Hello, I am a parent judge in my 6th year of judging PF. My preferences:

1. Please try not to spread. It makes it difficult to flow and follow your point.

2. If you refer to a card please provide more information than just the name of the author so I can connect the dots effectively and am not guessing.

I am excited to see you in action and giving it your very best. All the best and see you at the tournament.

I did debate for four years.

I'll be mad if you don't weigh or collapse (you can drop your case idc just pick your offense).

I'll be even more mad if you are mean :(

I'll be happy if you smile and look like you might be actually enjoying yourself. Sad debaters= a sad round.

I'll be even happier if you weigh, please do this (that's convincing).

I don't have many preferences, so you can ask if you have a specific question.

I won't vote on an argument without a warrant extended, so extend warrants in your later speeches.

Just make smart arguments and you'll be fine.

I am a law student at Emory. I coached PF at Delbarton, CBI, and ISD. I competed in PF Bronx Science.

1. Please don't give line by line final two speeches.

2. Limit what you're going for in your final two speeches (prioritize good substantive warrants rather than more blippy responses). Group responses when you can in summary, and explicitly weigh in both speeches but especially in final focus.

3. If you would like me to vote on certain offense bring it up in both summary and final focus.

4. Use the summary to respond to responses made in the rebuttal and give me voters (alternatively you can devote time in the second rebuttal to front-lining). I am uncomfortable voting for an argument that hasn't developed at all since your case (unless of course you show me it's been dropped and bring it up in summary and final focus).

5. Please have your evidence available promptly. I will get fed up and start running prep time or docking speaker points if you can't find it quickly enough. In extreme cases, or if I feel like you are intentionally being unethical, I will drop you.

6. That being said, don't call for every card. Only ask to see evidence if you are legitimately concerned about understanding the content or context.

7. If you aren't using prep time (as in, they are searching for a card to show you), then don't prep.

8. When in doubt I will vote for the most consistently brought up, and convincingly warranted arguments.

9. Only give me an off time roadmap if you're doing something atypical.

10. You should have your preflows ready on both sides before you enter the room.

11. If you card dump, there is no way for me or your opponents to fairly ascertain credibility. I will not flow it as evidence.

12. I give speaker points based on persuasiveness and good rhetoric not technicalities. If you win every argument but sound like a robot, or just read off your computer, you will get low speaker points.

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

• Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
• Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
• Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
• Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
• Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
• Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
• Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
• Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
• Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
• Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
• Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
• Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
• Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
• Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

• One team tells me to.
• I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
• I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
• I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

I'm a parent judge in my first year of judging

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my third tournament. I try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate, and score the debate entirely on the relative merits of the arguments made by you and your opponents. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say. I encourage you to ask for feedback after the debate and I will endeavor to be encouraging and constructive.

I am the father of a Lexington policy debater. I have been trained as a judge and have been judging PF debates for four years, perhaps ten tournaments so far.

I am very careful to ignore my own opinions, and I try hard to listen to your arguments and make a fair decision. I take lots of notes, so it helps me a great deal if you don't speak too quickly, and if you speak loudly enough for me to hear easily.

I think debate is a great activity, and I respect you enormously for the good thought and hard work you invest in preparing your arguments. Because of that, I always try to give some feedback at the end of a debate, even when the tournament schedule is rushed.

PF:

1/ No position is taken until the decision time.

2/ I'm a parent judge. Assume I'm not familiar with your topic. Convince me and make an impact.

3/ Will take point(s) off if you drop an argument or fail to extend an argument.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for two years.

I am looking for speakers who express their arguments with confidence and clarity. Fast talking during the opening arguments is fine, but if you talk too fast, I might miss your points. I consider cards essential if you are going to make claims that are not public knowledge.

Before a debate I ask the teams to time themselves and each other, and to have a plan should anyone go over by a few seconds.

Please let me know when you are taking prep, and when the next portion of the debate will begin.

I’m not a stickler for little technicalities; you are there to convince me using your excellent research and debate skills!

i debated for 4 years at lexington high school (1 year in novice policy and 3 in varsity pf) and am now a sophomore at boston university.

i'm not super particular about much, but here's what i do care about:

1. warrants: have good ones. i don't care who said what if you can't explain why.

2. weighing: do it, as early in the round as possible.

3. dates: read them. recency is important on pretty much every pf topic.

4. framework: i will default to util unless you give me a compelling reason to do otherwise.

5. analysis and evidence: i want to hear both. i want neither for you to spew evidence at me nor for you to make a bunch of unsubstantiated arguments. that said, if you're second speaker and you don't have evidence against an argument your opponent made, i would much rather hear a fully analytical response, rather than you wasting my and your time with a random card that's only vaguely relevant.

6. responses: there are few things that annoy me more than a second speaker getting up for rebuttal and saying some shit like "we have 17 responses" and then reading a bunch of weak cards that only sort of respond to the contention as a whole. i would rather hear fewer but better responses, that actually respond to the specific arguments being made.

7. extensions: don't extend through ink.

8. collapsing: do it. if i hear all of the arguments in your case again in summary and final focus, i will be sad. please don't make me sad.

9. speaker points: obviously, speaking more fluidly and persuasively will earn you higher speaker points. if you have a good sense of humor, i will raise your speaks. i really appreciate it if you make me laugh. if you are rude or offensive, i will lower your speaks. please be nice!!

if you have questions about any of this or something i didn't mention, feel free to ask me about it before the round! if you have any questions about my rfd after the round or want some extra feedback, i'd be happy to talk to you.

tl;dr: here

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge, but this is my second tournament in over 3 years due to the Covid interruption. I will try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say.

Parent Judge

Public Forum Paradigm

I place a lot of importance on critical analysis, reasoning/rhetoric, and wit. Please do not card dump and or misrepresent your statistics.

Speech and Crossfire: Please focus on the main arguments from both sides and argue about the same things rather than drift to various subtopics.

Intervention: I do not intervene in debates. However, I do look at the sources when calling cards just in case the cards do not exist or the cards are questionable.

Summary: Please note that any new arguments in summary will result in decreased speaker points out of fairness to the other team.

Comments and Feedback: I do not give immediate remarks right after the round. I need time to make decisions.

Time: Please follow the rules and do your best within the allowed time frame.

Have fun!

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.

