My name is Farshid Ahrestani, I am the father of Keya Ahrestani, an 11th grader at State College Area High School.

I will be judging public forum debate at the Pennsbury Speech and Debate Competition January 31-February 1, 2020. I have judged public forum last year and I greatly enjoyed the experience. That said, I would request that you please speak clearly and succinctly so I can follow your remarks properly.

1. I don't flow cross fires, any points made need to flow into speeches afterwards

2. Any points dropped should be brought up by the other team for me to consider them

3. With that being said, carry necessary arguments all the way through the round

4. Evidence is great for supporting arguments, don't use it as your main form of argumentation.

5. I'm a PF purist, don't spread or run Ks or anything like that :)

6. Please give me impacts, weigh your impacts, and give me voters

LD: I believe that rounds are decided by framework work debate and values. You can have as many contentions with evidence as you want, but if you fail to connect them into your framework effectively you will not win the round. spreading is antithetical to the purpose of debate, slow down and articulate your points persuasively.

PF: See above but with more focus on framework than on values

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD and PF so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD and PF not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen , voted on , for a reason.

Repeat: Debate the resolution

One more time: Debate the resolution

Content Warning, I can be sarcastic, below was written with seriousness and some fun in mind =)

So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating, stop, breathe, take another breath, and slow down, you will need to since you just dropped those points or contentions - you may even see me put my pen or pencil down as an indicator. Have you ever wondered what those breathing exercises got you? Do they help with a college or job interview? If you ever do speak that quickly during an interview can you please record and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)

If using a K in LD or PF - well at this point you can assume I am not the biggest fan unless I am judging a policy round. The biggest concern, besides taking you off the resolution, is that most debaters do not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that side steps the resolution, please see above. I may be amiss on this aspect, but are there any positive K's, like one that shows why picnics and puppies are amazing!

So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Impact, road maps, in LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is LD or PF, not policy !

4 Years Competing on the National Circuit & New Jersey Circuit in Public Forum, 4th year coaching

1) For the love of God, Weigh. Your. Arguments.

2) Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll call out "Clear" indicating you need to slow down.

3) I'll believe anything that goes untouched on the flow.

4) Default to Util if there's a lack of substantive framework debate.

I am the parent of a debater. Although I make my living crafting persuasive arguments, I am a lay judge, with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will try and give you the best judging experience I can. You can help me, and yourself, by clearly and concisely stating your position, explaining why sources support your argument, and politely pointing out the flaws in your opponent's claims.

I prefer truth over tech. Evidence ethics are paramount. If the cards I see do not say what you say they do, I will drop the argument from the round— and depending how egregious the ethics violation, I may drop you. I do not want to see your cut card, I want to see the article or source, with the portion you used highlighted. I have no tolerance for sexism, racism, and rudeness. Be civil, be kind. And try not to talk too fast- I can't give you credit for an argument I cannot understand.

For me it all comes down to Final Focus. Please make sure you include everything you want me to consider in those 2 minutes. Your job is to persuade me, through your research and arguments, that your position is right and I should vote for you. I am not well-versed on tech and the specific rules for extending arguments, however I will not credit any argument not in final focus. Signposts and numbering of arguments will be very helpful to me.

Last season, I thought debaters Anoosh Kumar, Nathaniel Yoon, Kevin Zeng, Maggie Mills, Sasha Haines (last year's Nats winners) and the Abbasi twins were excellent debaters.

Congrats to all you debaters. Your ability to articulate complex arguments and make them clear and simple is amazing. I am in awe of your ability to research, think on your feet, respond to some off the wall claims that are thrown at you without warning, and speak clearly and calmly with a skill well beyond your years.

First of all, I am a new parent judge. Secondly, after I learned the basic of PF debate process, I like it when debaters, spread or not, can articulate their points clearly and persuasively with well organized thoughts. Coherent logic is key to me as well as concrete facts as evidence. My impression of debate is always highlighted in the crossex, so I would like to see your ability to find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal but not the verbal attack to your opponents themselves :).

Be polite and respectful to your components and you will be treated reciprocally. Last but not least, have fun!

Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.

😤 WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS 😤

Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.

YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.

No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.

NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.

Other

I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.

No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.

If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.

Hello,

Please be clear when you make arguments and be sure to have a claim, warrant, impact or else I will not be able to vote for them. I am open to spreading and more progressive arguments. Other than that, feel free to ask me for more specifics at the beginning of a round!

