I debate Public Forum so i understand the rules of debate just fine. I will judge in a mix of lay and tech. This means I'll focus on the arguments but nothing that goes too far in terms of violating PF rules. I won't do any analyses for you: make it obvious for. Any argument I vote on will the ones most well developed and frontlined throughout the round.

I am a current Yale University student, and four year Public Forum debater on the national circuit at Carrollton High School. I have extensive experience both participating and judging in Public Forum, as well as other events. I will flow the round, so please sign post. This will greatly benefit me in my ability to follow your arguments, and ensure that I catch everything. If you are going to provide an observation or framework, do not simply tell me to weigh in that manner, explain why I should. Extensions through all speeches are a must if you are going to pick up my ballot. Do not turn a crossfire into a speech. I do not flow crossfire, but it is still a valuable time for the debater to find holes in their opponent's cases. Ensure that you are telling me why you are winning the round, simply reading a card does nothing for the judge, nor for the educational purposes of the round.

Speed becomes an issue when you are not clearly articulating your arguments. Clarity in round is key, and I would prefer to hear a single clear and well explained response over several poorly articulated ones. If I can't understand you, it will not go on the flow. When making my final decision, I take into account; first if an argument was extended throughout the round, then I examine the responses to each argument.

It is most important to consider that debate is intended to be an educational experience. With that being said, I will not tolerate any facetious or degrading remarks in round, as they are counter intuitive to the purpose of the event. As a result, such behavior will be reflected in the speaker points given.

I will expect you to ask questions prior to the round about anything that seems unclear in this paradigm.

Daisy Garcia

Calhoun '21

Pronouns: she/her

Email: garciadaisy2021@gmail.com (pls put me on the chain!)

Overall Platforms

OK:

- Swearing every so often

- Reading funky k's and performances (pls help me understand them no explanation= not likely to win )

- non-topical Aff's

NOT OK:

- Don't be sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, etc.

- Obsessive swearing; I am not really comfortable with obsessive swearing. Occasional ones are fine, just don't swear every other word and you should be good.

- being rude to your opponent and/or partner ( just be nice to everyone :) )

*Anything aside from policy- You do you*

Aside from policy debate I've been in a few rounds of Big Question debate. I'm not familiar with any other forms of debate.. that being said run whatever you want,,, I just urge you to help me understand your args and evaluate the debate.

*Policy*

Da: Not a huge fan of them, I hardly like running them.... but I will def vote for them if they are debated well. I would prefer to listen to a more specific da over a generic one.

T/Theory: Go for it. Over the last few years I've learned to like both t and theory. I think in some cases many debaters (including myself) will try to reach hard for a violation,, if it doesn't fit it doesn't fit.

K: I Love them. I've ran quite a few of them, def my fav part of debating.I'm more familiar with generic K's like: Cap, Fem IR, Black Matriarchy, Sec, Set Col, deleuze, and Foucault. I usually tend to be more biased towards them ngl. Will I auto vote for you if you run any of those in front of me? nope. I need them to be explained and why the Alt solves better. I usually find k debate really fun and entertaining to watch. On that note I'm def not familiar with every single k so pls make sure to truly explain how the Alt functions/ solves better in relation to the aff.

Cp: Sure

I'm fine with Cp however if you do run a cp (same with DA) I would prefer to listen to an aff specific cp over a generic one

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

I am a parent judge who has judged both debate and speech events.

In debate:

I want you to show that you are listening to your opponent(s) and responding to their points. I am not a fan of spreading. I need to hear that you are making arguments that have contextual relevance to the debate you are in and not just rote responses for the general topic. If you tell me your opponent didn’t address your issue when they clearly did, I will mark that against you. I expect your closing to be strong and persuasive. Cross arguments should not be personal. You should give valid reasons why your framework is preferable and give reasons why your opponent’s framework is weaker.

In speech:

I'm looking for a fluid and consistent delivery. I want to see a story with a beginning, an arc, and an ending. I also want you to make a connection with your audience (me). I should not be distracted by other things you are doing. I want to be completely drawn into your story. That means I need to be able to hear and understand you, I should easily understand the sounds and other noises you put into your speech, and I that your examples make sense. Also, if you make a mistake, pick up and move on. Don't point it out to me or apologize. Assume I didn't notice or it didn't happen.

hellooo from 2023- this hasnt been updated since 2020 but I am sure everything still applies:

I debated LD for two years in high school. However, I’ve watched and judged many pf and LD rounds and have very good friends who are amazing at debate--they usually inform me of new techniques/strategies and such. You ~could~ call me a flow judge or a progressive judge.

LD:

if your framework is the same as your opponent’s, please don’t try to weigh it. Just drop the framework and weigh your impacts.

I love love disads and CPs. I’m eh on K’s and theory so I wouldn’t recommend using a k or theory—just because but I don’t like it ~that~ much but if you would still like to do it, go for it. I won’t hold it against you.