Im a junior at umass amherst studying political science and journalism. I did 1 year of LD and 3 years of PF at lexington hs. I'm a fairly straightforward, classic pf judge so just do what you know you're supposed to.

Prefs:

- ***The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so! Don't just respond to arguments - actually tell me why you're winning (so weigh, do voters, compare framework, etc). I don't like having to do extra work on the flow, it makes my job as a judge a lot harder.

- I love arguments that are legitimately warranted and clearly explained. Obviously, evidence is important too, but I'd rather have an argument that logically makes sense over a random card that doesn't link well or has no warrants as to why I should believe it.

- It needs to be in summary to be in final focus so EXTEND. The exception to this rule is if you're speaking first and your opponent brings up some new arguments in their summary. In this case, it's fine for you to make a new response in final focus. But outside of that, you really shouldn't argue something new in FF if it wasn't in summary.

- Collapse your arguments in summary and ff. Don't leave me with a ton different arguments to weigh after the round. It's annoying and basically an evidence dump. I recommend using voters in your summary and/or final focus. It's not mandatory but heavily recommended.

-and going off of that: CLASH. actually respond to/weight arguments please.

- I won't flow your cross-fires. So if you think you won something during cross you better tell me during your speech.

- If you want me to call for evidence, tell me and I will. I may call for evidence at the end of the round anyway if things have become muddied.

- Don't spread; you can talk fast, but don't spread. It makes me more confused and you don't really want me to confused. Also, I'm a strong believer that if you're debating well you shouldn't need to spread anyway.

-This should go without saying but don't be rude or offensive. I do dock speaker points if you are overly rude or aggressive or say anything that is harmful. Debate should be an overall positive experience!

ask in round if you have any questions! good luck!

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

---

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

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

I do not have very much experience as a public forum judge, but I am the parent of a debater. I value clarity, logic and precision in the speaker's voice and appreciate when teams weigh and clearly state which issues to vote off of during summary and final focus.

I am a parent of a high school debater and have been judging PF for 2 years. I grew up in SIngapore debating, parliamentary style debates. My judging ethos is fairly straightforward:

- i suspend my opinions and what i know about a topic outside the room and come in as a blank canvas. My role is NOT to be an expert, but to be an objective and neutral civilian, being exposed to arguments, fresh, in each round.

- i strongly prefer civilized, thoughtful and persuasive debate. I will credit professionalism, civility and a good sense of humor.

- i will discredit rudeness of all kinds. I do not enjoy theatrics (such as actively eye rolling toward me when your opponent is speaking - it will work against you, not for you), nor do i value those who simply railroad and speak loudly and fast over others in cross. Debate requires active listening to one another which is not possible if you won’t listen to your opponent or let them finish what they are saying. Please avoid all theatrics and distraction techniques.

- i will consider unanswered arguments as defeated; and will not credit (may even take point away) for new arguments introduced late in the game. And please stick to the truth and actual facts, not fake facts.

- volume and speed are not what i value. So yelling loudly or jamming numerous arguments extremely quickly and tripping over your words do not impress me. I value a debater who is confident enough to stay focused and rely on the strength of their research their ability to nuance and react thoughtfully and speak at a reasonable volume and pace. And be civil to their peers across the table.

I am a lay judge, a parent of a student at Newton South High School, Massachusetts.

I have been judging public forum debate since 2016. Here are some things to consider.

Slow down and speak clearly so that you don’t stumble over your words. Don’t spread. If I don’t hear your contentions and your responses they don’t count

I like organized well structured arguments. I encourage starting with your framework so I understand the basis for your arguments and the use of sign posting in your responses. Tell your story, paint your picture and re-enforce it in the summary. In your final focus explain why your team won the debate.

When stating your evidence, explain why it is important and why I should believe it. Don’t quote individual source names or publications and expect me to know who and what they are. Explain why I should be convinced by what they say.

If you use debate jargon, explain what it means, otherwise I may waste precious seconds trying to remember what it means and may not hear your next response.

Be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

I have judged Public Forum Debate from time to time. I am not familiar with this month's topic. I therefore ask you to refrain from using jargon or speaking quickly. Thanks

For the email chain and any contact you need - edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for the past two years at various tournaments. I value clear communication, and persuasive delivery. Speed and debate jargon will make it harder for me to follow you. I also value respectful engagement during crossfire. Make sure you actually let your opponents answer the questions you ask, and don't be insulting or mean. I take notes, and I try to practice flowing, but appreciate when students focuse on a few important arguments rather than making lots of individual answers. This also means that when you reference arguments from earlier speeches you should not refer to them by the author's name, but rather by the claim/thesis of the argument - the author's name generally will not be on my paper and it won't really have any meaning on it's own. I generally place more value on impacts with a high likelihood rather than a high magnitude. The more implausible an argument is the less likely I am to be persuaded by it. Often the side with the clearer, more intuitive and better explained/defended story is the one I vote for in the end. At the end of the round, please make sure to clearly tell me why the arguments you think you're winning are more important than the arguments your opponents might win. If you don't clearly compare these impacts you leave it open for me to do, and you may not like the result. Thanks, and have a great tournament!

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

谢谢!

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

I prefer that teams send cases before constructive and speech docs before rebuttal.

About Me

I competed on the PF national circuit from 2010 to 2012. I coached on and off from 2012 to 2016, when I became the PF coach at Hackley School in NY until June 2019. After being out of debate for 4.5 years, I judged two tournaments in February 2024. I'm not coaching, so don't assume I know anything about the March topic.

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

If you want me to vote off your argument, extend the link and impact in summary and FF, and frontline defense. (If there is some muddled defense on your argument, I can resolve that if your weighing is much better and/or the other team's argument is also muddled.)

Give me comparative weighing. Don't just say, "We outweigh on scope." Tell me why you're outweighing the other impact(s). Most teams I vote for are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing or providing me with metaweighing arguments that compel me to vote for them.

If you say something offensive, I will lower your speaks and might drop you.

Specific Preferences

1. Second rebuttal should cover all turns, and address defense on the argument(s) you go for in summary and FF. If it doesn't cover defense, that's not a deal breaker – just makes it harder for me to vote off.

