I enjoy a lively and respectable debate but most importantly, weigh! It tells me what I need to vote for and why and assures I'm more likely to vote for your side.

Please try not to spread or be rude to your fellow opponent (Speaker points may be affected).

Hi!

FLAY JUDGE. I coach middle school and high school public forum. I did debate myself throughout middle school and high school.

To win the round is simple! Just weigh and explain your argument to me as if I had no idea how debate works. I think debaters prioritize card dumping over good logic and analysis which is sad.

With that being said, if you plan on spreading, I would appreciate a speech doc lol.

4 years of PF experience. However, assume I don’t know anything.

thanks :)

Hello! My name is Daniel (he/him/his) and I competed in Public Forum for six years. I'm open to all styles, but I prefer narrative debate: slow speeches with minimal jargon that tell a story. I have also been out of debate for a couple years now, so just keep in mind that I may not be up to date on the meta.

Good luck, and don't forget to have fun! You can find specific preferences below.

Inclusivity and anti-oppression

Debate excludes and marginalizes many groups of people. When we participate in this activity, we should try to make it as inclusive and just as possible. We should check our internal biases when interacting with teammates, competitors, judges, observers, and anyone else in the debate space. Be mindful of the real-world impact your arguments may have and be careful not to use marginalized people as tools to win ballots. Obviously, none of us should tolerate any kind of bigotry.

Weighing is key; probability is not weighing

Weighing is the easiest way to win debates so start weighing early, bring it up often, and develop it throughout the round. Don't just make arguments; explain why, even if your opponent's arguments have some merit, your arguments matter more.

Weighing mechanisms like "probability, strength of link, or risk of impact" assume that your opponent's arguments aren't true, placing the burden on you to disprove their arguments and defeating the strategic value of weighing. Don't make me vote on probability weighing because you may not be pleased with the outcome.

Disclosure is good

I believe that Public Forum teams should disclose. I will not penalize teams that don't disclose, but I will reward teams that do with a 1 point speaker boost – just let me know your that stuff is on the wiki before the round starts. You can find the link to the wiki here, as well as a guide to putting your cases on the wiki here.

"Truth"/tech

I believe that flows are very useful ways to track what is going on in the debate, and I also want to be persuaded. I'll try my best to be open-minded, and I acknowledge that I enter the round with my own experiences and views.

The second rebuttal should include frontlining

Not mandatory, just a preference, so don't worry if you don't get to it. The more times you make an argument, the more likely it is to persuade me.

The summaries must extend defense

If you want defense in final focus, you must extend that through summary. Three minutes is enough time for summary speakers to extend defense.

Progressive arguments, critical arguments, and theory must be accessible

Go for it! Your arguments must be accessible to everyone in the round (opponents, me/other judges, spectators). Please watch the speed and jargon.

copied & pasted this from Asher Spector's paradigm - I agree with everything below. please also content warn arguments if necessary (and have a backup argument ready just in case)! if you're not sure how to content warn something, ask!!

--

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I will do my best to only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please feel free to ask me!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

- and don't forget to have fun!

plz talk slow and explain your arguments well; the former is not necessary but usually precludes the latter

Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks

Please time/record yourselves and each other

Email: Sklein.debate@gmail.com

Hunter '20

I did four years of LD and qualified to the TOC twice. I taught at NSD Flagship '20, NSD Philly '20, and TDC '20. I have not judged since Yale 2021. This is my wiki from senior year.

I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.

Additional preferences: https://linktr.ee/sklein.debate

PF: I am looking for the most persuasive debater given the arguments on the flow. I taught PF for four weeks at the NYCUDL and am familiar with the format, but have no background on the current topic. I am fine with speed (I neither expect nor prefer it) but would like to have the speech doc if you spread.

** Assume that I am a flow judge, but lay on the topic

If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to be in summary and final focus.

I appreciate world comparisons, weighing, and logically explained arguments.

I do not like speed. I will not flow your arguments if I do not understand what you are saying.

I will decide your speaks based on the clarity and content of your speech.

In general

***Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, and sign post clearly as you go along.

***Don't be a jerk.

***Please do not shake my hand.

I will vote off of the flow. Please make sure to include any arguments you want me to vote off of in both summary and final focus. Your final focus should basically write my ballot. That being said, your attitude will affect your speaker points. Try to be nice to each other in cross-fire; get your point across, but don't scream.

Most importantly, be confident, and have fun! You have prepped a lot, and you know what you're doing. Good luck!

third-year out coach for Walt Whitman. debated for Edgemont PF for 5 years.

flow judge, tabula rasa with an exception for accessibility 

1. I don't care what your style of debate is in the first half--> just be non-blippy and non-messy in the back half, and you will make me happy.

2. Feel free to go wild with args and collapses. Win the round, and you win my ballot but do it with style and you'll win my heart (and a 30).

3. If both teams agree, I'll judge based on a different paradigm so long as I have the ability to. Literally, go wild.

4. my speaks are based on how strategically good your speech was.

5. speed is good if ur clear, and not blippy. 

6. most things are up for debate--> I drop speaks, not the ballot for things I consider bad debate... eg: 2nd rebuttal disads w/out an implication, or clarity of impact weighing without warrants

7. I have a low threshold for extensions, so make an argument that I should drop unwarranted extensions (e.g. your opponents extend a claim but not the warrant). 

8. theory/kritiks- be accessible, I like shell theory over paragraph theory, I'll evaluate anything. I'll drop speaks if I can tell you are purposefully not being accessible 

9. don't be discriminatory, read content warnings for sensitive topics, and respect pronouns provided by tab. 