I'm pretty good with speed but if you’re going to spread spread, like actually spread, please share a speech doc to my gmail: safak3313@gmail.com

Make sure you weigh, extend, and signpost!!! I’m a tech over truth judge. Make sure you signpost during the debate too so I can clearly follow along. My flows can get kind of messy sometimes so this just helps me. If I’m lost, then you’re not probs not gonna win the round.

I don’t flow cross so if anything important comes up, make sure you address it to me, the judge, in your next speech.

Speaker points for PF and LD:

if I cannot understand you because you lack clarity while you are attempting to speak fast, I will dock points off.

I will also dock points if I’m just completely lost in the debate.

Don’t be rude please.

PF:

Same thing as above basically. I usually only count disclosure theory if you wanna use it but nothing should be more progressive than that.

If you are going to speak fast, speak clearly and articulate well. Signpost before AND in the round so I’m not lost— I will dock speaker points if I am lost.

weigh weigh weigh!!

tech>truth

I will vote off of anything so please extend!! In the case either side has no offense, I will consider that extension and its value for example. You have to extend it all the way through though.

if you have crappy evidence, meaning, your card is miscut or you can’t find the card the other team called for within a minute, I’ll drop it and probably drop you. So be organized and truthful.

I don’t flow cross. If something important comes up, acknowledge it to me, the judge, in your next speech.

1st speaker should always frontline in summary.

Don’t spend too much time on framework debates bc it’s not really a thing here but if you run it, I’ll be happy to consider it. :)

COIN TOSS BEFORE THE ROUND. It saves me time and lets me know you’ve seen my paradigm.

happy debating!

My name is DeAnna Kirby. I am a lay judge who has judged in several tournaments including Harvard. While I appreciate the need to speak fluently, I do not like spreading. I flow on the crossfire. Make sure to keep things civil in crossfire. Humor is appreciated, disrespect is NOT. Be sure to stand during crossfire except for Grand. Additionally, if you want me to flow your argument, include it in both summary and final focus.

I was a 4-year debater at Carrollton High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.

my email is javierlm030503@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round.

Expectations

1) tech > truth

2) Do not bring up any new arguments from the second summary onwards

3) No racist or sexist remarks

4) I am not your person for theory at all

If you have any questions let me know

Former debater with two years experience. I did my public forum at Auburn High School. I am very familiar with the literature of this topic. Speaking speed is not a problem for me as long as it's still clear.

I typically judge the round based on who proves to me that they upheld the framework better and carried their arguments throughout the flow in a more direct matter.

Make my job easy for me. Tell me what you are referring to as topic and a card name (if it is only one or the other that is fine I just may not immediately catch your link). Signpost in your constructive (ex. "Contention one, card one:..."). Tell me what part of their argument you are addressing with your rebuttal (ie. Claim, warrant, impact, or evidence). Make your voters clear (they should not blend together and should almost end up sounding like a list). I will not take away points if you do not do those things, they just make it much easier for to understand and digest your arguments; if I can't understand you then I can't vote for you.

If you refer to a piece of evidence that becomes a point of tension in the round or is something that either your opponents or I want to see and you cannot produce it to us within two minutes, then as far as my flow and I are concerned, it doesn't exist.

Hey, I'm Alec. I debated Public Forum for Carrollton High School and now I attend UGA

Email: alecsiek1@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

I never really know how to structure my preferences, so here's a basic rundown of what I like to see:

1) Tech > Truth. Everything you want me to vote on needs to be really well warranted in every speech though.

2) Spend time engaging in arguments constructively. Good logic beats bad evidence every time.

3)Please collapse as the round progresses.I am a huge believer that one or two really well warranted arguments are better than a bunch of unwarranted ones.

4) Weigh consistently, direct comparison of links will take you far. As a judge, I want to intervene as little as possible. The earlier you start weighing, the better.

5)Meta-weighing is important! If you are using different weighing mechanisms than your opponents, you should be weighing those too.

6) I can handle speed, just make sure you're not sacrificing clarity.

7) I have really low threshold for theory, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it. If you are keeping an abusive practice in check, go for it. However, if you are running theory against a team that has no threshold for it, that can be equally abusive in my eyes.

Other than that, you do you. There is not one right style of debate, and I don't want to make you fit into one.

I hope this goes without saying, but please be respectful to your opponents. Debate is such a cool educational tool, and I hate it when people are discouraged from using it. If you are being blatantly disrespectful, I'll drop you.

I did 3 years of PF at Grady High School, so I know a good bit, but I haven't judged or debated in a few months so I'm a little out of the loop.

Preferences

I can handle speed, but please don't spread, because I think that ruins the spirit of debate. The point of debate is to win a civil argument, not to say so many things that your opponent can't respond to half. I love to see clash in crossfire, but please keep it civil. I know things can get heated, but yelling doesn't help and will cost you speaker points. I value good sportsmanship, so being rude or derisive will not help you.

