I look for well-organized structure in your arguments and rebuttals. I do pay attention to argument consistency; will be checking for dropped arguments on both sides. The more you can present as to a non-expert on the topic, the better.

For the Blake tournament: I am sick, and likely will not be able to talk much. Don't expect much in-person feedback.

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD (and optional in PF) there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of six in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

1. I am generally predisposed to teams that feel like they are attempting to persuade me, the judge, vs. exclusively their opponent. Many debates get too deeply into the weeds and fail to provide some kind of clear, overarching narrative — similarly, individual arguments are too often under warranted, with no analysis, and without a clear resolution of existing clash. Debate, to me, feels the most valuable and enjoyable when the skills demonstrated seem transferable / relevant to real-life argumentation and discourse — this means accurately tagged arguments that are developed throughout the round and rebuttals that show clear engagement with the content of opponent’s arguments. I prefer summaries that are not pseudo-rebuttals and that clearly explicate the narrative of the team while also providing offensively-minded voters and substantive weighing.

2. Evidence / in-round ethics are both extremely important to me. If at any point it becomes clear that a team is mis-representing, mis-labeling or otherwise abusing evidence, there will be a severe reduction in speaker points. I am also open to dropping the team if it seems like it’s given them an unfair competitive advantage. Because of all this, I am generally against paraphrasing unless the paraphrased content absolutely adheres to the content of the original source.

3. In-round civility is extremely important to me. Teams that are overly aggressive in crossfire, steal prep, go well over on time, or take forever when pulling up evidence will have reduced speaker points. Teams that cross over from rudeness into racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc… will be dropped (this includes arguments that contain racist, sexist, etc...warranting)

4. I understand the necessity for speed and heavily truncated argumentation in some rounds but generally have an overwhelming preference for a conversational pace and clear analysis. As such, I dislike the use of debate jargon and overuse of debate community patter (“A couple problems here” “This evidence is really, really clear!” “Recognize -”).

5. I will do my best to vote strictly off the flow but even within that paradigm it’s impossible to remain absolutely divorced from some degree of subjective decision-making over the course of a round. Thus, as with any judge, whether explicitly stated or not, I’m going to be heavily predisposed to the arguments that make coherent sense to me, starting from the constructive. Too many rebuttals and cases feel like ransom notes in which two or three words from thousands of evidence sources have been copy and pasted together to form something borderline incoherent. To put it another way — I’m not against surprising or novel argumentation but if something seems fake, it’ll feel weaker to me in a round. That being said, I want to limit judge intervention as much as possible and will do everything possible to not incorporate things external to what’s been argued in the round.

The best debates I’ve seen always seem to leave both debaters feeling like they’ve had fun. I’m confident that fulfilling these five preferences will lead to a strong round more often than not. Thank you!

Addition: I’m open to Ks and other kinds of experimental debate. I haven’t had a lot of experience judging them and the ones I’ve seen have generally been deeply unconvincing but I’m not against them at all

Hello!

I debated public forum for all 4 years and was captain of Eagan High School pf debate.

Couple things to know about me:

I am currently a Junior at the University of Minnesota studying History with a minor in Chicanx studies.

I believe public forum is the most accessible form of debate meaning anyone should be able to come into the round and understand what is going on. It is an art form to be able to put complex topics into accessible words for the public to understand.

Therefore, go slow and dont be disrespectful. I strongly prefer traditional pf, if you do anything more you risk me losing you on the flow but I am able to handle someee speed.

I am against inaccessible academia and believe if you are using jargon (includes theory and Ks), you are doing pf wrong.

I make sure I listen intently on the summary speech as I was a second speaker in Highschool.

High school debate should to be a place where no one feels attacked. do not run anything sexist, racist, queerphobic, transphobic, classist, etc.