I am a parent of a debater with only a few round of experience.

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. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

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. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

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.

--

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I am new to judging but not new to debate.

Your argument should be clear, concise and hit on a few main ideas/arguments, not every possible argument that can be made. Speak slowly and engage your audience. Speed talking is neither important or convincing to me. Slow down. Make eye contact, speak at a reasonable pace and convince me! I am not expecting to hear every argument that could possibly be raised in support of your position. I am looking for a concise and logical argument.

In your response to your opponents argument, acknowledge your opponents point(s). Refute opposing points where you can, but never be afraid to concede a point. It makes the rest of your argument more credible.

In debate and in life, be respectful to you opponent. The opponent you respect the most will be the one whose argument is as convincing as yours. Please do not interrupt your opponent(s) during crossfire rounds. Ask your question and give your opponent(s) the opportunity to respond. Additionally, ask questions is crossfire. This round is not your opportunity to make another statement or speech. Crossfires rounds hold a lot of weight in my ultimate decision. I believe it tells me the most about how well you understand your position and gives tremendous insight into your demeanor.

Observe, learn and implement what you have learned each time. Be proud, but never satisfied with you last debate.

Most of all -- have fun with it!

Coached (and still coaching LD,PF,CX, CONGRESS, ALL FORMS OF SPEECH) for 18+ years

Jdotson@potomacschool.org email chain (yes)

Welcome to Nat Quals in Richmond!

Public Forum:

Speed

PF should be any speed except high-velocity spewing and spreading. I can still flow any speed. Just send me your doc if you're going to be fast. And at this point, just send me cases anyway.

Evidence and ethics (I am getting very tired of messy cutting and building sentences from nowhere. People need to be calling that out more) So cut your own evidence!

I favor evidence that is current or at least evidence that has not "changed" since published. Cite author, date or if not available source and date.

Watch out for biases.
Most likely know most of the evidence you are using anyway

You do not always need evidence for common sense or common knowledge so just because your opponent says you did not have evidence does not mean you automatically lose.

Flex Prep:

Sure, if we are in TOC and possibly elim rounds, but other times I think sticking to traditional PF is best.

Prep time:

I am not 100% stickler to tenths of a second; but I don't round up. I try to keep good time and remind you. My time is official prep in the round.

Timing cases:

I do NOT need you to hold your timer up when time is up on folks' speeches. I got it. MY time is official. I do not flow after time is up. You are saying stuff that means nothing at that point.

Frameworks

are not 100% needed.

Overviews/Observations/Definitions are also useful. If you know what to do with them; I will vote off of them all especially if they stay on the flow and are not addressed.

Impacts

Use them; impact calculus

Weigh them; meta weighing is helpful

Analyze them

Front lining

Mostly a must... unless your opponents were trash and frontlining was impossible

Cross Fire

Partners If you have to save your partner by talking during the crossfire that is not yours, go ahead. Better to have a round that is saved than a nightmare. But that will ding speaker points.

Also be nice but not passive aggressive. I don't like that. Chummy debate is kind of annoying so if you know each other from camp, or RRs etc, still take the round seriously.

Theory

Not a huge fan, especially when you are abusing it. Disclosure should be reserved for those who are on the wiki or those know are in out rounds. If you use dislco just to win a round, it should be against other teams that would do the same thing to you.

My coach said we can't post on the wiki;Email...text...

copout... disclo will win

Kritiks

I mind if you run a K unless it is clever and used without abusing the resolution, I listen with a slight ear to fem K, queer K, etc.... But if you have a different case that is not a K I would rather hear it. If you get hit with a K, and run stock K blocks and stock K Bad and they say K good... I mean... I just vote off the flow.

GREAT COMMUNICATOR DEBATES

If you are looking at my paradigm, you are probably already a debate student who is used to checking Tab. So I will be quick. Usually, I am a serious flow judge, but I will judge this tournament based on my understanding of the most important elements of the criteria set forth by the Reagan Debates ballot. I used to host the Reagan Debates in the Mid-Atlantic many years ago, where one of my students, Ronald Thompson Jr. qualified to the National Tournament. We traveled to the Reagan Library in 2015, where at Nationals, he made it to quarters. He is a NexGen Leader .