2. Extend defense in summary and FF. For example, if second rebuttal didn't cover some defense on the argument(s) extended, first summary should extend that defense. Obviously, If second rebuttal didn't frontline an argument, then first summary doesn't need to extend relevant defense.

3. Collapse and weigh in summary and FF. The best teams I've judged typically go for one argument in the second half of the round because collapsing allows them to do thorough line-by-line link and impact extensions, frontline defense, and weigh.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I care quite a bit about why X is true. I prefer warrants over unexplained empirics.

5. Do not give me a roadmap – tell me where you're starting and signpost. Make sure you're clear in signposting. I don't want to look all over my flow to figure out where to write.

6. I have some experience judging theory. If you run it, make sure it's actually checking abuse. I'll be less inclined to vote off the shell if you read it because of a relatively minor offense.

7. I've never judged a K. At the very least, it should be topical, and you'll have to accept that I'll determine how to adjudicate it.

8. If you are arguing about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, Supreme Court, etc.), please have very good warranting as to why your argument is probable. I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments because I strongly believe that most debate resolutions are unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can say specific legislation or electoral results likely do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case about why your politics argument is likely, please do not read it or go for it.

For PF: I'm looking for well argued rounds. Please don't spread - it's not conducive to a good round, and it makes everything harder for everyone. Additionally, please don’t just read off a prewritten response or block of analysis outside of case - I want to see you thinking on your feet. Don't be domineering and respect your opponent. If you're running nuclear war as an impact you need to have a really good reason. No counterplans. I'm going to primarily judge within the context that you present, so the focus will be on your cases and the rebuttals to those. If you say "is anyone not ready" at the start of your speech I will mock you.

For speech: demonstrate some passion! This is an artistic performance, so show me some interpretive spirit in your work. Getting flustered and working through it is better than knowing your whole piece and delivering a boring rendition.

I debated from 2007-2010 both in PF and LD.

I appreciate weighing of impacts and telling why those impacts matter in life/scope of the round.

Pet peeve of mine - please do not abuse the ability to call for evidence and the time it takes calling for evidence.

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my third tournament. I will try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say.

I am a parent judge for Acton-Boxborough and I have judged on the local/national circuit for two years.

English is my second language, so please please don't spread. Keep the word count at 180 will be great.

General Preferences

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. If you do this, then you will be successful.

I do not flow cross, but I do pay attention. Be civil and respond logically. Don't be over-aggressive.

Rebuttal

I like arguments that are logical and are supported by cut evidence. Rebuttal is your time to point out flaws in your opponent's arguments with clear logic from your side. Please don't read a bunch of general prepared blocks - I want to hear relevant, targeted responses.

However I do think extent on your own contention is important. The case can't be solely won just on rebuttal.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

I go to college, but I did four years of PF with Princeton High School and it was a lit time. I’m pretty flow, but I probs won’t know a lot about the topic. I love judging!!

Important things:

1. Pls be nice :'), ie no interrupting or talking over people

2. I don’t like when people whisper or react non-verbally during speeches (like making faces)

3. Signposting and well structured speeches

4. Frontline frontline frontline

5. Please collapse in final speeches!

6. I love me some weighing in later speeches → easiest way to my ballot

7. Explain your arguments ~with analysis and logic~ as I vote on thing that Make Sense and not on cards

8. I HATE long metaphors that don’t really make sense and/or are grossly over-exaggerated lol

9. If you ask me to call for a card I probs will, or if it's highly contested

Overall, I vote pretty much entirely on flow (but if you talk too fast I will miss things) and if you make references to cardi b you will see it in your speaker points ;)

Feel free to ask me questions before/after round!

I debated at Lexington High School for four years. First in novice policy, and then 3 years in public forum. I've gotten to bid rounds, got bids, and broken at multiple national tournaments so I have some idea of how to debate. I finished my senior year getting 5th speaker at NDCA and 3rd place team overall. I attend University of Maryland, College Park, with a major in goverment and politics, and a minor in rhetoric. I currently do Parlimentary debate there.

Short Version-

I try to intervene and put as little work into the round as possible. If you make it easy to vote for you I probably will and the easier it is the higher your speaks will be.

One big thing that is pretty make or break in my eyes: Don't do anything that makes debate unwelcoming for anyone, e.g. racism, sexism, etc. I think debate is a really valuable activity and therefore it should accessible to everyone, so making people feel unwelcome/unsafe is a big issue. There have been times where I have been a jerk in round without realizing or things got heated when they shouldn't have, so I get how it can happen. I will probably not drop you for that alone, however, your speaks will suffer and I will find it far more difficult to justify voting for you. That said, there is a difference between saying something accidentally boneheaded in CX/something comes out really wrong/etc. and making an argument rooted in racist/sexist/etc. ideology.

Beyond that, I don't really have many preferences in terms of the actual arguments you go for (nothing too ridiculous or stupid pls, or at least make it funny if you're gonna be dumb lmao), but I may in terms of speaking and articulation of those arguments. Be clear, be clever, extend your warrants, weigh, and interact with your opponents arguments and my ballot should be easy for you.

Long Version-

This is not an exhaustive list of the things that you should/should not do in round, so use your common sense and good judgement. Try to debate as well as possible.

Specific Preferences:

-Be nice, don't be a jerk, share crossfire/CX, make the debate bearable to watch, this also ties into the whole debate as a welcoming activity point that I made above (no racism, no sexism, you get the idea).

-The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so cuz I'm lazy. That said, if the round isn't clear I will intervene as much as I need to, in order to find a winner, and you may not like my decision so don't make it necessary.

-Building off of that, the easier it is to watch a debate and the more fun the round is for me the higher your speaks will be, so don't make the debate miserable

-You can talk fast so long as you are clear, but don't spread cuz you won't be clear, if you're going too fast I will say clear and you should slow down or else I'm gonna miss stuff on the flow and that isn't good for you.

-Extend your arguments, I can flow as fast as you can talk, but if you really want me to get something, slow down and emphasize it and tell me why its important.

-I don't care if second rebuttal doesn't respond to everything that first rebuttal put on case, I don't consider it dropped but try to cover what is important

-Also please extend warrants and refer to your cards by their arguments as well as author name, saying "extend [author name], this means we win" is a terrible argument. Tell me why you win and what your cards mean, give me warranted analysis.