Remember: its just debate! use debate for experience and to expand your knowledge :)

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Note for Section 230 topic: I feel like for full transparency on this topic you should know I'm currently a 3L at Minnesota Law so have more background knowledge than normal on this topic. I will still do my absolute best to be a blank slate but to help me out please do your best to represent legal concepts + the legal system accurately!

Note for Sections/State: I tend to judge this tournament much more traditionally!

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

• PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
• Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
• Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
• University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
• Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

• I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
• The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
• I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
• Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

• Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
• Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
• Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
• The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
• Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
• My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
• I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
• You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
• Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
• Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
• Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
• Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
• I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

• Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
• I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
• I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

• I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
• Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
• I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
• I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
• Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
• The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
• The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
• If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Preface

Debate is an educational activity. My goal as a judge is to pick the debater(s) who best argues their case. But I also am seeking a round that is educational. Abusive arguments and rhetoric have no place in debate. Treat each other with kindness. We are all here to learn and expand our knowledge and experience. Racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments should not be made. Everyone is welcome in the debate community, do not marginalize and silence folks with your argumentation.

Also, since debate is an education activity, feel free to ask me questions afterthe round. I'm here to help educate as well. As long as we have time before the next round has to start (and I've got enough time to submit my ballot so the tab room doesn't come looking for me), then I'm always happy to answer questions.

Background

Director of Debate at Wayzata High School (MN) since Sept. 2020, I've been coaching and judging locally and nationally since 2013. I also coach speech at Wayzata and at the University of Minnesota.

I am a licensed, practicing attorney. I work as a criminal prosecutor for a local county in Minnesota and I have a MAin Strategic Intelligence and Analysis with a concentration in International Relations and Diplomacy.

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.Please, please, please make your voters clear.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. I like a solid framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not who said it.

-Off-time roadmaps are often a waste of time. If all you are doing is telling me that the Neg Rebuttal is "our case their case" then you don't need to tell me that. If you are going to go FW, then some cross-application, then your case, then their case, then back to FW, then that is something you should tell me. More importantly SIGN POST, SIGN POST, SIGN POST.

-SPEED. This is Public Forum, not Policy. If you spread, you're probably going to lose. I flow on my computer so that I can get as much on my flow as possible, but if you're too fast and unclear, it's not on my flow. If it's not on my flow, it's not evaluated in the round.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Shouting over each other on CX. Keep it civil. Don't monopolize the time.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. If you aren't participating, then I assume it's because you do not have anything more to add to the debate and/or that you aren't actively involved in the debate and I likely will adjust speaks accordingly.

-K cases. I do not like them in public forum, especially if they are not topical. However, a K that is topical and actually engages with the topic and is generally within the topic meta is something I *may* vote off of. But it must be topical, otherwise I will not vote off the argument.

-Loud, annoying, alarms at the end of speeches. If you use the rooster crowing as your alarm in round, I'm dropping speaks.

General

-I'm generally a flow judge, but I don't always flow card authors/names. My focus on the flow is getting what the evidence claims and what the warrant is, rather than who the source was. Referring back to your "Smith" card isn't enough, but giving a quick paraphrasing of the previously cited card, along with the author/source is much more beneficial and effective.

-I'm an expressive person. I'll make a face if I believe you misstated something. I'll nod if I think you're making a good point. I'll shake my head if I think you're making a poor point. This doesn't mean that I'm voting for you or against you. It just means I liked or didn't like that particular statement.

-I like CX, so I tend to allow you to go over time a bit on CX, particularly if team A asks team B a question right before time in order to prevent them from answering. I'll let them answer the question.

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than complain later!

Lincoln Douglas

I'm a PF coach, however I judge LD frequently and I often assist LD students throughout the season.

- I find that it is best to treat me as a "flay" judge... I will flow, but I'm lay. I am very familiar with most of the traditional value/criterion/standards. If you have some new LD tech that is popular on the circuit or something, then I'm probably not the judge for you to run that, unless you are going to fully explain it out because I probably don't know it.