I know what to look for in a winner, just keep confident and do a good job debating and speaking.

other debate formats:

I judged LD years ago so if I am in LD pool I am a traditionalist

I judged CX years ago but I will listen to everything you throw at me

Super speed/Spewing/Spreading beyond recognition does not impress me but if you must, just send case.

Hi! My name is Mary Kate. I debated in high school (PF) and have been a judge since 2017. Most of my judging has been in PF but I have also judged some speech events as well as LD and Policy. I am now a college student at Temple U, studying bioinformatics/computer science and history.

Here are some things you should know:

-I will not judge you on what you are wearing, if your internet connection goes out, stuff like that. Everyone is doing the best they can with pandemic and other stresses right now. No worries.
-I can handle speed so long as you are clear. Since we are now unfortunately at the mercy of internet connections, that may change but I will let you know.

-Please ask me before the round starts if you would like any signals as far as timing goes, like 1 min before time is up etc. I suggest you also keep time, just in case.
-My highest priority is impacts in the round. To win, you must have a clear framework and strong evidence for both how and why the resolution is either true or false. I work in a genetics lab, so I do tend to prefer arguments with clear statistics and facts. Anything purely theoretical or hypothetical is not likely to get you a win. In addition, arguments focusing solely on the trustworthiness of the opponent’s sources instead of the resolution itself are unlikely to get you a win.

-The neg side does not necessarily need to provide alternative solutions. For example, if the resolution was “the US should enact the Medicare for all act”, neg can focus on why passing it would be harmful rather than proposing an alternative piece of legislation.

-Make sure to update your arguments if current events are relevant to the resolution. The most recent data/info is always the best bet.

-I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round.
-Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you need to increase your preparation for the next debate, not that their framework is automatically wrong.

-I expect that you treat your opponents with respect. I do NOT TOLERATE any kind of rudeness, sexism, racism, homophobia, yelling, etc. Having to write to your coach would make me very sad.

If you have questions/concerns about the round or want to ask me about Temple U, feel free to email me at tuh20347@temple.edu.

Good luck with your rounds!

I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge. If you go fast, please make sure you repeat the point multiple times. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me only your best argument(s) and then weigh the opposing arguments for me. Assuming your opponent's argument is sound, why should I weigh yours as more important?

I'm a parent judge and I've been judging for about two years. Treat me as a regular lay judge; I won't be able to follow you if you speak too fast and will probably vote on the argument that is truest and most well-defended.

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

I am a parent judge and usually judge PF. I do “flow” the rounds to track the speaks. If you have convincing and logical arguments (with or without evidence), and are able to effectively counter and prove your stand, it will help me vote for you. I would stop you for the type of discussion that is totally irrelevant to the debate topic. Speed is no problem, yet it’s not a contest to cram words in seconds.

My preferred debating style is where the debater uses day to day vocabulary; smooth and coherent speaking style; uses of analysis of facts vs an abundance of information. Please do not go super fast, make your contentions and arguments clear, be respectful to one another.

Please take a moment to state your name, school and side of the debate (if applicable) each time you speak.

My preferred debating style is where the debater uses day to day vocabulary; smooth and coherent speaking style; uses of analysis of facts vs an abundance of information. Please do not go super fast, make your contentions and arguments clear, be respectful to one another.

Social studies teacher that appreciates the value of an organized and well articulated debate, meaning, clear contentions with strong supporting evidence. I am conscious to put my own subjective bias on the back burner and will intently listen to your case. You need to be able to understand the evidence aside from just blatantly repeating it from a card. Speed should be appropriate for full articulation and processing for the other team and judge. Spreading should be avoided.

Framework of your speech should be based on common sense to a point but should also show some building significance as you move through the round.

Not attacking all of an opponents contentions isn't a deal breaker in my final decision. Rather, teams should present a strong case that doesn't simply rely on disagreeing with opponent but should refute it and use that refutation to advance your case, thus earning points. That said, this attack should maintain decorum and civility in the round. Teams that break this decorum and civility are highly frowned upon.

Off time road maps, eh. Your speech should be clear enough for me to figure that out. Road maps will be on your running time.

Finally, in in your final focus, I need to hear you articulate a "so what?" that crystallizes and wraps up your overall argument while bringing in final information that was brought up in round.

