I am former 4 year public forum debater. I evaluate off the flow. I can handle a decent amount of speed, but I probably max out at about 250 words per minute. I do not expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary but think it can be very powerful in second summary (not necessarily needed though). I do not accept offensive extensions in final focus that were not in summary, but I do allow it for terminal defense. Of course, weighing should be done. Weighing is the way my ballot will eventually be decided. I only like off time road maps if you go out of traditional order in your speeches. I will try to intervene as little as possible, so it is helpful to tell me if a team extends through ink or something off the sort. I would prefer to not have to do that work myself. I do not flow crossfire, so if something important happens tell me in the next speech. If you have any other more specific questions, just ask me in person.

Background:

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University and I've coached for a variety of camps and schools over the past couple of years. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. This also means full extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure it's comparative, not just general reasons your argument matters. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I think the best teams go deeper with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

- Frontlining in the second rebuttal. I don't think you need to do a full 2-2 split in the second rebuttal but you are obligated to respond to any new offense brought up in the first rebuttal. I definitely think it is strategic to frontline the argument you are going for.

- Extensions of defense. Every back-half speech is obligated to respond to your opponents' case and with a three-minute summary, this is certainly doable.

- Jokes. Making me laugh gives you a nice bump in speaks, just don't try to be funny if you're not.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred slower debate. Along the same lines, I have never been a fan of really blippy rebuttals where you read a lot of random cards.

- New offense in the second rebuttal. I am not a fan of new offense being read in rebuttal as an overview (weighing overviews are nice though). I think turns are great, but if you're speaking second in the round, I require that you weigh any turns that you read. This is specifically to encourage you to not read a bunch of blippy turns in second rebuttal. I think it is strategic for the first rebuttal to weigh their turns as well, but I don't require it.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). If you think something abusive happens, call it out. In general though, I don't have a lot of experience with critical argumentation and those types of debates will probably naturally end up with you getting a) a worse decision and b) less educational value from me as a judge.

- Tabletotes. They honestly just look silly and are a pretty weird flex.

I have spent the last 30 years in the finance industry (BS in Econ and MBA in International Finance) working on diverse projects ranging from carbon credit trading and college 529 plan administration to venture capital investments and merger and acquisition execution. I typically read up on the Resolved to lay the groundwork to quickly understand your contentions.

This is my fourth year judging PF and I ask for a few simple things to help me in flowing the debate and rewarding your efforts:

1) Clearly highlight your contentions.

2) Define any acronyms / abbreviations the first time you use them.

3) You can speak quickly but please speak clearly.

4) Sign-posting is greatly appreciated to help me flow.

5) Off time road mapping also helps me follow your argument.

I will not disclose decisions but will provide constructive feedback in my RFD on your contentions and each speaker's contribution to the team.

I am a former high school debater that has dabbled in everything. I’ve been judging for the past six years and have judged everything, but policy. I recently graduated with a degree in Anthropology, with a focus on cultural anthropology. I’m a pretty typical PF judge and will vote for the team with the most compelling argument, however, I do like a solid framework. As far as cross goes, I don’t care if you sit or stand—whatever is most comfortable for you works for me. I don’t like when you address me during cross because I feel like you should be focused on your opponents instead. My BIGGIE is DO NOT SPREAD. If you are going too fast, I will not flow the round and drop you. This is PF, not policy. I have an extensive speech background and will be pretty merciless when it comes to speaker points. Other than that, remember to be respectful during the debate. Things can get pretty heated sometimes, but that is no excuse for rudeness. If you say things during the round that that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you immediately. Let’s be kind to one another and remember to have fun! I look forward to hearing some good debates!

I'm a member of the Columbia Debate Society and a current Junior. I used to do PF for Anderson High School.

Please sign post and logically warrant you arguments, in most cases it’s not enough to merely cite someone's opinion. I'm most likely to vote on an argument if the weighing is comparative, tell me why it matters relative to your opponent's impacts. I won't flow cross, if you want an argument to go on the flow you have to mention it in speech.

I won't time you, you all have phones, time yourself and time your opponents. good luck:)

High school teacher, US Government & Economics, bachelor's degree in Political Science & Economics, worked on political campaigns (love Tom Brady)

I am a former debate coach but have not judged much in the past 3 years. I judged at a tournament during 2018-2019 and judged once 2019-2020. Please be organized and respectful. Don't assume that I know the topic. Make sure you read the resolution at the beginning of the round. Make it clear which side you are arguing. Sighs and eye-rolling are not appreciated. Please do not make excessive eye contact with me. You should be interacting with your partner and your opponents. Please keep track of your own time. If you are going to call for cards, make sure you are not doing it as a stalling tactic. It really interrupts the flow of the round. I like a lively but respectful cross-ex. Many rounds come down to cross-ex and you will miss a huge opportunity if you are not prepared, polite and assertive.

Thank you.

former policy debater, judged a few pf rounds before

I am new to judging, but I do have some previous PF debate experience. As a general rule, it is always helpful to weigh your arguments and to well-define your value criterion.

I am usually ok with speed, but if I am not flowing, then most likely I am also not following your arguments. Don't compromise clarity for speed.

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.

Bio/History: I am a junior at Bard Queens HS. This is my first year of judging, however I have been debating for the past six years. I currently mainly do PF but I have parli experience as well (World Schools and AP).

How I will evaluate your round: Aff needs to prove that their side is better than the status quo and they need to provide solvency. Neg has to prove that there are serious disadvantages to voting aff. Please please please extend your arguments through. If you are going to bring it up in final focus, set it up in summary (no extending through ink). Don't just repeat your arguments in final focus, that's a waste of time.

Arguments: I am going into a round with a blank slate. Tell me why your impacts matter. Explain your links. I will follow an argument if it is explained well but you should do the heavy lifting for me.

This should go without saying but please be respectful. No racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or generally hateful language. This will automatically lose you the round.