-I really dig analytics as arguments, but if it directly conflicts with evidence I probably side with evidence (i.e. "we have evidence of an increase in X" "but "X isn't increasing" is a bad analytic)

-If there are analytical reasons (read warrants) why there argument is wrong or misapplied, or their warrants are bad or non supportive, I would love to consider analytics ("we have evidence of an increase in X", "but increase in X doesn't solve because..." is a good analytic)

-Basically, if warrants are good, you make clean extensions, you collapse in summary/final focus, and you give me clear reasons why you are winning, my ballot is pretty easy.

-Being funny is always a plus but please prioritize showing respect to your opponents and the activity first, winning second, and being funny after all that.

I also got out spoken by my PF partner (Peter Lawrence) all of senior year!!!

Updated 1/12/19

If you treat me as a normal flow judge, you will likely be fine. If you want any more specific info on how you can win my ballot or improve your speaker points, either read below, or ask me before the round.

I don't require second rebuttal to cover first rebuttal's responses, but I generally look favorably upon teams that do so. First summary does not have to cover defense. Weighing is important.

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

Above all, I value efficiency and consistency in Public Forum. That is to say, I look very favorably upon teams that can build a strong narrative and develop it throughout the course of the round. Probability weighing is essential, since a high probability argument with a strong link chain builds a better narrative than a high magnitude, low probability, unrealistic "debate" argument. The final focus and summaries should also be very consistent with one another, and I will not vote on blatantly new arguments brought up in the final focus.

At the same time, I like teams and debaters that can speak slowly and clearly and still cover the entire flow with cohesive arguments. I do not like teams that speak extremely quickly and simply dump dozens of blippy responses to every facet of the opponents' case. I will not vote you down if you do this, but your speaker points will most likely suffer. In many cases, forgoing an additional response and spending more time to explain a better response will be a good strategic move in front of me -- I value clarity highly.

Making non-traditional or unique in-round moves correctly will improve your speaker points by 0.5, since I believe they are examples of debate ingenuity and critical outside-the-box thinking. I want to reward debaters that are able to adapt to specific rounds with non-traditional strategies, rather than using the same exact argumentation in every single round. However, in a lot of cases, these strategies will not benefit you, so think carefully about the situations to use them in.

Examples:

1. Grouping arguments

2. Terminal logical responses

3. Non-traditional speech structures

4. Pre-emptive frontlining

5. No defense in Final Focus

At first glance, I’m a parent judge with two years of PF experience. But in reality, in a long-forgotten past, I debated in high school — national semi-finalist in LD, finalist in extemp — and college and I paid my way through college judging LD, policy and speech on weekends.

Since I’m mainly judging PF these days, a few helpful hints on how I judge PF:

1. Obviously, I try to be unbiased. Generally, I don’t believe there a “harder” side of a resolution, so don’t pick sides expecting to win based on that. I always vote the most compelling argument.

2. PF was invented to avoid the jargon that has crept into LD and the tired old cliches of policy. I don’t expect to see either here — no spreading, no shouting, no “counterplans”, etc. If you can’t imagine someone doing it in an actual public forum (e.g. a presidential debate) don’t do it here. Instead, try persuasion.

3. I still remember how to flow (with actual pen and paper), so don’t drop important arguments. At the same time, don’t expect me to vote based on the fact that your opponent dropped one of your contentions; it may not have been very good, and this isn’t ping pong.

4. It generally doesn’t help for you to get into meta-arguments about the rules of PF. Focus on substance and trust that most of the things that your opponent might try that seem unfair/against the rules also make for pretty uncompelling arguments.

5. As a former business school dean, I’m a little sensitive to bad economic logic and analysis, especially on economic topics, so don’t waste time trying to connect capital gains taxes to nuclear war. That’s just stupid.

6 I see the structure of PF generally as the gradual crystallization of key issues and themes over the course of the round. If you find yourself using your summary (or worse, final focus) to spread point by point through a million attempts to refute minor points, you’re going the wrong way. Step back, take a deep breath and give me the 2-3 key issues and why your argument is more persuasive. (Oh, and don’t conclude with “vote for us”; that’s a terrible way to end a speech.)

Other than that, enjoy, do your best, don’t overadapt based on this paradigm, make a joke (a funny one), don’t stare at your iPad while you’re talking (did I mention I did speech?) and have fun.

I am a parent of a high school debater and I have been judging PF at the National and Regional levels for the last five years.

I love the guidance "To what degree will an argument improve the world as holistically as possible given the resolution––humans, environments, economies, etc.?" Using numbers, and sizes of numbers, to make these cases is critically important to my decision-making processes.

I love ethically-collected, fact-based contentions from reputable sources, such as from the gray circle at the top of this curve: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Think tanks on both ends of the spectrum, particularly those funded by right-wing/Koch money can get a bit sketchy in this context.

And above all else, I expect measured cadence during statements (if I can't understand you, it does you no good!), and a spirit of graciousness during crosses. Points will be taken away for the above misses (particularly if I can't understand what you are saying) as well as any demeaning, sarcastic, or derogatory comments, facial expressions, tone, or evidence. I dislike using debate tribal language in excess and particularly in lieu of content. The "frothing at the mouth preacher style" does not work well with me; I merely ask you to be authentic. Your content should convey the weight of your arguments, not your actions. You will be docked speaking notes for discussions, nodding, or other facial/body expressions while the other team is presenting.

I also delight when humor can be interjected. And smiles are always appreciated.

I will happily share my thought process with teams once the ballots have been entered, while respecting the rules of the specific debate.

I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge.

I will not follow debaters who speak fast.

English is my second language.

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my third tournament. My goal is to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. Please weigh and evaluate your arguments and compare them to the arguments made by your opponents. It is critical for me to see that you listen to your opponents and respond to their position. I encourage you to speak clearly and not too fast, as the quality of the argument is more important to me than the number of cited references or other prepared information.

Hello debaters,

I am a lay parent judge from Westborough, MA who has been judging for the last three years at local and natcir tournaments. This paradigm was written by my son. I will take notes on the round kind of like flowing. However, the easiest way to persuade me and get my vote is in the final focus.

truth>tech - I already have a limited understanding of the technicalities of debate, please don't run low probability - high magnitude arguments and expect me to vote for you.