CFL Policy Update

Judged alot of policy in my career, understand most policy arguments but you should walk me through voting off them (Ks, Topicality, etc. I am comfortable with. Speed isnt an issue if you disclose and honestly probably shouldnt be even if you do not so dont feel obligated.

Email for disclosure brendanjkane1998@gmail.com

(About Me:

I am the Assistant Coach at Xaverian in New York City, in charge of debate (Mainly congress and PF but I have a background in policy and LD) Since I'm mainly going to be judging Congress and Public Forum Debate this year I will break down my paradigm into congress and PF

FOR PF

TLDR tabula rasa - go fast but slow on tags, I like disclosure and evaluate basically any arg but walk me through it

General

At heart I am a tech over truth Flow centric judge who pretty much defaults to a standard offense/defense paradigm. I try my hardest not to be an interventionist IE i try and be tabula rasa. If you plan on doing any weird strategies just run it by me before he round (I.E. run a condo theory shell), because it's very possible I don't have experience with that particular argument(I never really ran them much but I understand most). If I'm not familiar with a technical pre fiat argument, walk me through it because I will be open to voting for it.

I will disclose if the tournament let's me, if they don't and you see me outside of round and I'm not doing anything, feel free to approach me and I'll gladly take out my flow and discuss the round.

Speed

I was always on the faster side so I'm cool with speed, just be aware, if you go super fast, I will stop flowing card names so try not to just extend a card by author last name but instead what it says too (If you slow down on tags I should be fine but most people don't).

LMK before the round if yall plan to be fast or not, I prefer for faster rounds to flow on paper since I am just more use to it from years of debating but if you guys plan to go like 200 WPM I will just flow on my laptop.

Feel free to ask in round if I have been flowing cards but anything south of like 300 I should be able to flow cards unless unforeseen circumstances occur.

If you disclose and I am on the email chain feel free to go as fast as you want.

Evidence Standards

I prefer dates in case and blocks(I get it if you don't but in the future please try). If you lie about evidence I'm at minimum dropping the evidence and at worst dropping you. I will call for evidence if:

A. I'm told to.

B. It's crucial in my decision.

C. I have reason to believe it doesn't say what you say it says

Summary/FF

I expect in first summary you to extend case (PLEASE FRONTLINE YOUR OPPONENT'S RESPONSES) and to extend turns. Terminal Defense does not have to be in first summary. For second summary I expect anything you plan on having be in FF be in summary.

Theory

I don't have the highest threshold for theory but I'll certainly evaluate the argument if it's made.

IDC if it is shell or spike format I will evaluate either.

Road maps

For road maps, I'd much prefer you just tell me where you start if you aren't doing anything insane. If you plan on running an overview I need you to tell me where to flow it.

If the flow gets super super messy feel free to literally take me step by step with your roadmap I trust your judgement here.

Signposting

Just please do it.

It is not my obligation to figure out where things go in a debate- if you signpost poorly things will get lost and I won't evaluate responses you give

Speaker Points (also addresses disclosure)

SO this is the thing that is largest variable in my judging from tournament to tournament. If you respect that I am a flow judge you will probably get good speaks, but how good varies by weekend since I still haven't fully fleshed out how I want my speaker points scale to work out.

No matter what if you disclose your case to your opponents (if you email add me to the email chain brendanjkane 1998@gmail.com so I can verify and because it will make my life easier to flow) I will give .5 extra speaks for doing so.

If it is already on the PF wiki just LMK

Misc

If I flowed on my laptop feel free to email me after with what round and flight I judged you and I can give you my flow.

If anything is unclear in my RFD or comments feel free to email me.

You can be funny and I will appreciate that but if you cross the line I will lower speaks.

If your case is like 1K plus words I will flow it on 2 pieces of paper so signpost or else things will get lost.

Don't feel you have to wait for me to enter the room or do a coin flip.

I am human I may make the wrong decision but in the end I will try my best to fairly evaluate the round.

@PFVideos If someone wants to record the round plz get consent from both teams (if one team competing is recording PLZ ask the other if this is okay) if I discover one team is recording without consent I will drop that team. If you get consent feel free to record my RFD if you want

Still have yet to squirrel

Congress

General

So I've watched and competed in a lot of congress rounds and am an assistant coach mainly in congress. If I am parling a round you are in I will track reverse activity(If PO is using it to select questioners) and recency for speeches. If I am not parling I will not, but I usually can tell even without a recency chart if you mess up. I tend to flow the round, and I write my ballot during questioning(if there is no questioning, then I will not be flowing or else I would not have time to write your ballots).