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 didn't do pf in high school

weigh and warrant your arguments

i want to see all of your cards

This is my first tournament as a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and ensure that you can articulate your arguments well. Please do not be overly rude in cross-fire. I am very excited to be here!

I am a parent judge with over two years of experience. Generally I am lay, but I will be flowing the majority of the time (not crossfires, if a major point is brought up in cross, it should be referenced in the next speech). I would rather you speak with clarity and at a moderate pace. Please do not use jargon or abbreviations without explanation. Additionally, show me a clear link between your warrant and your impact.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for the past three years .

This should go without saying but I see it happen every tournament .Please, be nice to your opponents!!! I have little patience for people who are rude, cocky, rolling their eyes ,obnoxious, etc. in round. It really is unacceptable and you will be penalized for it ! You are here to debate your topic so do it strong and respectful ! Please make this round enjoyable for everyone and don't ruin it!

Voting

I vote for the team with the most persuasive argument. The soundest vote for me is an offensive argument........this means you clearly state your argument while also pointing out the comparative merits over your opponents.

I want you to convince me to vote for you based on your arguments not by the speed you talk . If you talk too fast your speaker points will reflect tht and if you speak so fast that it's difficult to understand you you will lose because I can't vote for a argument I can not hear !

Crossfire

I don't care if you sit or stand during crossfire . Do whatever you're the most comfortable with.

Evidence

Please do not call for evidence often unless you feel tht there is a real concern for its accuracy . If I feel you are calling for evidence purposely to distract or sway round you will be penalized .

I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible. If you tell me to call for something, I most likely will unless it's really unimportant for my decision. I may also call for evidence if something sounds suspect/too good to be true .

Speaker points

Articulate your cases and you will be rewarded . The more you know your case and can articulate it the higher your speaks . Reading from the screen of your computer like a robot will not get you high speaks .

IF YOU SAY things that are SEXIST , RACIST ETC or act rudely as mentioned earlier , I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. The threshold for me dropping you is pretty high so please never make me do this.

Overall, I am here to hear a strong debate and have a enjoyable experience ! I hope you enjoy the debate as well and have fun !Good luck 🍀

Former Speech competitor (high school & college), well used debate judge and coach. Currently, Speech Coach & Co-director at Delbarton. The 18/19 school year is my 20th year involved in this activity in some fashion. I've been doing this too long, give me a reason to keep doing it (part joke/part not....like 1:99).

SPEECH
In Interp, I am pro-argument, especially after competing at the college level for a couple years. This can really separate you from the opposition. Sometimes, I can break a ranking tie just by which one I liked better. When that happens, I always say something like "I just liked [the 1] better" or "I connected with [those other two] more". If I constantly harp about an issue and you get a 4 or something like that, you should be able to infer why. Also, see the last sentence of my Extemp & IMP expectations section below.

In PA Events, I give you a list of grievances: Phony/Robotic/Overly Practiced or rehearsed gestures, rushed through points, and not letting your jokes hit. You have to take your time and let your stories and jokes hit.

In Extemp & IMP, tie everything back to your thesis. I am not a fan of personal stories/references in the body of a speech, unless as witty on-tops in extemp or AGDs. I quasi-flow speeches, so don't be surprised if a decent chunk of your ballot is just me writing down what you said or what you said with comments (like "Huh?", "What are you doing?" or "Ooooooh! Nice!").

PF
Number of PF Rounds judged in career: Can safely say in the hundreds
Number of PF Rounds judged 19/20 year: 5

I've been judging PF since it began, so I've heard the infamous NBA dress code topic & remember the cancelled mosque topic. This is the second year in a row time that I have not already seen at least 10 rounds by this time of the year. I say this because I am very old school in my approach, leave LD (even though I have experience there and miss judging that) and Policy (NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!) out of the round.

I am a 50/50 judge in terms of content/argument and delivery. I am big on clash, but don't use that to say that you should win the round because your opponents did not counter Con. 5, Sub 8 or junk like that. If the foundation of your argument is, for example, Utilitarianism and the opposition never talks about it in their rebuttals, then you're more likely to get my ballot. I also like to use standard logic. Also, as some folks at Columbia probably know, I hear your misspeaks very easily. Be careful with word choice. I do like to flow if I have my legal pad with me, it may look more like a Parli flow, but you shouldn't really be looking at my flow anyway.

Cards are starting to get really annoying. Don't just ask for cards. There better be a darn good reason.
I don't mind off-time road maps.

I hate E-ballots. Don't be surprised if I give oral RFDs and leave your ballot blank (especially if I am told that "the internet is spotty").

CONGRESS
If you speak later on a bill, I would love it if you referred to others' speeches. I know I am only judging, but you should be trying to convince me to vote on your side of the bill.

I have experience in judging and/or coaching LD, PF, Parli, Congress, and Speech. So plan accordingly.

Good luck.

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.

~ Public Forum ~

I did PF all four years of my high school career, and now I'm a first-year at Columbia. I currently coach.

I am not a very picky judge. I'm game with theory. I'm equally game with ordinary, stocky arguments. Run whatever you feel most comfortable running, however you want to run it, and I'll be happy.

When it comes time to make a decision, I generally start by evaluating the framework debate. Then, I assess each team's arguments under what I perceive to be the winning framework. In my view, a winning argument must always have two things: defensible links and clear impacting. Provide both of these things, and provide them to a greater extent than your opponent, and I will pick you up. Narrative is also a plus.

A few other considerations:

- Offense should be extended through the Summary and Final Focus. If any part of your offense (either its constituent links or its impact) doesn't make into either of these speeches, I will not consider it in my decision. Turns count as offense.

- Defense can be brought through to Final Focus, unless it's front-lined.

- Cards matter, but don't over-rely on them. I value clear warranting over clear evidence. (That being said, please have evidence). I also don't call cards unless I am told to. I also don't really care whether or not you extend cards into your Final Focus unless they're paramount to your argument. In this case, actually tell me what your card says; don't just refer to it as "the *insert last name* analysis" or "the *insert university/think-tank* card."