I will deduct speaks if I can't understand you (please don't spread)

Things I think will be helpful for the round

I will pay attention and take notes on crossfire

It might be a good idea to respond to arguments from first rebuttal in the second rebuttal

Try to build a narrative throughout the round.

I have a low threshold for random debate words - phrases like "terminal defense " are useless to me. Your word economy should be simplistic and effective.

Please refrain from bringing up new argumentation in the second half of the round.

Weigh in FF. This speech helps me sign my ballot for you, so give me clear reasons why i should prefer you over your opponents.

Please do not run theory or k's, I do not understand them.

Don't be toxic, this debate round doesn't matter in the long run.

I will disclose after the round, hopefully, you find my feedback helpful.

For TOC and any online debate - if you are sharing evidence with the opponents and wish for the judge to be on the email chain, please ask me before the round for my email.

Good luck and have fun!

Background:

* Live-long engineer dealing with logic and deduction on a daily basis.

Amateur PF judge striving to take good notes and follow the flow. A few notes:

* Prefers acronyms explained when they first appear. As you apparently have done more research on the topic than I do. Both sides knowing the term doesn't necessarily mean I know the term as well.

* Be respectful and act professional. Use reasoning and logic to win the "public" in your public forum debate.

Wikispaces no longer exists for some reason so I'm gonna try and summarize here.

I went to Scarsdale and did Public forum debate there. I am now on the Columbia Parliamentary Debate Team.

I will disclose at the end of the round. Debate is stressful enough without guessing for hours as to who won. The one exception is if its unbelievably close, and for me to tell you without thinking about it past the normal time at the end of the round, would be almost akin to guessing. This has happened a total of once I believe.

If you read a card in the first two speeches, you have to at least tell me its a card in the second two. You don't have to read a tag, but I have to know you said it earlier, so I know I can go back and find it on the earlier parts of the flow after the round. If you don't do this, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you go fast, as long as I can flow. I'm faster on computer than paper, but I'm not bad overall. If I ' cant get it the first time, I won't vote off of it.

I don't care if you're a jerk in crossfire, as long as someone doesn't appear visibly uncomfortable. If they do, ease up. No one should leave a debate round upset because they felt bullied. With that said, so much of crossfire is useless because people are trying to yell about who has a right to speak. Focus on getting one really solid point across. You're more likely to sway the needle.

If you want to be card-centric, do that. I'm game.

You don't have to rebuild in the 2nd rebuttal. If you do it well, however, it can be really effective.

Weigh in the summary, weigh in the final focus. Weigh in the rebuttal if you can. If you do those things, I will give you high speaks. I have no issue giving a lot of high speaks. A lot of you are high-quality speakers.

A little about me: I have debated for three years in LD, and now I'm a freshman in College.

General in Round stuff:

1) I will be keeping track of the speech times, but please keep track of your own prep time.

2) I am open to evaluating any argument that is legitimately warranted and clearly explained. The exception to this rule is if you read something extremely offensive or nonsensical.

3) Don't extend through ink

4) I won't flow your cross-fires, but I will be listening in.

5) Please weigh and engage with your opponent’s arguments. Provide at least a brief framework for me to evaluate the round. Tell me why you are winning and why the impacts that you read in case are more significant.

I am a parent judge from Newton South High School, MA. I have been constantly learning to improve my judging skill since I started judging Public Forum Debate in February 2018. Prior to being a Public Forum Debate parent judge, I served as a parent speech judge for 4 years in various speech categories.

My goal: is to be a fair judge, to do my best to provide helpful feedback so the debaters can improve their own skills.

Based on what I have learned as of now, I currently follow below principles when judging:

1. I value overall truth of the resolution, overall speaking and debating skills.

2. Walk in a session like a baby knowing nothing and take in anything as true without judgement or personal opinion.

3. Winner would be the team who convinced me the most, not the team who had better presentation/speaking skills.

4. I ask you to be respectful to the other team and speak clearly at a speed that I can follow. Please refrain from using jargon or speaking too quickly.

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my second tournament. I will try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say.

I am typically OK with most arguments.

For evidence, I prefer well accepted sources. However, if the team can demonstrate the authors are qualified despite being not well known, I will accept that too. 

I like to see a direct clash of arguments and want to know how specific arguments interact with each other.

I also like to see well explained internal link chains and overview to help me better understand your arguments.

 

Parent judge.

Prefer debaters to speak clearly at a normal speed.

I am a parent of a PF debater. I have judged PF debates [2018-2019] at the JV and varsity level.

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 debated at Lexington High School for four years with a year in LD and three years in PF. I'm a flow judge who votes based off of clearly cited evidence and weighing.

Prefs:

- The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so.

- I evaluate any argument that is legitimately warranted and clearly explained. If you have a link, explain it. The exception to this rule is if you read something extremely offensive or totally nonsensical.

- Please weigh and actually engage with your opponent’s arguments. Tell me why you are winning on certain points and why your impacts matter more to me. If you have a framework, weigh using that framework. There have been so many times where debaters introduce frameworks and don't ever actually use it (despite it potentially winning the round for them if they did).

- It needs to be in summary to be in final focus so EXTEND. The exception to this rule is if you're speaking first and your opponent brings up some new arguments in their summary. In this case, it's fine for you to make a new response in final focus. But outside of that, you really shouldn't argue something new in FF if it wasn't in summary. If you are a Novice PFer, I will likely be more lenient about this rule but do try to not bring up new arguments in Final Focus.

- Collapse your arguments. Don't leave me with 17 different arguments to weigh after the round. It's annoying and basically an evidence dump. I recommend using voters in your summary and/or final focus. It's not mandatory but heavily recommended.

- I won't flow your cross-fires. So if you think you won something during cross you better tell me during your speech.

- If you want me to call for evidence, tell me and I will. I may call for evidence at the end of the round anyway if things have become muddied.

- Don't spread; you can talk fast, but don't spread. I can understand you if you do spread but I hate it when PFers spread.

- I can keep track of the speech times and prep time if you'd like. You can silently prep during your opponents’ speeches (at your own expense) or during cross-fires but don't talk (loudly) during your opponents’ speeches. It'll cost you in terms of speaker points.