- Speed kills. I do not want to have to strain myself trying to flow your speech. I do not want you to email me your case in order for me to be able to follow it. As noted above in the PF section, if I do not get it on my flow, it probably does not end up impacting the round. I am not afraid to say speed or clear, but by the time I realize I have to say it, it's probably too late for you.

- K debate. I really have no interest in judging a K.

Congress

- I really want some speech variety from y'all. Often, when I'm judging a congress round, I'm serving as a parliamentarian so I'm with you for several sessions. As a result, I should be able to get to see you do a variety of different speeches. I actually have a spreadsheet I use to track everyone's speeches throughout the round, what number speech they gave on each bill, which side they argue for, how often they speak, etc. After the round is over and I'm preparing my ballot, I will consult that to see whether you gave a variety of speech types. Were you consistently in the first group of speakers? Did you give mid-round speeches where you bring clash and direct refutation? Did you mainly give crystallization speeches? Or, did you do a mix of it all? You should be striving to be in the last category. Congress is not about proving you can give the best prepared speech or that you can crystallize every bill. It's about showing how well-rounded you are.

- Speaking of prepared speeches. My opinion is that you should only come in with a fully prepared speech if you are planning to give the authorship/sponsorship or the very first negative speech. After that, your speeches should be no more than 50% canned and the rest should be extemporaneous. This is a debate event. It is not a speech event. Prepared speeches in the mid and late stages of debate are a disservice to yourself and your fellow congresspersons.

- PREP. I have judged a lot of congress over the years. I've judged prelims, elims, and finals at NSDA, NCFL, and the TOC. I am frankly COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY TIRED of y'all having to take a 10+ minute break in between every piece of legislation to either A) prep speeches; B) establish perfect balance between aff and neg; or, C) do research on the bill. A and C really frustrate me. I know y'all are busy. I know that sometimes legislation comes out only a few days before the tournament. And I know that sometimes there are a lot of pieces of legislation to research. But y'all should be spending time to prepare your arguments and have research so that all you're doing mid-round is finding evidence to refute or extend something that happened in the round. And the way tournaments are structured these days, it is rare for a round to have so many people in the chamber that not everyone can speak on a bill.

While I did not debate in high school, I have been coaching and judging debate since 1994 (Policy, LD, PF, Congress). I judge based on the arguments, but highly prefer that we engage in an activity of communication skills. I don't mind some speed, but it won't win you the round by itself. Clear, reasoned, and evidenced arguments will. If I'm not at least writing down your tags, I'm not finding your arguments understandable or applicable.

I consider myself tabula rasa, because I will take virtually any argument that is stated clearly and evidenced. That being said, some arguments are easier to rebut (Neo-Nazism, for example-and yes, someone tried to run that). Also, never assume I will take your argument because of who I am. For example, I don't accept all Feminism critiques just because I'm female.

When not given another paradigm, I default to Stock Issues. Did you win your arguments? What impact does that have on the other arguments?

Name: Tom Fones

School Affiliation: SPA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 33

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

If you are a coach, what events do you coach?

What is your current occupation? Retired Teacher and Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Need to be understandable, prefer slower than most.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big Picture. Prefer collapse to major issues.

Role of the Final Focus- Show voting issues and weigh.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches- Need to extend arguments to impact them.

Topicality- If needed.

Plans Not explicit plans in PF.

Kritiks- Will listen

Flowing/note-taking- Of course flowing, but the content is important, so a drop is not fatal without significant impact.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Don’t require, but think it’s generally good strategy.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

I greatly appreciate civility and clear analysis of issues. There is no need for an off-time roadmap in PF.

Background:

- I'm a parent judge (judge both PF and LD)

- I'm knowledgable about economics and international relations

Argument Preferences:

Keep it within the topic, don't try to skirt the main debate either. Explain philosophy thoroughly if you're going to do it

Use speed at your own risk--it's probably not a good idea.

Do weighing somewhere, arguments that intuitively are more probable are going to be considered more probable by me.

In terms of jargon, keep it to a minimum.