- Don't make offensive arguments. You don't know what experiences I or your opponents have had, so assume a veil of ignorance and talk about sensitive topics as if someone who has personal connections to those topics is in the room with you. I also do not take kindly to sexism.

- Please weigh. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and make my own illogical conclusions about whose argument is stronger. There is a 50% chance that you will not be happy with the resulting decision.

- If you make me laugh with a good joke, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention Rose McGowan or the Alamo, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention clowns in absolutely any context, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you do any combination of these things, I will not give you more than one half-speaker point. However, I will be thoroughly pleased.

- Pay attention to my body language. If I nod at you, I have gotten your point and you don't need to elaborate further.

That's it! Take a deep breath, and have fun. If you have any questions, feel free to find me before or after the round.

~ Parli ~

I have somewhat limited experience in this form of debate, so chances are I am about as good at it as you are. Keep that in mind as you enter the round – don't be intimidated, and if you ask for my advice, take my opinion with a grain of salt. Although I do decide whether you win or lose the round, so maybe not. It really is up to you.

With that said, some things to note about my paradigm:

- I will not vote on an argument without a warrant. I would rather vote on "soft characteristics" (your framing of the round, the consistency of your argumentation) than a warrantless argument. I am especially strict about this requirement in Parli, where you can't give me substantive evidence.

- Don't make offensive arguments. You don't know what experiences I or your opponents have had, so assume a veil of ignorance and talk about sensitive topics as if someone who has personal connections to those topics is in the room with you. I also do not take kindly to sexism.

- Please weigh. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and make my own illogical conclusions about whose argument is stronger. There is a 50% chance that you will not be happy with the resulting decision.

- If you make me laugh with a good joke, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention Rose McGowan or the Alamo, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you mention clowns in absolutely any context, I will give you an additional half-speaker point. If you do any combination of these things, I will not give you more than one half-speaker point. However, I will be thoroughly pleased.

- Pay attention to my body language. If I nod at you, I have gotten your point and you don't need to elaborate further.

That's it! Take a deep breath, and have fun. If you have any questions, feel free to find me before or after the round.

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and less sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. Its called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?

I'm a lay judge.

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

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

"Assuming a pill exists that compels the user to tell the truth, THW destroy it." — Recent fun motion

UPDATE FOR COLUMBIA 2022 (VPF)

Read the following sections: Overview, General Paradigm, Miscellany and Weird Aside on Evidence -- all else is Parli specific.

Relevant information for PF: I have a strong distaste for theory but as per modern paradigmatic standards, I'm happy to evaluate it as warranted in the round. The bar to convince me to pick up or drop a team on a theory call is likely pretty high. I will tank you if the theory is strategic and not based on something reasonable.

Regarding evidence in PF. I actually debated PF some in High School, I'm not unfamiliar with evidence and carded debate. The maxim that evidence doesn't replace warranting is still true, though, and I will reward better warranted arguments over better carded arguments assuming the belivability of the claim is constant.

Ask me questions before the round if you have questions -- I'd love to get to know you as well -- debate is a game, but we are all members of the community of debate and I'd love to foster that as much as possible. Ask me questions about college debate if you're a senior (or not) -- I'll connect you with the debate team of your institution if you know where you're going etc. I love verbal RFDs so will probably give one. I don't understand PF speaker points so take those with a grain of salt.

I don't claim to be an expert in PF or anything close. I do understand argumentation, warranting, impacting, weighing, etc, and want to see all of that in a round at the highest quality possible.

Parliamentary Debate

If you read nothing else, read this: don't spread; don't tag team; keep stuff in your time; be wary of theory; impact; weigh; warrant.

Overview

I debated for four years as a student at Stuyvesant High School and currently debate APDA for Columbia University. I have experience teaching debate to middle school and high school students, I tab way too often, and have lead more judge orientations than I care remember. If you care, I'm the president of APDA, the oldest and best college debate league.

People tend to care a lot about these paradigms — I really don't — if you have specific questions, ask me before rounds, in GA, whatever. Please do ask if something is unclear!

I run whacky cases, I debate whacky cases, I choose whacky motions — I really don't mind a lot if it's done well and respectful and conducive to a good round of debate.

General Paradigm

So everyone likes to claim they're a tabula rasa judge. I think this is nonsensical. Obviously personal views will not influence the round, but as arguments leave the sphere of the normal and easily bought, the burden of warranting well increases.

It's reasonably straightforward for me to buy, for example, that individuals do things that make them happy, and since eating ice cream makes people happy, people eat ice cream; but is comparatively hard for me to buy that actually, instead of eating the ice cream in my refrigerator, I'm going to make a 2 day trek across tundra to obtain some of the same ice cream.

I don't mean to discourage complex, strange, or whacky argumentation; rather, I aim to encourage elegant, simple, but robust warranting.

Theory

Theory has its place (LD / Policy / new PF circuit / your dinner table maybe ?) — and it's almost never in a parliamentary debate round.

Please limit any kritiks, theory calls, whatever else theory masquerades as nowadays, to instances where the use therein is warranted. Unless something is tightly or abusively defined / modeled or one team is engaging in reprehensible behavior, there is no need for theory — debate the resolution. This is an instance where I am certainly not tabula rasa, I will almost always, except in these previous instances, assume that the theory is being used in an effort to actively exclude the other team simply because the assumption is that I, as a seasoned debater, can follow it (which I can). Except in the caveated cases, the burden is on the team using a kritik or some other theory to prove to me they are not doing this.

If you want to argue about mutual exclusivity of a counterplan, or whatever else you want to do, please be sure to not forget to warrant, and explain things in reasonable terms. Just as you're not going to go off using advanced economic terms in rounds, and instead going to explain how a bubble works (hopefully), don't just use a pick, actually explain and warrant it. And on that, a counterplan had better be mutually exclusive, or at least functionally so, given certain tradeoffs.

Expect lower speaker points and to lose in cases of over eagerly applied theory.