Feel free to ask me questions about your performance after I've submitted my ballot (if I'm parling between session or after the tournament), I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

If I parli

very non interventionist or I try to be unless an issue with fairness arises

Authorships/Sponsors

I unlike most other judges truly value a solid author that sets up a debate. I understand that in the SQuo, authors (especially on the second bill of a session) are really discouraged and I get it, but I personally make an effort to try to not continue that skew.

Something also that differentiates me is that if your bill produces a solid, balanced debate, I will give you a bonus for it(this is my way of rewarding good, balanced bills).

Clash/Preemptive Responses

In regards to Clash, I expect It in every speech past the first affirmative.

For preemptive responses, I feel they often are disjointed whenever I hear them (that shouldn't discourage you but should let you know that I rarely see it done properly). If it's done properly I'll appreciate it

Late Speeches

In later speeches I expect more clash than new arguments.

Just aside I have noticed in my own judging that I rank people who frame debates very well- take that how you will

IE Events

I don't think anyone has ever looked at an IE paradigm, if I'm judging you in a speech round and you've read this please tell me, since it enough people do I will write one.

If you have any questions for me before your speech feel free to ask.

I am a parent judge. I enjoy listening to PF debates. When not judging, I am a chemistry professor.

Please speak clearly. Assume I don't know anything about the topic. Quality is more important than quantity. Roadmapping and signposting help me follow your arguments. I am not the right judge for theory or progressive arguments.

Please note that my decision is based on what is said in the round. I do not read between the lines. I do not connect dots unless you do it.

Criteria for speaker point evaluation: (1) Cogency, (2) Mental agility (as demonstrated in rebuttal, frontlining, and crossfires), and (3) Civility.

For email chains: akawamur@gmail.com

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my 6th year, and I'm so impressed by the time and effort students put into Speech and Debate. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

I have no previous debate judging experience. That being said, I hope to be fair, thoughtful, and rigorous. I like deep, creative, and original thinking. Humor is good too. Best of luck!!

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

I am a US History, World History, Law, and Personal Finance teacher in Lexington, MA and have taught Civics in a past life outside DC. Meaning that I have a strong academic background on the policy issues that are being discussed. That said, I am a relative newcomer to academic-style Debate in my second year judging.

As a PF judge I expect solid arguments that correctly apply strong evidence and do not ignore major flaws or counter-arguments. I would much rather hear someone say "we do not disagree that the aff/neg argument is valid, but here is why ours is stronger/more relevant." Speak clearly. No spreading. Have fun!

As an LD judge I am new to the game but well versed in solid arguments. Refer to your framework in your arguments to strengthen them and do not engage in extensive de-linking unless you are on solid ground logically. I will lean on my understanding of logic in the arguments rather than fancy debate tactics. Also if you spread, I will not understand you. Keep it civil in CXs but don't be afraid to press your opponent if their answer is weak. Email is Plehmann@lexingtonma.org for speech docs.

Please speak slowly and clearly and explain your most important arguments in your last speeches.

My previous experience includes participating in Public Forum debate in high school. As a judge, I prefer debaters speak with intention and use concise arguments backed by logic. All evidence should be provided with substantial reasoning for why the argument is being made—laundry lists of information without a supporting analysis is not preferred. A successful round, in my opinion, includes debaters speaking clearly, providing thorough logic for their arguments, and demonstrating why the arguments being made outperform the opposing team. Best of luck!

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

I enjoy a good debate and require you to be respectful of your opponent at all times. Speak your argument clearly and get your message across. I am fine with speed as long as it is coherent... I must understand what you are saying. I will not vote on a presumption and require solid information.

I am a Public School Administrator with two teenagers but they do not debate... with anyone but their mom :)

I love to see children grow in the events and show their talents/knowledge. Good Luck!

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's 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, a 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 it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

I debated PF and was relatively active on the circuit in my junior year. I know nothing about the topic except for as much as I know.

Tldr (but not all inclusive)

- weigh

- tech > truth

- do warrant & impact

- can handle moderate speed, send speech doc if necessary

- presume first speaking team

- only vote off of whats in summary & FF

- defense is sticky

- evidence: (1) will drop you if you miscut (2) always include year and author (3) pulling up evidence should take 2 min max

- be nice & have fun

- world star rules apply

FULL paradigm

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered here, ask them before the round begins.