10. The only rule for fairness besides accessibility that I default is no new in 2nd ff. Otherwise, warrant out WHY certain rules in debate are unfair (not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal, new responses in 1st summary, etc) and what I should do with it (drop it). 

rajendra10031@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years. I am now a senior at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. If you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that. Tabula Rasa

FOR RIDGE:I haven't judged since the end of last season. This is my first tournament on the federal debt topic, but I have looked up topic analyses' on it so do with that information as you well.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

Hi! I did PF for 4 years at Hunter (2016-2020) & am a flow judge with pretty conventional preferences. Do what you do best & have fun! I will try to be nice with speaks & give lots of feedback.

Short Osterweis update (April 2023)

I don't have too many super-specific parliamentary preferences!

I will make sure to pulling arguments through from the leader/constructive speeches (the first two) to the rebuttal speeches (the last two) even if they aren't mentioned in the member speeches (the middle two).

If you have other questions, please feel free to ask them!

Pretty important preferences

- At the end of a round, if I'm choosing between a larger impact and a smaller one, even if the links into large one aren't won as cleanly, I will probably vote for the larger one. In the context of the round, that means it's a good idea to focus on winning the weighing debate.

- To win an argument, it must be in summary and final focus. I'm not a huge stickler on what does or doesn't count as an extension, but you should at least give a basic overview of the link(s) and the impact. Also sorry but "extend Doofenshmirtz 2019" isn't an extension. What does Doofenshmirtz say?

- Depth > breadth. I'd rather hear one or two really good, nuanced arguments than a lot of meh ones, and the same with responses. I love to judge rounds where there's a lot of engagement on a few points, rather than rounds when there's a only bit of engagement on a lot of arguments.

- Well-explained logical reasoning beats a card, a card beats an example.

- I'm receptive to unconventional strategies. For example, going for a turn is often super smart. I am also a big fan of arguments that are creative with what the counterfactual world looks like. If you plan on running an argument like this, see [a].

- Any defense you want me to evaluate should be in second summary, only turns need to be in first. In other words, you don't have to extend link responses in first summary for me to consider them.

- Tech > truth mostly. I won't intervene against an argument just because it's out there. That said, for more on this, see [b].

- Here are some things I think will help you win: Overview responses that apply to an entire case, turns, weighing, and collapsing rather than spreading yourself thin in the later speeches. For more on what I do and don't consider weighing, see [c].

- I don't love theory or other sorts of progressive arguments, but I am willing to evaluate them. That said, I'm not super familiar with them, so if you read them please explain and implicate everything very clearly. For more of my thoughts on theory, see [d].

- I don't like to intervene, but I reserve the right to or severely dock speaks if something truly bad happens. I can't really define what something truly bad would look like, but I know it when I see it. Think: something extremely rude or offensive.

Less important preferences

- If no one has any offense, my default is to vote for the first-speaking team. I'll also evaluate arguments that I should default in some other way too, though.

- Cross may influence your speaks, but it doesn't go on my flow. If someone makes a concession in cross, please bring it up in a speech.

- If I don't have a framework I default util.

- I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's challenged, but not just because it sounds sketchy.

- If you're planning to go around or over 250 wpm, please provide me and your opponents with a speech doc.

- I'm happy to skip cross if both teams agree.

- Per NSDA rules, fabricated evidence is an auto-drop. Evidence that's merely misconstrued will be judged on a case-by-case basis, I'll probably just drop that card.

More detailed thoughts on a few topics I mentioned earlier

[a] On creative arguments: Again, I'm pretty flexible as to what is or isn't topical, you just need to win that your vision of the world is the most likely real-world implementation of the topic (remember: I'm tech > truth). For example, if the topic is whether we should lift Venezuelan sanctions, I'm happy to evaluate an argument saying lifting sanctions is inevitable and doing so now is better/worse, or that sanctions will be lifted then re-imposed and that’s good/bad.

[b] On when I'm not strictly tech > truth: If the opponents tell me to gut check an improbable impact (e.g. nuclear war when mutually assured destruction & hotlines have prevented it in the past), then I won't give you access to it if you don't have strong warranting and just repeat that some random author says it'll happen. Also, if you're going to read high-magnitude, low-probability impacts, it's probably a good idea to meta-weigh and tell me why magnitude is a more important weighing mechanism than probability (I won't give you arguments for this, but they're definitely out there).

[c] On what is and isn't weighing: Here are some examples of things that I DO consider weighing —

- "Our argument impacts the whole world and theirs just impacts X country/region"

- "Our impact happens in the long-term and theirs doesn't"

- "If our argument happens, then we also solve for their impact in X way"

- "Their link chain is super long so it's inherently tenuous"

And some things I DON'T consider weighing, and why —

- Saying your argument is more probable because you think I'll think it's more plausible... you need a reason

- Saying your argument impacts more people because of some "big number" card that isn't specific to your impact, like the 900 million people go into poverty if a recession hits card

- Jargon without an explanation

- Saying that because the impact of some argument is extinction, it automatically outweighs everything. You need to go a step further: why is even a .1% chance of extinction worse than a 50% chance that 50 million people go into poverty, or whatever else the competing impact is?

[d] On theory/progressive arguments:

- I'm receptive to arguments that introducing theory first (or just frivolous theory in general) is bad.

- I also believe paraphrasing is a good norm and don't have strong feelings on disclosure. I try to be somewhat tabula rasa, so you can definitely convince me to vote against these personal views. That said, reading these arguments just probably isn't a good use of your time: you lose time on the substance debate to read something I've said I don't love, and give your opponents lots of potential offense in the process (introducing theory first bad arguments, turns to your shell, & RVIs). I wouldn't, but ultimately it's up to you.

- Also, my bar for winning drop the debater theory is much higher than my bar for winning drop the argument theory. You need to convince me that there's real abuse going on and win your argument quite cleanly.

That's all. Good luck! Email: teddytawil99@gmail.com.

i prefer a more lay style of debate