Miscellany

I don't want to warrant for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to impact for you. Don't make me.

I don't want to weigh for you. Don't make me.

I am not going to get into what makes a warrant 'good' or an impact effective or weighing necessary, please as your coach, varsity, mentor, or email me if none of the previous options are available to you (johnrod.john@gmail.com).

The final two speeches of a round (the rebuttal or crystallization speeches) are NOT to restate every point in the round, but instead are meant to synthesize, weigh, and flesh out impacts. Please do that. The most effective rebuttal speeches focus on two to three levels of conditional weighing. I won't vote on some random unimpacted and unweighed pull through.

Don't spread — think about a speed a non debater would be able to reasonably follow. This usually means something fast, but not double breathing. Side note: someone who enjoys spreading please explain to me how this doesn't destroy the educational value in learning how to be a rhetorical and persuasive speaker please!

Instead of focusing on a breadth of argumentation, please focus on a depth of argumentation that is complex, and includes a high level of weighing structures and effective warranting.

Tag teaming — never seen this in parli outside of the west coast. Don't do it, you'll have your own chance to speak.

POIs — take them, use them, respect them. Don't go back and forth — if I wanted crossfire I'd be at a PF tournament. Seriously. Also, these are supposed to be fun and humorous — if you don't believe me, watch the House of Commons — however, you are HS debaters and probably take everything way too seriously, therefore I'll settle for not rude.

Offtime Stuff — No. You don't have to tell me what you're going to do, just do it.

Weird Aside on Evidence

Please don't confuse providing evidence with providing warrants. Simply because you were able to effectively use Google and find someone who said something doesn't mean that it's a) true b) important c) relevant d) it will happen again e) isn't without opposing evidence. Please always default to explaining why something happened, not simply that it did, or that someone believes it will happen again.

I have never once picked a team up for the quality of a card, and no round should ever come down to a piece of evidence in any way, shape, or form.

Hello,

I am a lay parent judge of Acton-Boxborough, with a son who has done debate for the past 3 years.

My ability to understand fast speeches and write quickly is limited; please make sure you are able to effectively get your point across in a manner where I can understand things.

More importantly, when comparing arguments, while you might give a couple of reasons your argument is better than your opponent, at the same time your opponent will also do the same. Please tell me the reasons why I should believe your comparisons over their comparisons, but do so well enough all throughout round so it is easy to remember. Do this same thing with your response and tell me why your response to their case or the response you do when you defend your own case matter more than theirs. In the end, whoever does this effectively is the one that wins, as the debaters are the ones that provide the logic and reasoning for the arguments.

Keep debates clean, no yelling in crossfires

I am a teacher at Leadership and Public Service, and currently teach economics. This is my first time judging, so please speak slowly, and make your arguments clear. I am not that informed with the topic as much as you, so it is up to you to explain to me what you are talking about.

Please keep track of your own prep time, do not be rude in crossfire, and don't go over time.

Have fun!

I am a new judge. Please provide support for facts, arguments and conclusions.

Son here,

Smart lay judge. Be courteous and clear. If you say something blatantly false or offensive he'll probably drop you.

For Jan19:

He has a background in economics and works in investment banking. He knows basic macro, but its been a while since he was in academic economics so he may not remember specifics.

I am a parent.

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.

Parent judge, but former LD debater. Judge PF based solely on which side carries the most arguments weighted for relative importance of arguments based on frameworks provided by the debaters, not my own.

I was a local/regional/national circuit debater in both LD and PF for 4 years for Timothy Christian School, but I spent my senior year solely debating Varsity PF. I am a stock judge who requires a resolutional debate. DO NOT SPREAD.

Some things to consider:

1. Extensions. If you want me to look at an argument in your final speech, it is essential that you extend it previously.

2. Outweigh. Give me a reason as to why your 25% is more important than your opponent's $200,000. Tell me how the people you are affecting are more important than your opponent's. Essentially, do not make me assume anything and do not make me pick which is more important.

3. Write the ballot for me. Give me clear voters during the round. Literally, tell me what to write on my ballot. Again, do not make me pick which is more important. Tell me why your side is more important.

4. I do have a sense of humor, and I will consider that in a round if done well.

I will vote off of the flow, so make sure to signpost. I will only intervene on the account that there are no voting issues during the round and no real arguments standing, that being said be clear and very selective.

Regarding speaks, make sure you are respectful, or I will not hesitate to lower your speak points.

Overall, debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge, so make sure you that every round is focused around this.

I am a lay judge. Please do NOT rush in your speech. I value logic and persuasive argument from debaters. I do not tolerate any racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive comments, and any of the aforementioned will lead to a reduction of your speaker points. Please be polite and respect your opponents, and most of all have fun! That is the purpose of debate after all.

I am a debate coach in PF, have experience with judging PF and have judged Congress for 1 year. To judge PF I rely on the following guidelines along with my debate experience as an observer, coach, and judge to inform how I strive to judge every debate. Included here, I am sure is info sourced from others. Here is how I judge:

I am not an interventionist, I have seen judges do this, it hurts both sides and has no place in a fair and unbiased tournament. In debate judging I try to keep what I look for simple:

Every argument a debater makes should come down to an impact.

Have a clear statement of the claim that tells me what the argument is.

Provide a warrant, logically explain the reason why the claim is true.

Provide evidence - empirical data that supports the claim and warrant with facts, examples, expert analysis.

Provide impact- positive or negative consequences that explain why the argument is significant to the judges vote.

Debaters are responsible for comparing their evidence and impacts to explain why they have won a particular argument and important to establish which voting issues should have priority in my decision.

I evaluate a team on the quality of arguments made, not on my personal beliefs, nor on issues I think a particular side should have covered.

I write notes throughout the debate, and will use these to assess the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. Those debaters demonstrating logical reasoning, maturity of thought, civility and effectiveness of communication earn higher speaker points.