Hey! I was a varsity debater from Edina High School in Minnesota.

First and foremost, I am a tech > truth judge, so if you win an argument and extend and weigh the argument, you will probably win my ballot.

Speed: I can keep up and flow however fast you go, but make sure that you are not going too fast for your opponent. However, if you're spreading unclearly, I'm probably going to stop flowing and call clear. If you can't understand/flow what your opponent is saying, please say "speed" or "clear".

Extensions: While I think that creating a story is really important, I think that you should also extend cards in Summary/FF to go with the story. PLEASE extend cards in your final 2 speeches to win your arguments and win the round. USE CARD NAMES.

First Summary: You don't need to extend defense from rebuttal if it is uncovered in the second rebuttal, but you should be extending turns since they generate offense for you.

Progressive Args: I'm not that comfortable with progressive args, but I'm willing to listen to them as long as they are well-warranted and explained.

THINGS I LIKE:

HAVE FUN: You should be having fun while you debate. Try to make the debate enjoyable and crack some jokes, while still keeping the debate competitive and professional.

WEIGHING: Weighing is something that can easily win my ballot. Weighing is really important to compare the arguments from both sides that have been brought up in the round. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

SIGNPOSTING: Signposting where you are on the flow is really important to let me know where you are so I can flow what you are saying. If you don't signpost, I might miss something really important, just because I don't know where you are.

EXPLANATIONS: Please explain all of your arguments and how they are true. Don't just say "extend our cards/contentions", explain the argument and the entire link story. If you explain your entire argument and extend evidence along with it, I will be very inclined to vote for you.

EVIDENCE COMPARISON: If there are 2 cards in the round that directly contradict with each other, explain why I should prefer your evidence via postdate, warrants, credentials, etc.

SUMMARY AND FF COHESION: The final 2 speeches in the round for each side should mirror each other. Your speeches should go for the same arguments and rhetoric, with the summary collapsing on the argument and the final focus also going for that same thing. Make sure your voting issues are in both summary and final focus, or else voting for you is going to be very hard.

THINGS I DON'T LIKE:

RUDENESS: If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), I am ~NOT AFRAID TO GIVE YOU BELOW 10 SPEAKER POINTS~ and the Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

MISCONSTRUING EVIDENCE: Your evidence should say what you say it says. If needed, read full cards to make this fair. If I think that a piece of evidence is too good to be true or someone tells me to call for it, I will call for the evidence after the round.

CARD CALLING DELAYING: If your opponents call for a card, please be able to pull it up in a reasonable amount of time. If you are unable to produce it in a minute or so, I will just cross the evidence off of the flow.

EXTENDING THROUGH INK: If you are going for a response/argument, and your opponents respond to it, please respond to the response. Extending your argument through their responses makes the round extremely messy as I don't know whether to buy their responses or your argument.

You made it to the end, GOOD LUCK!

I am a PF coach and former debater. I can handle some speed, but if you go super fast I will most likely miss things. Please don't run critiques. My preference is for debaters to just debate the resolution at hand. The most important thing to me is warrants, I want to hear why your argument is accurate, not just to be told that it is.

Finally if you try to go for a nuclear war impact on a resolution that doesn't directly relate to nuclear I will 100% vote against it.

This is my fourth year judging. My judging is based on quality and accuracy. Students should be respectful and argue in a way that demonstrates this. I enter each debate with no opinion on the subject. It is up to you to convince me to side with your argument. 

These are the criteria that I typically judge:

clarity of case

clearly stated opening argument

use of facts and examples in the correct order - source then evidence

overall clarity of presented argument

crossfire - well constructed questions and answers

PF Paradigm (see bottom for Worlds paradigm)

Experience: I debated for Blake in PF for 4 years. I won TOC 2019, TOC 2020, Glenbrooks, NDCAs, and some others. I'm now a coach and my students have amassed a couple dozen bids and have been in elimination rounds of every major national championship.