- For speaker points, I start at a 28 and adjust accordingly based off of presentation and general pathos of each debater. I rarely give anything below a 27 unless you actually annoy me. I will not dock off speaker points based on the actual content of a speech and to that end, I will not decide a round based off of speaker points either.

TL;DR: here

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 am a parent of a Lexington (MA) High School debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my second year judging & have judged at 4 tournaments thus far.

I try hard to keep my personal preferences and opinions from influencing my decisions as a debate judge.

I take notes during the debate. So please do not speak too fast, otherwise I will not be able to take notes and/or follow your arguments.

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.

Background:
I competed in LD debate, Extemp, and Congress from fall 1998 - spring 2002 (plus some other speech events). I then competed in Parliamentary debate for all 4 years of college. I find speech and debate to be highly valuable to the participants and wish to give back to the community. That is why I started coaching in 2014 when I returned to the US after my army service.
Current Affiliation: Needham High School Assistant Coach (speech and debate)
Last Update: February, 2023

LD Paradigm:

QUICK: I am old school / traditional. I expect LD to be like it was when I did the activity. If someone has a value and criterion, links their arguments back to their criterion and impacts how those arguments achieve their value, I am extremely happy and give high speaker points. I also really like it when people have strong crystallizations (voters). Clearly weighing and explaining why I should value your arguments more than your opponents make my job easier, which give you more speaker points.
I dislike theory / policy debates in LD. Policy debate exists, do whatever you want in a policy round. Don't do it in a LD round.

Additional Details: I love LD debate because of the standard debate inherent to the activity. The ability to explain why I should use a certain moral standard and then explain how your arguments lead to the achievement of your standard are critical in my mind. That is the only thing I want to vote on. I expect the debate to be centered around the resolution provided.
Any other argument, ie, policy debate, theory, fairness, etc, no matter how well done, or how much time is devoted to it, misses the point of the activity in my mind, so it will be treated as such in my RFD.

Also, as a speech and debate coach, I value both the delivery and the analysis. Both are part of the speaker scale. For speech aspects, speed, clarity, sign posting, eye contact are things I look at. For analysis, the more in depth, the better. I want to hear the student, not the card. Telling me to extend a card without telling me why the card is important in the round in not analysis.

In addition, since I do believe in the educational merit of this activity, I will gladly talk with anyone after the round. I usually don't disclose, but am fully willing to explain how I saw the round, what can be improved, and what was done well.

DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Policy Paradigm:

Everything I hate in LD is kosher in Policy, so knock yourself out. That being said, I enjoy rounds on substance and the speaker points I give reflect that. I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

PF Paradigm:

I enjoy judging PF. Due to my LD background, having some sort of framework / framing the round helps me as a judge and helps you win the round and get higher speaker points. Due to the short speech times, I really want you to explain why one or two arguments that you are winning are more important than the one or two arguments your opponents are winning. Weighing is really important!

Something a bit more specific - being the second team to speak in a round means your rebuttal can deal with the first 3 speeches, and while I don't require you to do so, it really helps your side when you deal with both the pro and con cases. Use that advantage!

I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Cheers,
Adam Nir

Hey guys, it's the kid here. Good luck, you'll need it.

My dad is a fairly lay judge.

He flows Case and Rebuttal but then kinda stops.

He doesn't really like turns so you probably shouldn't read them.

Also he has a masters in business and understands economics so you don't have explain every little economic concept to him.

HE COUNTS DEFENSE AS OFFENSE: He really likes it when you just tear apart their case. He will pick you up on defense.

READ WARRANTS: He likes it when you put evidence in context.

DON'T SPREAD He likes to take notes so if he's writing something, he won't catch the things you say while he is writing.

I debated for four years at Bronx Science and am currently a junior at Yale. That probably makes me a pretty traditional flow judge at this point, but I have no idea. I would say do normal things and you're good

If you want more specifics

I don't think that first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think second rebuttal has the burden of frontlining your own case. Personally, I probably don't think either is strategic, but it is totally up to you

I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but also relates to the types of arguments you make. In general, I have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments, and I would be very receptive to teams that use probability as a way to evaluate the round

On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the truth value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round

I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision to a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump

Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but truthfully I had very little experience with them when I debated. While I understand that is what tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me

s/o Mr. Huth, Ben and Elias :), and the Bronx debate team. Big things only

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

 

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

Hello my name is Malar Pannirselvam, I have a son who participates in VPF Debate, so I have some degree of experience regarding judges. I'm tabula rasa (literally don't even know the topic or the viable stategies at the start of most tournaments), but I will definitely get a feel for the argumentation on a resolution over the course of a tournament. I will not disclose unless the tournament allows it, as I believe that not disclosing takes a fair amount away from the actual debate and devolves to blaming immediately after you drop a ballot on a bubble/break/bid round. Please ask me questions after the round is over, I will give each speaker comments (from my relatively normal lay perspective) on both argumentation and speaking stuff (unless we're low on time or lunch is 5 minutes away)

LD specific:

- no spreading

- ideally no kritiks, but if you do read kritiks, articulate the alt super well

-since this is my first time judging LD, I'm going to expect y'all to keep time and whatnot, but my timer app does have an LD function

- no weird theory violations

Things I like:

Clash

Respect among teammates and opponents

Communication between both members of your team

Effective use of prep and speech times (including cross fire)

Weighing and impact calculus (impact, magnitude, timeframe)

Offtime roadmaps, and other methods of signposting (as long as you aren't stealing prep)

Keeping your own time (and not misrepresenting it)

Extending arguments and cards in your Summary and Final Focus (rebuttal speeches for LD)

Voting Issues (voters) in your Summary/Final Focus (rebuttal speeches for LD)

Things I don't like:

Sketchy math or evidence misrepresentation (I may call for a card at the end of a round if time permits)

Disorganized speeches: I will not connect your dots for you.

Stealing prep or other ethical violations.

Excessive profanity (or profanity directed at a person in round)

Unethical/sketchy arguments (racism good, sexism good)

(Low point wins do in fact exist, by the way)

Speaker Point Scale (I award in .5 points, since that's generally what local tournaments ask me to do)

25 or below: You messed up big time in this round. Please try to find me later in the tournament for specifics, but you probably violated one of the things that I really don't like.

26: Beginning Debater who has a solid start, but requires some work

27: Good debater, about average, but could use some fine tuning in regards to speaking and/or strategy

28: Great debater, did a great job of adapting to the expectations that I set.