Debaters should use evidence, examples, and analogies for the purpose of illustration. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support their claims; well-chosen, relevant evidence strengthens – but will not replace – arguments.

Simply, the pro should convince me that the resolution should be adopted, and the con should prove that the resolution should be rejected. When deciding I ask, “If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?”

Teams should strive to provide a straightforward perspective on the resolution; I will discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only serve to confuse the opposing team. Clear communication is important. I will weigh arguments to the extent that they are clearly explained, and discount arguments that are too fast, too muddled, or too full of debate jargon to be understood by an intelligent high school student or a well-informed citizen.

I will not penalize a team for failing to understand their opponent’s unclear arguments, but if you find yourself on the receiving end of one, demonstrate you can handle such a strategy with directness & grace. Debaters who use abusive arguments lose points with me. As a guide for what's abusive or not, if it's denying your opponent debating ground or making it impossible to win, it's likely abusive. (e.g., Think topic interpretation that gives an opponent no or little ground)

Speakers should appeal through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. I will use points to provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative quality of debating by each side. I will write constructive suggestions for improvement to the debaters on the ballot. Dishonesty (manufacturing, misrepresenting research sources, and or making claims (false or not) against your opponent regarding same, etc.) will be referred to the tournament directors to address/resolve.

I am a seasoned journalist and editor who is new to debate judging. Please be polite in round and clear in your argumentation. Explain what you are responding to in your speeches and don't go too fast. I will evaluate the round based on final focus.

Public Forum:

I am a former policy debater and have a year of experience judging public forum. I stick to the flow and will not evaluate new arguments in the final focus that I cannot trace back to earlier speeches. Do your thing and I will evaluate the debate accordingly. Feel free to ask questions

If you think it matters, my poliicy paradigm is below

7/31/2017

email - marguliesmorgan@gmail.com

tl;dr - Two important things:

1. Tech over truth

2. An argument is a claim+warrant+impact, do your thing and I'll evaluate the debate accordingly

Who?

I debated for four years at Nevada Union High School in California and qualified to the TOC with two bids my senior year. I liked to think that I was fairly flexible but I went for the kritik pretty often. With that being said, I will vote on any argument, as long as you do the better debating.

Args

T – I will default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. The violation must be clearly explained , if it is not very clear by the end of the debate I will default aff. The most important part of the standards debate is the impact (duh). Limits and ground are NOT impacts, you must tell me why they are important.

Kritiks – This is the argument I read the most often. You do you. You must explain the link in the context of the aff and I really don’t like links of omissions. Make sure the alternative solves the impacts of the kritik. Don’t assume that anyone in the round knows what you are talking about until you have explained your arguments.

Disads – Okay lets be real, the disads are garbage on this topic, but!! if you do it well, you will win the debate. I think evidence comparison and evidence quality is very important in these debates so make sure your ev says what you are saying it says(?). The 2nr/2ar must do impact calculus please please.

Counterplans – I go for the states counter plan a lot and I think it is one of the most over powered arguments in debate. Write your cp text smart so you don't link to solvency deficits and cheat as much as you can. Make sure there is an explanation of how the net benefit works / how it spikes out of the disad and you will be all good. (Also 2NC counterplans are always justified and you should make as many as you can to solve 2ac offense sorry not sorry)

Theory – You gotta do what you gotta do, make sure you impact out the standards. I will evaluate the debate neutrally but with that being said: "No neg fiat" is the worst argument in debate and I think the neg gets as many conditional advocacies as they want.

K affs – Non-traditional affirmatives I think can be very creative and educational. Be passionate and if you understand what you are talking about, you should be good. Make sure you have warrants for your structural claims and do your thaang. These affs should be at least tangentially related to the topic.

Framework - K affs are really cool and all but so is framework. I go for framework in a more limits/skills/procedural fairness way go for whatever. This position when combined with nuanced case arguments is definitely the move. Defend the house.

Be kind, respect your opponent, and have fun!

If you have any questions you can ask me before the round or email me!

- Lay judge with some experience judging (won't catch spreading or anything more than moderately fast speaking, won't understand terms like internal link or warrant)

- Can flow fairly well but won't catch card names

- Knows how debate works so won't evaluate things that are new in final focus, etc.

I debated two years of Varsity LD and Varsity PF in high school. I’m a year post college now and it’s been a few years since I’ve been around or judged any kind of debate. I'll probably stop flowing if you start spreading. At the same time, I'll evaluate any kind of argument. Feel free to make it interesting or unconventional. No need to be overly formal. Be clear, respectful, and make good args and you'll get good speaks. Also time yourselves and each other.

If you paraphrase a piece of evidence and your opponent calls the card and all you have is a link to an article and you have to control F your way through the page to find what you are referencing I WILL NOT EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. CUT YOUR CARDS.

I am a parent judge. My daughter has debated PF for years. Please speak slowly and explain things clearly. Politeness is appreciated.

I used to do PF for Regis High School. I go to Columbia now.

Don't be mean. Don't misrepresent evidence. Quality of args over quantity is def preferable.

I am a parent judge.

I will take notes during the debate, but not necessarily "flow".

I will vote for arguments that are explained well and that I understand.

Please be civil during crossfires.

Good luck!

Public Forum Paradigm

I will judge as a non-specialist or citizen judge. This means that clear and persuasive arguments will prevail despite any information or bias that I may have about the subject matter. I will look for solid logic, reasoning and analysis which uses sound evidence but is not driven by it. I prefer quality and depth of arguments to quantity of arguments. When countering an opponent’s argument it often becomes apparent how deeply a debater understands the subject matter if they can grasp their opponent’s argument and yet clearly distinguish it from their position. I expect respect and decorum for everyone in the room.

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

Theory
Theory shells read with "internal links" are annoying and repetitive. For example, if ground is good, you should just explain in the context of how your loss of ground was unfair in the debate taking place.
I like a HEAVY standards debate and default to reasonability. Competing Interpretations should be justified

I don't like blimpy theory args.