Put me on the email chain: jackdebateemail@gmail.com

If you have any questions about my paradigm, I'm happy to answer them before the round.

My paradigm is as follows:

- I am a flow judge. Tech>truth but all claims still need warrants

- I used to put "cut card don't cite PDFs" at the top of this paradigm but basically nobody cites PDFs anymore, which is nice, but just in case I'll keep that here.

- If it isn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, it's conceded. (In layman's terms, the second rebuttal must answer the responses to case that the first rebuttal made.) If it's in final focus, it needs to be in summary—aka defense is NOT sticky. The only exception is that I do accept new weighing in 1st ff, but no new weighing in 2nd ff. All else equal, I'll prefer weighing the earlier it appears in the round.

- If you're going 300wpm or faster, be very clear. I'm not gonna pretend to understand you at 400wpm and try to base my entire understanding of the round on my interpretation of the speech doc. If it actually gets too fast for me, I'll say "slow," but that hasn't happened to me (yet) in PF. ("Clear" means something different—it means you aren't enunciating well enough while you're spreading.) While I max out somewhere between 350 and 400wpm, Speed is fine with me—UNLESS you are paraphrasing. No spreading while paraphrasing. Very low threshold for theory args made against this abusive practice.

- Keep your own time.

- The easiest way to get my ballot and/or high speaks is to collapse and weigh effectively. I really hate messy rounds with many pieces of under-implicated offense. I love dense, technical rounds that boil down to a few strategically-chosen key points, with lots of clash and weighing analysis throughout. Also, characterize the flow for me. Tell me things like "this is the easiest place to vote because they dropped our weighing" or "this defense matters because it means they don't get their offense, meaning they have no access to their weighing even if they're theoretically winning it." (A word to the wise—characterize the flow with every judge, not just with me. Tech judges get confused too. Trust.)

- Extend links and impacts in both summary and final focus.

- Theory is good. Feel free to run theory. I default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise. Def not a theory hack and will listen to things like reasonability or even substance>theory if argued well.

- Kritiks are usually fine. Things like the Cap K, Fem IR, or Neocol are safer bets for me. Particularly not a fan of discourse ("vote for us because we talked about this marginalized community and they didn't") or in-round identity ("vote for us because we are X race") kritiks, but I'll try to evaluate them fairly, I guess. Something something tabula rasa. ☹️

- Spark and Death Good are so absurd and offensive that I have trouble being impartial when evaluating them. I understand that these arguments catalyze interesting thought experiments, but telling a room full of children that death is actually a good thing is not something I want to encourage. But, something something tabula rasa... If for some reason you absolutely have to run these arguments, at least try to present your args in a way that doesn't imply that most of the world would be better off dead, if that's even possible with these arguments. Again, low threshold for responses to these args, because I want to discourage them.

- I generally understand topicality, but I never debated a full-fledged T round, or even saw a complete T shell during all my years of debating. I understand this is now a thing in PF. So, if you're running topicality, dumb it down a bit for me. Clearly I'm washed up.

- If you have questions about the decision, feel free to post-round me. As long as you keep it respectful (and the tournament is on time) there's no problem.

- I don't like when cases are blipstorms of 27 links and rebuttals have 42 paraphrased under-explained turns in them. A claim without a warrant is useless.

- I prefer competitors to read cut cards verbatim but I will accept paraphrased cut cards as well.

- For theory, my bias is to believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. However, I will approach judging a theory debate without any bias towards or against either practice. In terms of disclosure method, I'm biased against open-source disclosure because I like forcing teams to re-cut stuff if they're going to use pre-cut evidence. It's always good to use your brain when you're constructing your case. But again, I won't be biased about this arg either way. It's not like you're arguing that most of the world should die in a nuclear war, after all.

- Speech times are binding, no open cross (except for grand), no double-wins.