- First and most importantly, make my life easy by doing weighing.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow. Tech > truth. But don't mistake this for voting off of who spews the most tech jargon. Relying on tech jargon is not good debating. Your speaks will drop if I see you purposefully being tech.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- If you read a unique/non-stock case and/or you make jokes (that I find funny), I will boost your speaks.

- World Star rules apply. (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel)

- I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. You also may run the risk of too much speed hurting your speaker points. If in doubt, just send me a speech doc.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense for it to be in final focus, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly; don't be caught off guard.

- I will ask to see evidence after the round if (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it's never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- All you need to read for evidence is last name and year.

- If I call for a card and it's miscut I will automatically drop you. Also don't card dump.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Be nice to each other!

- Bonus points if you show me a good meme.

Hi,

I have judged PF for a few years.

Be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire, and don't make bigoted arguments

I will flow your speeches, but I expect you to call out if your opponent dropped an argument, has incorrect logic/ facts etc.,

Speed: If I cannot understand/flow it, it does not count i.e., I favor normal speech speed , quality arguments vs spreading/quantity.

Cross: Raise items in speech if you want me to flow it and use it in my decision.

Clearly identify your arguments, warrants, highlight clash, weigh, identify voting issues and why you should win the debate

Generally, I will call for cards only if asked, or if my decision rests on a card. Don't use that as an excuse to misrepresent cards.

Theory? Please don't!

Lastly, have fun!

Hello, my name is Bhargav Pandya and I am very excited to be judging you this tournament. I am a rather inexperienced lay judge and prefer logical, on-case argumentation. I appreciate signposting within speeches and references to the flow so that I can judge the round as fairly as possible. My speaker preferences include standing during speeches but crossfires are left up to the debaters preferences. Slow, clear, enunciated speaking is preferred, and I personally try to judge the round based on the information/evidence presented, debated, and responded to by the debaters. I also like critical, evidence-based thinking with supporting statistics provided that logic is also given. If basic impact calculus is provided, I will do my best to weigh the round and judge fairly.

This is my 4th year as a parent judge of an LD debater.

Like most parent judges, I favor traditional lay debate. So know your audience. If you are going to use technical terms, be sure to explain what they mean

Clarity and persuasion are what i am looking for. If you want me to be able to flow your speech, I would advise against spreading. In your final speech, please lay out the reasons why I should vote for you. This means weighing AND explaining the weighing justifications. make my job easy!

**Do not confuse me for someone who understands technical terms and such just because I have some here - my son wrote this for me :)

Hello,

I am a new parent judge. I am not too accustomed to many aspects of debate, so it would be best to try to explain debate related concepts or anything else. Other wise have fun, don’t say anything universally wrong (racist, etc.)

I am a parent judge. I like it when debaters focus squarely on the resolution. Debaters should stick to the actual topic of debate supported by facts/research. Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is clear. I look for logically coherent and smart arguments. I tend to vote for good rebuttal debaters. I expect all debaters to have good sportsmanship and be respectful to opponents.

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and give reasoning behind your arguments. Be civil to each other in round; rudeness is not tolerated. Humor is appreciated only if appropriate.

I appreciate your speaking slowly and clearly (no spreading).  I believe this is an important skill to develop for all public speaking.  Also, if I miss what you are saying I won't be able to judge it.

If you introduce a concept (e.g. social contract) please be sure to provide a clear definition.

I appreciate debaters who make full use of the purposes of each stage of the debate.  For example, during negative constructive,  state your case and then argue against the Aff.  In the final phases, make sure you summarize/crystallize your argument, etc. Think about what you want to accomplish in each stage.

I choose to judge debate because I find it very stimulating and thought-provoking.  I enjoy seeing different debaters' styles and ways of approaching topics.

My hope is that you enjoy the challenge of debate and see everything that happens as an opportunity to learn and improve.

Best wishes!