Weighing

If you want me to weigh a point, it needs to be carried through in every speech after it is first mentioned. I like to see clear impacts for why your arguments matter, and impact calculus in your summary and final focus is great. Every argument or point made in your Final Focus needs to have been made in your Summary, so don't bother dropping an argument after the Constructive and trying to bring it back up in your Final Focus. I pay attention to crossfire but if you want me to weigh a point you won there, you need to bring it back up in your next speeches. Voters in Summary and Final Focus also go a long way, because they give me a clear reason to vote for you over your opponent.

I will give my paradigm in round.

Carter King Midtown Paradigm:

My name is Brandon Tung. I'm a freshman at UIUC majoring in Psychology (no I don't psychoanalyze people, psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience until proven otherwise) with plans to focus in Clinical Psychology, as well as minor in EALC (East Asian Languages and Culture). I did pretty much every form of debate in high school (LD, PF, Policy) as a part of the Northview HS team, and was captain of the Public Forum section of the team for a year. I have not judged a debate round in over a year, maybe longer, but I will do my best to give you educational feedback and judge the round as fairly and unbiased as possible.

A couple of things you should know:

• If you're spreading, please send me your cards. I'd actually prefer if you went slower, but talk with a more concise and clear voice, even if you do miss a few points in your original constructive.
• Be polite. It's common etiquette, and if you don't treat others with respect, don't expect to be treated any better. I know being aggressive is a style of debate from first-hand experience, but there's a difference between aggressiveness and rudeness. I expect a handshake from everyone before and after a round unless you have a contagious disease, in which case I expect you to stay home.

• I will vote for rounds based off of who communicated the information to me in the most logical and persuasive way. Even if you have the best cards in the world, I will not vote for you if it isn't presented in a logical manner. Also, if you have any arguments that are remotely insulting i.e. racist, sexist, etc. I will stop the debate and ask you to leave, although I hope this will not happen.
• I think that CXs and Rebuttals are the most interesting part of debate, so value those over your Constructive.
• Don't take the debate too serious. I enjoy a good debate, but at the same time, if the atmosphere is too tense it makes me feel like I'm judging a court case, not a debate round. Granted, don't be too laid back, as I do expect some form of etiquette. If you add some jokes or make me laugh then I might give you an extra speak. However, if you try too hard to make a joke I'll probably take off a speak.
• If you bring me a protein shake (no nuts please) I'll give you an extra speak, but don't tell anyone.

(Note: Extra speaks does not mean I will vote for you. A team's performance within the round will be what actually counts, even if they have less speaks than the other team. )

Congratulations, you've made it to the end!

Here's a cat for your time.

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⡷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⡿⠋⠈⠻⣮⣳⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⡿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⣶⣿⡿⠟⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣷⣶⣤⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣴⣾⡿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠻⠿⣿⣶⣦⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⣀⣴⣿⡿⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣿⣷⣦⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣤⣄⠀⠀
⢀⣤⣾⡿⠟⠛⠛⢿⣿⣶⣾⣿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣿⣷⣦⣀⣀⣤⣶⣿⡿⠿⢿⣿⡀⠀
⣿⣿⠏⠀⢰⡆⠀⠀⠉⢿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⢿⡿⠟⠋⠁⠀⠀⢸⣿⠇⠀
⣿⡟⠀⣀⠈⣀⡀⠒⠃⠀⠙⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠇⠀
⣿⡇⠀⠛⢠⡋⢙⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀
⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠓⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠛⠋⠀⠀⢸⣧⣤⣤⣶⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰⣿⡿⠀⠀
⣿⣿⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠻⣷⣶⣶⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⠁⠀⠀
⠈⠛⠻⠿⢿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠙⠛⠻⠿⢿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⡄⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠙⠛⠻⠿⢿⣿⣷⣶⣦⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⡄⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⡿⣄
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣷⣶⡿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣹
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣧
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣄⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⣿
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⢿⣻⣷⣶⣾⣿⣿⡿⢯⣛⣛⡋⠁⠀⠀⠉⠙⠛⠛⠿⣿⣿⡷⣶⣿

I coach PF Debate and have judged LD for 15+ years. I love to see professionalism, real logic in cases and rebuttals, impeccable speaking skills, and good time management. Please avoid barraging me with questions about my expertise before the round starts.

“Off-time road maps” serve no purpose. Framework and observations are not just for show; I weigh them throughout the round. Spreading does not belong in PF or LD, and I will not flow arguments that I cannot hear.

Good argumentation matters the most to me. I should hear incisive warrants to support all claims. Your impacts should be specific and resonate throughout your contentions. Good debaters achieve turns and can group arguments well.

In regard to PF:

Summary speeches should, above all, situate the round and extend the rebuttal.

Try not to turn the round into just an “evidence-off”. Know when to move on from a dispute over one piece of evidence.

In the Final Focus, you must weigh arguments with specificity and effective persuasion, but the focus should be on the holistic argument and impacts, not line-by-line analysis at that point.

I don't give long-winded verbal feedback at the end of rounds, but I try to give an abundance of ballot comments for your benefit.