- Trigger warnings are not necessary and I actively discourage them (but I will still evaluate TW theory impartially)

- Flex prep is fine with me

Finally, there are 5 scenarios I can see myself intervening against a team. First, I will not evaluate a counterplan. Second, you will lose if you are *extremely* uncivil or rude. (Or if you throw a chair at your opponent, which actually happened one time on the Minnesota circuit.) Third, I will not evaluate badly misrepresented evidence. Fourth, I will not evaluate speaker points theory, because it's dumb and there's no incentive to respond to it. Fifth, I won't vote off tricks, because they are also dumb and are rarely warranted enough to be complete, ballot-deserving arguments.

Worlds Paradigm

Experience: I was a two-year member of team USA. I have also coached several teams in Worlds to considerable success, including breaking at tournaments like Nats and Harvard.A few things:

- Like any other judge, I will make decisions based on a mix of style, content, and strategy. However, all else equal, I will prefer content and strategy over style.

- Due to my PF background, I'm a fan of more dense and technical debates.

- For the sake of the format's integrity, and for the format's accessibility to the ESL community, please keep your speed conversational.

- The more direct clash, the better.

- Please accept at least 1 POI in each of your speeches (obviously excluding the replies.) 2 is preferred.

- Try to resolve model quibbles by the end of the second speeches. I don't want to be having a prolonged model debate into the 3s.

- Analysis and warranting are everything in this format. Please back up some of your points with a diverse array of examples.

-Collapse and weigh, particularly in the 3rd speeches. Tell me what the most important arguments in the round are, why they're the most important, and why you're winning them.

- Generally, I evaluate debates on a principle and practical level, attempting to give similar weight to each. However, some motions will be heavily skewed towards the practical (or vice versa) so in those debates I will more heavily evaluate the debate that takes place closest to the spirit of the motion. However, I will always default to any analysis a team makes that positions either the principle or the practical as most important, regardless of the nature of the motion. I am absolutely more open to principle-based arguments than most Worlds judges, who tend to be biased in favor of practical argumentation, so keep that in mind. Talk to me about Deont!!!!

Hi! I was a public forum debater from Eagan, MN and debated PF for four years.

TLDR; To win my ballot win on the warrants, narrative, and flow. To get good speaker points, be respectful. *Please* don’t run any theory in round, this is public forum.

Here are my preferences in round:

1. Be nice. I absolutely hate when debaters are super aggressive, it's unnecessary in my opinion.

2. Reference your flow! This is extremely important, in every speech after constructive. In your speech, make sure you tell me exactly which contention, argument, or card you are referencing. Remember, my flow will contain only what you tell me.

3. I am okay with a little speed, but make sure that it isn’t as fast as a policy round.

4. Don’t paraphrase evidence. Always cite each piece of evidence you read (author, qualifications, and date), and make sure you have access to the full article. If evidence isn’t provided when asked, I will not weigh it.

5. I weigh evidence over logic, but you can use logic to de-link evidence.

6. You should extend terminal defense in the first summary, and should collapse to voters in both summaries. These voters should be repeated in final focus. Create a narrative and extend it. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.

7. WEIGH. “Prefer this because…”. Make sure to respond to clash. Debates without clash aren’t fun for anybody, especially the judge.

8. If you're racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way... your speaking points? They'll reflect your low behavior.

9. Feel free to ask me questions before round!

Speaker point breakdown:

30-29 - pretty good

28-27 - could be better but good

26 - there's some improvement to be had

Because I'm not entrenched in the debate world as much as I am in speech, you need to have clear taglines that help to tell your story.... and it is a story as much as an argument.

Although I consider myself to be a left-leaning moderate in the real world, that very easily could be construed to be conservative in the debate world.

Beating up on your opponent with "That's rude" is very Jr. High -- it bounces off of me and sticks to you. I do consider "what my opponent said offensive" though.

LDers - take more than 10 seconds to explain your values. It's worth your effort. ***see also Great Speeches: why just giving me a rhetorical analysis from the Andromeda Galaxy does me no good

PFers -- It is called Public Forum for a reason. I'm an educated person who votes and keeps up with the news on well-balanced and respected platforms. I am not the norm for "public" that is always in the back of my head in my decision making.