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

- Be respectful

- Don't break debate rules

- Speak as fast or as slow as you like

- Voting points are extremely important at the end - tell me why you won and the other team did not

- Most important: I judge based on how well debaters know their cases, the topic, and how well they argue against their opponents' cases

I am a PF judge and coach that prefers arguments based on logic. I don't care much for evidence based clash, rather I want to see how well you can point out logical flaws made by your opponent via in-depth analysis of their case. I encourage the use of a framework, as that helps direct me as to what I should be looking for, and I do like seeing impact analyses in Final Focus.

To ensure that I am able to make a fully informed decision, PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD EXCESSIVELY! I won't be able to understand what you're saying, nor will my flow reflect your case. I don't mind kritiks, but you need to do them well in order for me to evaluate them. Regardless, I prefer traditional-style debates.

I do judge tabula-rasa and my RFDs will reflect that, but if you display a lack of basic understanding of the necessary economic, political, or whatever background concept pertaining to the resolution, I will point that out in my comments to you. Basically come to round having done your research.

I am a careful listener and like to listen to cogent and persuasive arguments.

I generally keep abreast of recent and not-so-recent news but there may be topics on which I may not know many of the details. Of course, this is what will make judging interesting for a PF debate implying that I would like to listen to convincing arguments - affirmative or negative. I will be taking notes as the debater speaks and also when rebuttals and responses are given by opponents.

I pay attention to evidence-based arguments and if there are opinions rather factual statements presented, I would like to see if the debater is citing similar opinions from reputable sources.

I believe that the delivery of the argument is also important. If the delivery is poor or too interrupted or unclear due to speed or volume, I may not follow the argument at all. This can only hurt the debater; so, it is important that the debater pays attention to clear and lucid delivery of arguments.

Good luck to all debaters!

My kids have been debating for a few years, yet this is my first time judging. I am looking forward to hearing your arguments. Please speak slowly so that I may fully appreciate all of your arguments.

I am a LAY judge.

Your best choice of action is to speak slower.

I try to be tabula rasa. I vote off of strongly supported arguments that are not refuted well by the other team. I do listen to crossfire as well.

Also make sure to weigh, and try to convince me.

The Guide to Public Forum Debate stresses remarkably that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. I really resonate to this statement thus have my preferences below.

Normal speed: Please don't speak too fast. If you believe you have to speak fast or you cannot complete your messages in time, you need to cut your contents to make your messages concise.

Straightforward：Please express yourself in natural way to be understood.

Clear structure: Please integrate all of your points and keep them consistent through the entire session.

Have a fun!

( I am a lay judge.)

I am more of a lay judge than technical judge. Quality and delivery of content matter more to me than quantity of arguments. Speakers who articulate their points clearly and persuasively will fare better than those who speak very quickly. I find cases that have a logical narrative and build towards a compelling conclusion are more effective than a long laundry list of arguments that are only semi-related.

Civility during the round is important, but only seems to be a problem <10% of the time.

I am a former PF debater and an architecture student, so interpreted as you will. For the current tournament, you can consider me as a lay judge. Technicality is fine. Ask me if you have questions about anything.

[-] Etiquettes:

- You may time yourself, but you must be honest about your time. I will keep official time regardless.

- I permit off-time roadmaps but don't ramble.

[-] Structure:

- I am not a tabula rosa.

- Please be clear on the magnitude, scope, timeframe, and probability.

- When you frame your case or the round, you must prove that your side ultimately solves for that framework. Also, it must be logical.

[-] Philosophy:

- Utilitarianism always ignores a minority group.

- Education is not the great equalizer unless it is proven equitable, accessible, and equal.

[-] RFD:

- I do not disclose because it may discourage teams mid-tournament. However, I do disclose if required by the tournament.

1) Acceptance of traditional syllogistic as an adequate account of the logic of judging

2) Be respectful, articulate, well prepared

Hi, I'm a parent judge! I have almost no judging experience or topic knowledge so please keep that in mind.

Please no spreading and reduce the debate jargon. I am more interested in TRUE arguments rather than wacky, random arguments. Remember, if I can't understand what your argument is, I won't want to vote for it.

I don't keep track of time, so I leave that up to both teams to check each others times.

Thanks

I am a fairly new lay judge. Please use normal speaking voice and speed; if you're going real fast, it's hard for me to follow your arguments. If I can't even follow your words, I'll indicate with my hand to slow down. Please try not to interrupt or talk over each other.

Roadmaps are great, and definitely use summary and especially final focus to tell me what you think you absolutely want me to consider most.

Have fun kindly!