K's
Yes. Do it well. I'm pretty comfortable with whatever you got as long as we don't hide behind cards. Explain your argument, what it means for me as a judge at a debate tournament, and what my ballot is doing in the back of the room. Tell me what you think an argument is and why you've won it.

Framing

In front of me, the money is in the substance/impact debate. I don't care how you do it, but the earlier you do it the better. Directly comparing the consequences/ ethical issues within the debate is fine. Of course, do what you do.

I like good framework and am very inclined to vote for it, if it is very good and impactful


Don't be blippy,
Don't read your logic homework in front of me
You can really do whatever you want in/with your CX time. I enjoy the show and no I'm not going to flow it. Make moments count. I will be paying attention.

Topicality

I think the Aff should be related to the topic in some way. What that is remains up to the debaters, but I am open to voting on a T interpretation that holds the Aff to a specific reading of the resolution based on the text of the topic you received before the round.


Policy Affs
Please slow down at the plan /counterplan text because I write them down. 2AC's should always include a framing issue against the K or anything with a heavy emphasis on timeframe. 2AR's should have impact calculus (timeframe, magnitude, ethical preclusion). I'll probably call for a lot of stuff after the debate, but please don't give it to me during the debate.

DA/CP

I love evidence heavy , well impacted disad debates as net benefits to a counterplan. I appreciate this portion of debate tech more than any other.
PICs are more than welcome , but you should probably only get a single conditional one to have the most game on the theory debate. Once you get past 2 conditional items in the 1NC, the theory game is up in the air for who wins it.

Tech Preferences for PF

Collapsing/Crystallizing - give me 1-4 points that you want me to evaluate - what's most important.

Weighing - I like clarity about what is important to your team and why your arguments are more important/impactful. You need to tell me why your arguments have more magnitude, probability, or are more pressing.

Organization/Signposting - be clean and clear.

Im a lay judge and I mostly judge PF.

I look for fact to back up all assertions. I expect debaters to speak slowly and clearly or I wont flow the round. I weigh on magnitude of impact and contentions should have proper link chains throughout or I drop it from the flow. I never weigh on cross, but I do pay attention.

For LD, I'm super lay and I really like traditional arguments. Don't even think about spreading. I don't buy progressive arguments too often. T shells should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

I’m a new judge for PF so don’t speak too fast.

Be clean on your flow

Don’t interupt each other during cross X. Ask a question and listen for an answer and vice versa.

I'm a fairly vanilla judge -- remember to 1) weigh your arguments against your opponents', indicating why your own have more heft/are more important; 2) clash, responding precisely to your opponents instead of engaging in straw man; 3) summarize, because you have many contentions/subpoints/pieces of evidence/hopes/aspirations, and I can't keep track of them all.

I'm 1) a flow judge and 2) a former debater; these, taken together, mean that I like my flows when they are organized, and when you speak with enough coherence for me to understand you. Extending this, I value enunciation over quantity: if your case is 900+ words, I advise trimming it.

No "off time road maps." Your 2/4 minute speech should not need a table of contents.

I don't flow crossfires, but I do listen. Interpret this however you will.

Keep track of your own and your opponents' prep time. Ten seconds after their time is over, say clearly but not aggressively, "I believe your prep time is over."

Unlike most judges, I may ask you a question or three, both for clarity and to test your arguments. Depending on the question, I may ask your opponents for their perspective on your question also.

I don't not disclose, but unless one side is noticeably more convincing or horrible, I won't. Comments will be provided in ballots, because the next round needs to get on.

If you use a philosophical idea (e.g. categorical imperative, veil of ignorance, social contract) and mispronounce the thinker's name, I will take off two speaker points.*

If you use a philosophical idea and explain it facilely or incorrectly, I will count it against you. I strongly penalize that sort of debatespeak.

If you are the first round of the day (typically 8/8:30 am) and you bring me a cup of non-DD black coffee, I will give you two speaker points.*

An intelligent, correct, and apt use of at least three of the following words/phrases in one speech will gain you one speaker point:

Balkanization

Heuristic

Cacophonous

Sufficient to rise, but free to fall

Spineless ectoplasm

Plasmodesmata

(Asterisked items are humorous, but contain a grain of truth/life advice. E.g. the mispronunciation of thinkers' names: while I won't (and am not allowed to) take points off for mispronounciation, it will only make you look bad if you pronounce Kant as a homophone to "can't." You will also probably be the butt of a joke I tell my friends the next day.)

Hello! My name is Grace Panetta and I did public forum debate all 4 years of high school on the Massachusetts and national circuit. I'm not an especially strict or picky judge, but if you stick the following guidelines you should do well:

1. Please.weigh.your.arguments! I know how easy it is in summary and final focus to get bogged down in specific points or cards, especially if there are little things you feel are inaccurate. But if you take a step back, weigh the 2-3 most important arguments in the round, and explain to me why you're winning, my job is going to be a lot more easier and you'll probably have a higher chance of winning. I will not do the weighing for you.

2. I consider myself to be a relatively non-interventionist judge. If you or your opponents say something I know to be factually incorrect, I won't factor it into my decision unless someone calls it out as such.

3. Please don't waste a ton of time calling cards. If something sounds too good to be true, it very well might be, and you should ask to see a card if you have serious concerns about its validity, but please try to keep it to a minimum. I was once a debater too, and can easily tell when teams call cards for the sole purpose of biding time/making their opponents nervous. As a judge, I'll only call a card if it's disputed during the round. I want to waste as little time looking at cards so our round doesn't go way over time and tab doesn't get mad at me :)

4. I know the rules of PF technically allow it, but I probably won't weigh new evidence brought up in final focus very heavily. You shouldn't even need to bring up new evidence in FF to win.

Good luck to everyone competing!

Third year judging public forum

You have to convince me why you side's contentions using logic or trust worthy evidence, do I need say... If your speech does not make sense to me for reasons of speed or convoluted logic or if in my judgement it didn’t make sense to your opponents I would drop the contention from consideration

expect a well informed judge who flows, expect an unbiased judgment based solely on team's arguments against each other's logic/information, who enjoys that task as a challenge

Coach at Scarsdale with experience judging LD and PF.