29: You legitimately did something exceptional this round in regards to the way that you spoke, and I commend you for doing so through this 29. Either that or you carried your team on your back, and your partner got bad speaks.

30: Hasn't happened yet, and probably won't be happening for the near future.

Most importantly, never ever forget that debate is a game, and is intended to be enjoyed to the maximum, otherwise you wouldn't be spending a weekend morning speaking in front of 2-3 other people in some empty history classroom. Good Luck!

Mr. Poe is a high school Spanish teacher who has judged at basically every local Massachusetts tournament ever.

• Does he flow (most crucial question): sometimes

• Sitting versus standing in cross: he wanted me to include that he “has no preference”

• Extending defense in first summary: not needed in either summary (as long as it’s been said before he says it’s “fair game”) (he also doesn’t know what this term means)

• Going new in the two: just because he might not catch it doesn’t mean you should do it

• Kicking out of turns: he probably finds it unpersuasive

• Frontlining in second rebuttal y/n: he doesn’t care (asked about it, and he also doesn’t know what the word “frontline” means)

• Weighing: the sooner the better (you can start in rebuttal)

• Speed: he says “medium speed” but I think that means lay judge level

• Extensions: you need to extend card context not just the author and implicate it in the context of the round

• Types of argument: tech > truth

• Progressive args: obviously not

• Speaker points: historical precedent - he will drop you with 25s regardless of your argumentation if you are a) rude and/or b) yelling

• Autodrop for running racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted arguments

• Humor: good (direct quote: “so long as it adds something to the round”)

• Disclosure after the round: no guaruntees

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my third tournament. I will try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say.

Pretty typical flay judge.

If you believe that something in the round is important, tell me. It also better be in every speech possible.

I’m okay with some speed, but remember that speed has a tradeoff with clarity. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you, thus I can’t vote for you.

Keep jargon at a minimum, Public Forum is meant to be accessible to the public. Using jargon does the opposite.

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

I am a parent judge from Westborough, MA with three years of judging in local and natcircuit tournaments.

Talk slow and do not spread

Organize your speeches and explain your arguments well

Avoid debate jargons

Do not assume I know all the abbreviations

Relative numbers provide lot more information than absolute numbers. For example, if you tell me the impact is $50 million, Is that on a GDP of $20 trillion or on a country with a GDP of $500 million

If you are providing a statistic, check on what the other team is talking about too. For example, one team could say that imports increase of 15% and the other team could say exports decrease by 20%. Ideally both teams should talk about the same statistic and the impact. If not, you should tell me what matters the most (import or export) and the impact in terms of dollars, employment etc.

Try to build a narrative and a theme throughout the round

Overwhelming me with data and evidence tags is not good. I am looking for a combination of logical reasoning with data

Exclude Extinction arguments and theory

A few well defended high impact arguments are way better than going all over the place

Please weigh well and provide clear reasons to vote for you

I debated PF for Stuyvesant and have a good amount of experience in the national circuit. Don't speak fast at the cost of enunciation. Extend warrants with impacts and weigh, please!

I reward speaker points for quality of argumentation as well as delivery, but I value substance over flourish

A couple of specifics:

— Keep evidence tags consistent, it helps me on the flow and makes extending easier

— Don’t introduce new evidence in second summary, I won’t evaluate it (first summary is fine)

Feel free to ask me any questions before round.

Max Wu’s paradigm is pretty much what I follow so you can check it out for more specifics.

I am a parent lay judge. Please speak clearly, as I cannot vote for you on an argument if I do not hear it. Also, please explain any debate jargon you use and don't just state your evidence, explain why it's important and what it is saying.

TRADITIONAL JUDGE

- I debated for four years at Unionville High school and competed at some national circuit tournaments, but was largely a traditional debater. I'm not really against circuit style debate, but I probably won't be able to evaluate it as well as you would like.

- I am tech over truth and only judge arguments that are made in the round. I will consider any dropped arguments as true for the round.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but I do pay attention. If you get your opponent to concede something important during cross and then bring it up in a later speech, I will evaluate it.

- I'm not the best with speed, but if you have to spread flash me the doc and I'll try my best to keep up. Once again, I'm not the best with speed, so I will most likely not be able to evaluate the debate as well as you would like if you do decide to spread.

- If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

I debated PF for three years at Acton-Boxborough. Treat me as your normal flow judge – signpost, collapse, weigh, etc.

Important things about me:

• I will evaluate any argument as long as it is well warranted. But if the argument is extremely jank and/or abusive, my threshold for responses goes significantly down.
• I have little to no experience with theory, Ks, or most other forms of progressive argumentation. That being said, I'm not opposed to it and I'll evaluate it if I understand it, I guess. lol.
• I would prefer that second speaking teams address responses from the first rebuttal in the second rebuttal. Allocate time however you wish. That being said, I don’t require defense in first summary, unless it has been frontlined in second rebuttal.
• I am not a huge fan of long offensive overviews, especially in second rebuttal. I find it unfair for the first speaking team to have to respond to an entirely new contention in summary, along with the rest of it. Read me a nice weighing overview though.
• Collapse/Crystallize. Don't go for every argument on the flow. It just makes both of our jobs extremely tedious. :( Commit to an issue or two and tell me why it’s the most important in the context of the debate.
• Warrant. I will most definitely always buy the logical reasoning behind your argument over a sus piece of evidence that just claims that something is true.
• WEIGH. Please!! You would probably benefit more if you explained to me why your argument is more important than your opponents', rather than having me do it for you. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal is nice.
• Please don’t spread. <3
• Preflow before you walk into your round. I don’t wanna wait.

Something to keep in mind: I will probably tank your speaks if you 1) act offensively and 2) lie about your evidence.

This isn't very thorough, so please ask me before your round if you have any questions! Good luck!!!

also, don't shake my hand lol.

I am a lay judge, but I am on my second debater kid, so I do know a little bit about PF, just don’t go too fast. I'm an estate tax attorney in my day job. I like appeals to philosophy but only if you get it right.

In terms of style I like weighing and frameworks so I know what's important upfront.

If there is anything that I should know about you, anything I should accommodate, please let me know.

Happy to judge an informed debate on the given resolution.

