we go back to reading evidence but then again I can’t find enough people, maybe even one other person, willing to give me that power. So we will paraphrase but we will properly represent the evidence.

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Hi, I'm the Director of Speech and Debate at Poly Prep.

I did 8 years of policy debate in HS & College. I started my career coaching college policy at NYU, was then the Director of Debate at Byram Hills HS, and now have been at Poly for the last 5 years.

I see rounds as technical applications that interact with each other and split out a winner. My goal as the judge is to be the least involved with the decision I make as possible. The more you let this happen for me, the happier you will be with speaker points.

I have no preferences in the types of arguments you run - but make sure to provide a framework for how to evaluate said arguments.

**2020 TOC add-on:

I have been on the sideline from judging for the last several years due to health issues that limited the use of my hands. I am so pumped to be able to judge again. That being said - in order to make sure I have a correct flow, if you are going too fast for my hands to catch up (which for PF should be fine, but just so you know), I will unmute and say 'slower'.

Background:  I did LD for four years at Bronx Science and was the captain during my senior year. We were old school. We stood up and looked at the judge when we spoke. We spoke at normal speaking speeds. We snickered when we faced debaters who presented plans and argued "their's would never work."

Overall Philosophy: I am open to all arguments. including plan based cases as well as K affs. Just make sure by your final rebuttal, you have clearly identified the big picture rather than counter each and every point on the flow. 

Paradigm: Although I have my personal worldviews particularly regarding individual rights and agency, I will always vote on the best-argued rationale.

Theory: The debate should have as much clash as possible and I like to give arguments the opportunity to prove their validity than to toss them out altogether. However, if you prove your opponent doesn't offer a fair debate due to theory, it will heavily influence how I vote. 

RVi: If I vote for you, it’s because of your superior arguments, not some technicality. 

Kritikal Arguments: I'm an old school values debater, so yeah, I like these cases. 

Impact Calculus: Convince me with superior rationale rather than pure stats as I generally think you can find evidence to support anything. If you are running plans, help me understand the difference in impact yours has verses your opponent's. However, I don't like tenuous connections, but reward creativity. 

Overall: Debate and public speaking are valuable skillsets. Skillsets that will help you in every part of your life (except your personal life, which debate will absolutely ruin because your future partner "is always right"). Given that, your speaking skills, your powers of persuasion should be paramount. I have never thought Policy debate prepares their participants to be persuasive public speakers. I hope I don't have to say the same about LD.

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

My rules are simple:

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

- 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

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