Good with anything you want to run—stay clear when spreading.

If you wish to have one, please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

ellelaurenreed@gmail.com

Conflicts: Sehome HS, Bellingham HS, Squalicum HS (WA)

* are new/significant

*UPS 2023- I will vote on anything yall are likely to read and am somewhat in the literature for coaching. I've noticed a lot of good LARRP debaters on our circuit, but haven't judged a very high level LARRP v LARRP round in a while, so if you plan on doing any kinda crazy stuff like plan tricks or plan repair maybe explain it in a tiny bit more depth.

*online debate note* from my limited experience judging online, I/my wifi seem to generally be able to follow a pretty good speed, though if you are very fast your mic will probably clip words. Know your mic quality, it changes how fast you can go and be clear. I will 'clear' 2-3 times, watch chat messages. I flow speeches not docs. Also, somehow, some of ya'll steal prep more than in-person with less stuff to do, don't do that.

Overview-
-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/bad speaks. *This includes the cards you read and strategies you go for*
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! I flow speeches, not docs, and it is just good debate/spreading to differentiate tags and cards this way. also somewhat applies to important analytics
-*dont be sus: don't clip. dont message/talk to your friend or coach about the debate round in progress. dont have teammate in the room whispering tips to you. It really isn't complicated. I've disqualified teams over all of these. Most of the time, the team doing this stuff would win straight up if they would just think and debate normally. I may give you a warning, especially in JV, but I don't have to.

I try to base speaks on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Not too stingy, but i think point inflation is bad and rarely give 29.5 and above. I appreciate really good debates and try to reward good/ outstanding performances, technically or in 'the vibe'. Creativity gets rewarded pretty heavily

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.

specifics-

I debated LD in HS and got a few bids. I also did policy debate for NYU in college. I am probably more familiar with LD still, but I've judged and debated a lot of good CX rounds. I mostly read critical or performative arguments (especially in policy), and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and fundamentally I will vote on whatever.

*note here for Washingtondebaters *- i mostly debated on the east coast and Texas, so i am way more familiar with tricks, phil, and pomo than the average judge on our circuit, despite my somewhat policy background. Feel free to read any of this stuff (well please) and i will appreciate it.

I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness. about disclosure- i do not like deployment of disclosure theory outside of norms. If the aff has not been broken, or the debater has not competed at a tournament yet (or even worse, at all this year), I will likely reduce speaks for reading disclosure, even if i will vote on it. I really really don't like contact info theory as a way to establish a violation for a debater who is otherwise disclosing and following norms. I will absolutely reduce speaks for this in all instances. Other stuff (full text vs cites, must disclose to black/other group of debaters/ other reasonable deployments) is totally fine.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args*, oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr (some debate about what to evaluate when is fine, but this being shelled out is a really tough buy for me).

I strongly dislike how the DSRB 'must talk about personal experience/positionally' framework shell is deployed in some (both LD and CX) rounds. If you read this arg, at minimum, your performance should meet the interp. Reading it, for example, with a ton of tricks, nibs, skep, and fairness first without any discussion of your own identity is anti-black and insulting to the context these arguments originated in (and, often, very violent in round). I have not intervened against this argument, but I have and will reduced speaks. I am also very very open to voting on prefcon and other offensive arguments when this shell is deployed in an anti-black way.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example; there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume neg (i think me writing aff here previously was a typo), flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: ****Im more likely to discard a flow/impact as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense****

I'm cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like. make sure your justifications are good (and no fascist stuff please)

PF

*this section was written several years ago. I don't know how it holds up to the current meta, assume my ideas are still similar, if maybe somewhat more mellowed out*

I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me *this also applies to any other debate event when allowed by tournament*

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad may not be the same as what i think is intuitively bad

I am a sophomore at Barnard and compete with the Columbia Parli Team. I competed in PF for four years at Sidwell Friends School. I'll flow and can handle moderate speed, but prefer for there to be clear signposting, especially in early speeches, in order to best understand your arguments. The best argumentation should include extensions of your arguments (with convincing responses to rebuttals from the opposing side) and thoughtful weighing.

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 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.

I did PF for four years at Shikellamy High School, where I placed 8th at NSDA nationals, and am currently a senior on the Columbia Debate Society.

I flow and am willing to follow *some* speed. I will listen and flow to all arguments so long as they are reasonably warranted and are not offensive/violent.

Like other judges, I expect teams that I judge to warrant, impact, and weigh. To be more precise, and to touch on my personal preferences, teams should develop and prove their arguments with evidence and logical explanation. Thus, if a team offers cards to impact their case and assert that their contention is true, but fails to provide robust reasoning, I consider that argument to be deficient. For example, "Scholar A says that Y happens" is deficient, but "Scholar A says that Y happens *because* of ..." is not deficient. Beyond offering explanations of why their case is true, the best teams will develop and extend their arguments throughout the entire round (all, or almost all, speeches). Finally, teams should make a habit of weighing arguments in the round. While attacking the veracity of opponents' claims is persuasive, it is also worthwhile to weigh arguments as if they are true to show why your arguments are more important (ex: Even if my opponents' second contention is true, our first contention still outweighs because ...). Doing so will make me happy (yay!) and also increase your chances of winning.

I hope the aforementioned preferences make sense, and I look forward to watching everyone debate :)

I did PF for two years at Boston Latin School, and competed extensively in British Parliamentary debate, with some experience in American Parliamentary, at Sciences Po Paris and Columbia University.

I will flow on paper; speed is fine if not excessive. Please treat opposing arguments with charity and respect, and avoid offensive content.

I am most likely to vote for you if you extend arguments through the round and weigh their impacts comparatively with your opponent's.

I'm a parent judge, and have been judging at various public forum tournaments for the past 6 years.