Been a while since I judged PF or LD.

I was a speech competitor in the '80s and for the last 8 years have been advising/assisting a team of self-directed debaters some of whom attend camps/private coaching. For the past 8 years I've stepped in to judge PF as the team has grown. I'm fine with "speed speaking" as long as enunciation is not compromised. While not new to PF debate, I am not immersed in it regularly, so I suggest not using a lot of jargon/and or acronyms without a one time explanation.

- will flow super detailed (well, depends how much coffee I've had and how clear your speaking is)

- debated in hs in policy and pf and have judged all 3 divisions since

- will vote on anything u articulate in a way that makes sense

- attack your opposing arguments not your opponents: be assertive but be kind

- learn something and enjoy yourself!! You’re voluntarily here in ridiculous dress shoes on a long weekend in a new English winter!!!

I am a parent and have been judging for four years. I typically flow the rounds. Speaking speed is not an issue for me, but if you are going to cite a lot of evidence, please slow down. If you weigh your contentions and impact, it makes it easier for me to decide.

I am a parent of a high school debater. I do not have a technical background in debate. I have judged at about 6 tournaments in the past two years.

I can't flow as quickly as the debaters. Therefore I prefer that debaters speak at a moderate, conversational pace so that I can understand their arguments and how those arguments relate to what has been said previously in the round.

I prefer that debaters are respectful to each other, including during cross-ex. Questions and responses should be concise.

I prefer that debaters avoid using the phrase "you must vote ..." Instead, organize and explain your arguments clearly and allow the judge to make a well-informed decision.

I enjoy judging rounds when it's clear that the debaters are enjoying their experience as well.

I debated at Poly Prep for three years and am two years off the circuit. I make my decisions based on my flow.

Some things to note before the round:

1. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

2. Be nice.

3. Weigh as early as possible

4. Please signpost

5. Do not speak too quickly

I am a high schooler and a fairly amateur judge without much knowledge of particular debate strategies and terms. I tend to be tabula rasa but I draw the line at arguments in favor of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. In general, I take good notes — don’t be offended if I’m not looking at you as you speak — and appreciate concise and well-articulated arguments as well as correct grammar and sentence structure. For PF, I believe that paraphrasing is key; think through how to make key points in less words, rather than just speaking quickly to pack in a lot of points.

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)

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough, meaning you can treat me like your normal flow judge—signpost, collapse, weigh, etc. However, I don't coach, so don't expect me to have any prior topic knowledge.

I don't require second rebuttal to cover case (but I think you should do it—I just won't penalize you if you don't). First summary should extend defense to whatever was frontlined (if anything) in second rebuttal. If you want higher speaks, give me a clear link story/narrative and comparative weighing.

Some other things about me: I hate overly aggressive/rude crossfires but love funny debates, I'm not familiar with progressive argumentation (but will evaluate it if necessary), and when I competed, I never really liked having to shake the judge's hand (so please don't shake mine lol).

Have fun debating and good luck! Feel free to ask me any other questions.

Hi. I am a flay judge for pf (all other events, treat me as a VERY lay judge) , but don't spread, run prog, or run silly args. Still a truth > tech judge except that I can flow and vote based off that.

I understand basic stuff like basic weighing terms (magnitude, probability, scope, timeframe), but definitely not K's, theory, trix, framework, etc. My daughter did debate from her freshmen year to senior year, and now is in college. My son is currently debating as well.

I value clarity over speed. However, please don't spread, even if you are very clear. I can't understand it that well, and can't flow that fast. I also WILL NOT acceptspeech docs.

Don't run 20 contentions. Focus on a good amount. (Quality > Quantity!)

An argument/contention is claim, warrant, impact. No impact, no warrant, no claim -> no argument.

Be nice. Not doing so might impact speak point if that's in the tournament I'm judging.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!
Or else, what am I going to vote based off of?

If I'm interested, I might ask for cards after the debate is over. If you miscut it or powertag it, I might drop you.

No matter how good this paradigm is at english, my first language is not english. Please don't use too superflouous words (get what I did there)? I understand stuff like card, contention, block, but not turn, nonunique, delink, or stuff like that.

P. S. This was edited by his son because his previous one was 28 words. In round, his english might not be this great, and he definitely won't make puns. Don't expect your RFD or comments to be this great either. Use the following example to see his paradigm expressed by him alone.

His previous paradigm was:
The following is what I will consider more valuable in the debate: clarity over speed, quality over quantity, argument = claim with warrant, attitude=nice to others

Hello. Son here. This is what you should know about my father.

He kinda flows. I've seen it, it isn't pretty - it's a bulleted list - but it works a little bit. He'll know your contention taglines and will flow rebuttal responses that he deems worthy. That's better than nothing? He relies mostly on his memory so good luck.

Limit speed to conversational level. His English is fine but he absolutely hates debaters who speak really fast because he can't understand them and thinks they're losers. Speak slow and with confidence, he likes people who present themselves well.

Debate jargon to a minimum. I guarantee that he has absolutely no idea what a non-unique is, or even what a delink is at that. Just say that they're wrong and provide evidence. No need for technical terms, it'll just r/wooosh.

On the topic of speaking, he's like really harsh with speaks. He routinely gives out 26.5s to people who he thinks didn't do well. But if you follow this paradigm, you can get a 27.5 maybe.

Be respectful. He loves it when you like destroy someone in cross but you can't be super rude doing it, or rude in any facet. It's a fine line I know.

Good luck.

I'm a debater parent and I've judged PF debates for 3 years. My evaluation is based on a combination of flow, delivery, and clarity of thought.

I'm an engineer/scientist by trade so I value logic and data-driven arguments and quality over quantity. Rather than overwhelming me with debate jargon, extend a few well-researched warrants through your crossfires into your summary and final focus with clearly articulated impact.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and maintain civility and courtesy, especially during crossfires. If you'd like me to vote on a particular claim, be sure to include it with appropriate evidence in your summary and final focus.

Please refrain from creating too many distractions by obscure interpretations of facts or by calling for evidence/cards unless there is a clear need to establish integrity or accuracy.

Above all, enjoy the debate and good luck!

Hello!

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and comprehensibly, make your position very clear, and focus on crystallizing the debate down in the final speeches.

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.