I'm a law student and competed in PF for Cary Academy. I have not competed since 2015 and have only judged a couple times since then, so anything overly technical and/or confusing will probably go over my head. In my opinion, PF is valuable for how it helps students develop strong critical thinking skills, learn the ability to dissect arguments, and hone their public speaking abilities. Accordingly, these are the skills I emphasize and look for when I judge, because I think it's what is most helpful to you going forward. I'm happy to answer questions you have on my paradigm if you have any.

Flowing – I will flow, but keep it reasonable. I will write down everything I catch, but clarity is more important than quantity. Make sure you bring your key points through to summary and FF. Typically, my decision will be made on those two speeches.

Cross – I don't write anything down during cross. It matters for speaker points, but make sure you bring up a substantive point in later speeches if you want me to take note of it.

Speaker points – Be clear, professional, and respectful. If your argument makes sense, and you've explained it to me in a compelling way, I'm happy.

Substance – Don't just tell me in summary/FF that you "won" a point, tell me why it's a winning point. Address your opponents' counterpoints. I don't make decisions on quantity—if you bring three points to your FF and your opponent brings two, for example, that's not a clear win. I need to know why those points are the ones that matter.

General points – I'm a big fan of weighing. I think in good rounds, that's what it comes down to: the resolutions are supposed to be complex issues with no clear answer, and your opponent will inevitably make some points that hold water. That's the fun part, and it's more compelling to me if you tell me why your argument is more important. Giving me a framework helps with that.

Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

I debated for four years at Carroll Senior High School in Southlake, Texas and am currently a sophomore* at Duke.

Feel free to ask questions before the round

Just some basic preferences:

-I have a pretty high threshold for extensions. It's not enough just to spend 2 seconds on a frontline; you also need to properly extend the actual argument you're trying to access if you're planning on carrying it through to the end of the round.

-Summary and final focus should mirror each other. It's a lot harder to get my vote when your strategy is different from your partner's in the later speeches.

-Second rebuttal should respond to the offense out of the first.

-You can read quickly if you want to, but I can't guarantee that I'll get all of it. I don't think debate should be all that fast anyways.

-In terms of progressive debate (theory, Ks, etc.): Honestly, I had very little experience with technical debate in high school so I don't think I'd be particularly great at evaluating it, but it's ultimately up to you to decide what you want to do to win the round.

-Please don't call me judge. I hate that. Also, I'm not going to shake your hand.

Be nice to each other, and try to have fun. I REALLY don't like when debaters take rounds too seriously to where they become rude. It's not that deep. I promise.

I am a fair open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument, and have on many occasions awarded the debate win to a contention I do not personally agree with. A debate should be decided on who was more convincing regardless of the judges personal views. It is important I can understand you so that I can effectively judge your argument against your opponent, so speed is not as important as being articulate.

I believe that an argument should be well thought out, well structured, and cogent. I do prefer a fairly bullet-proof framework on which to hang the contentions and I am open to theoretical foundations once that framework has been articulated and defined, but ultimately a contention supported by facts and figures is more convincing as it is more quantifiable and less subjective.

I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet. I listen, take copious notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one side over the other.

Hello! I'm fairly new to judging, this being my 3rd tournament. I appreciate when teams go "slow" and ensure that their arguments and points are clear.