I have worked for 30+ years as a litigating attorney, so I understand what works as a persuasive argument. I value logical arguments supported by evidence (not just conclusory statements). Tie your arguments to the resolution, and explain based on the evidence and logic why I should vote in your favor on the merits. You should address and not ignore your adversaries' points.

Please do not speak too fast, make sure you have the evidence ready and available if it is called for, and be civil and respectful at all times.

I did PF for three years at Jesuit High School in New Orleans, and I am now in my second year of parliamentary debate at Fordham University. I graduated in 2017, but I am fairly new to judging high school debate.

Public Forum:

I can handle some speed, but at the end of the day I did PF in high school and not LD/CX, so I am probably not prepared to judge spreading.

I will pay attention in cross-fire, but I will not be flowing. If you want to make sure that I consider an idea from cross-fire, bring it up in one of your speeches. As always, make sure to extend your arguments and to weigh them clearly.

IMPORTANT THING: EVIDENCE ETHICS

By the end of my PF career, I noticed a worrying trend of teams misconstruing evidence. In fact, I think that the structure of Public Forum may incentivize misconstruing evidence because opponents have very little prep-time to analyze your cards and realize they are misconstrued at all. If one team calls into question the legitimacy of the other's evidence, I will ask to take a look at the card (and preferably the whole PDF) after the round. Please have an honest debate.

I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge. I have judged two full tournament previously, and I look forward to judging this tournament.

Hi, this is her daughter speaking.

My mom is a lay judge but she has judged pf tournaments for the past 3 years. That being said, don't be progressive in your arguments. No theory's, no K's, no spreading. She votes off of "good points" and "clarity". If you sound good and you are logical, she'll vote you up.

*UPDATE* she will drop you if you don't respond to an argument and your opponent extends that argument in summary in FF

also, she will not evaluate new responses in FF unless it's some sort of weighing analysis, just like all judges should do. She is attempting to be as "technical" as possible, but then again, she is a parent lol.

Hey everyone, this is Sriram from Algonquin TZ, and you are about to be judged by my dad, so please show him a quality round.

Understand that at his core, he is a parent judge.

How He Will Evaluate Rounds

Although he has no debate experience like us competitors, he has an extremely rich trove of knowledge, and he will make sure to listen to the warrants and would appreciate really clear analysis. To borrow from Ben Konstan's paradigm: "Will he listen to weighing? Absolutely. Will he like if you read off a gazillion cards? Almost certainly not." Collapse the round into a few easy to understand, logical argument, explain why your winning, weigh, and you've got a great shot at winning the round. If you start yelling "REMEMBER ALGONQUIN 18 ITS A CLEAN TURN ON THEIR ENTIRE CASE," you clearly have not read this paradigm, and you will probably lose.

Expertise

He has a PhD. in CS,so he will definitely know a lot about technology arguments. He also has a lot of historical knowledge as well as general knowledge, so he knows more about H1B Visas than most people (especially true considering he is an immigrant from India). And While we are here, lets talk about respect.

Respect

My dad will always expect the best of you: show up on time, do not speak over each other or the judge, and always be silent when the other team is speaking. Do not let crossfire devolve into a shouting match - sort through the chaos and be responsible, and you will be rewarded. Please do not start bashing India or for that matter any country, race, religion, gender, or culture, as that is an instant L you do not want.

Speed

He can understand a moderate speed; don't start spearing fast, and don't dare go near spreading levels and you will be fine.

Lingo

He can understand the basic things, but make sure you don't sacrifice clarity and tempo for shouting out debate terminology

Ks/T/CPs

Stop. Don't go near these, don't mention them, don't use them. Instant L.

Speaks

Anywhere from 25-29. If he is blown away by your poise, presentation, and general brilliance you could get a 30. Won't drop below a 26/27 unless you're completely incoherent, offensive, or other special circumstances.

Experience

No formal judging experience, though he as judged a lot of rounds at this point(~3 years). He also has heard me talking about rounds for the past few years, so keep that in mind.

Summary/FF

Big picture, slow down. He really wants a strong narrative first and foremost, supported by good logic and strong evidence.

I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in the activity for 20 some odd years

LD

These days I tend to tab rather than judge so I am generally out of practice. Treat me as you would an educated parent judge. Go slow and clear. Signpost. Weigh

As a more traditional judge, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.

PF

i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info

Parent Judge - Lay Judge

Experience - 5 Local Touranments in PF

No Speed (I do flow! - Use an appropriate speed for me to get your arguments down.)

Be polite to your opponents.

Weighing is important. Be clear in FF with voters.

I am a parent judge, which means a few things:

1. Slow down, please! If you focus on the narratives of the arguments, you'll win the round.

2. If there's something important in the constructive or rebuttal, make sure it's talked about in the summary and final focus.

3. Voters are a great way to win the round in the 2nd half of the debate.

4. Be nice and not rude.

** If you clearly weigh your arguments against your opponent and stimulate a consistent narrative, you'll win the round. **

Updated for 2018 TOC

Public Forum Paradigm

First thing to know about me, I am a lay public forum judge. I am judging on behalf of Bronx Science and I am a parent judge.

I like delivery that is slow, tasteful, and artful. I prefer big picture analysis over a highly technical line-by-line approach. The role of the final focus should be to tell me who is winning the round clearly and concisely--narrative speeches are preferred. Extension is very important to me, and I will not take well to teams that extend through ink.

With that being said, ink will be limited. During speeches, I like to sit back and listen. Persuasion is very important to me, and for that reason, I value understanding your arguments over following them on the flow, and will take limited notes. I am not aware of arguments regarding topicality or kritiks, and plans are illegal in Public Forum, so I will not vote for them.

I tend to value style and argument equally, as both are very important. I will always vote for the team with the clearest arguments and delivery at the end of the round. I do not care much for how you structure your speeches, but all arguments that you expect to win on have to be in both summary and final focus--not grand crossfire. A second speaking team is not expected to cover their own case in rebuttal.