And like Ellen says at the end of her show: Be kind to one another.

Hi y'all!

I did PF at East Ridge HS in MN for 3 years and graduated in 2019. Did both mostly local debate but both nat circuit and local stuff for speech. I've judged a variety of PF and LD in the past. However, I am pretty busy with college so my topic literacy is very mediocre, I can pick up arguments quickly but you should explain them well.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Some quick things about me as a judge:

- I'm fine with speed, just be aware that the faster you go the less information I flow

- Win the round with clean extensions, both warrant and impact

- I prefer cohesive summary + FF combos so if you want me to vote on an argument it should be in both speeches

- Warranting is great (please extend + explain them with cards). Please warrant, you could have the best evidence about [blank] impact but if you don't have a reason as to why's that true, I'm not going to evaluate it in my RFD.

- Weighing is also great! It makes the round a lot easier for not only you but me as well

- I prefer no defence in 1st summary and prefer that you try to respond to turns in 2nd rebuttal instead

- Please give a roadmap and signpost

- I have an extremely rudimentary understanding of non-traditional args (ex: theory shells, Ks, etc.) so an explanation is appreciated

- I will call for cards and if you misconstrue evidence I will drop that piece of evidence. Please note that if a ton of your evidence is misconstrued I will intervene on evidence ethics. Please have your cards ready to share with your opponents and/or me if necessary.

Other:

Please be respectful. I'm a firm believer in the fact that you are a person before you are a debater and I'll penalize you in speaks and possibly on the ballot if there's anything that comes up.

On the other hand, please do let me know if you have any concerns (especially in this new online format) and don't hesitate to voice those concerns or questions to me either before or during the round.

Also, feel free to contact me if you have any questions about my ballot through email at lu000227@umn.edu

Have fun and good luck!

background: sophomore in college, debated for edina hs in minnesota on local + nat circuits, worked for public forum academy (summer 2021), currently coaching varsity pf at palo alto high school

tldr: normal tech judge. collapse + weigh + be a good person and you'll be fine. debate is needlessly stressful - have some fun in my round

general

arjun25@stanford.edu - put me on the email chain

if you need any accommodations, i'm happy to help out. feel free to message me on facebook or email me

run what you want. i like hearing creative arguments. don't be problematic

read content warnings for triggering arguments, preferably via an anonymous form

easiest ways to lose speaks: misconstruing evidence, being rude, hacking prep egregiously, delaying the round for no reason (ex: taking forever to find a card)

evidence

i paraphrased in hs and if done well i support the practice

if you're paraphrasing, you need to have the card ready at moment's notice for me or your opponents to call

if i call a card and you're paraphrasing, give me both a) the paraphrase of what you read from ur rebuttal doc and b) the cut card

expect bad speaks if you have bad evidence

i have dropped people on egregious evidence before

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

metaweighing is only rarely necessary, but in rounds with solid weighing and clash it can be important. most of the time the weighing debate can be won without having to metaweigh

progressive arguments

don't exclude your opponent

if you feel excluded by the argument, try to articulate how you've been excluded in the round

if you run progressive arguments commonly seen in PF pre-pandemic, i'll know it pretty well. if not, still read the argument, but don't expect me to know the lit base so spend a lot of time on warranting. please don't spread if you're running these arguments so that i can catch everything

i'm not an expert on evaluating Ks but im all ears if u wanna go for it

if you want to read theory/T about something that transpired in the round but don't know the formal format, still run it even if it's in paragraph form. try to have the basic idea of a shell, so: a) interpretation (your interpretation of debate), b) violation (what your opponents did to violate that interpretation of debate), c) standards (why your interpretation is a good model for debate), and d) voters (impacts to fairness/education and an implication like drop the debater or drop the argument).

teams often run theory in front of me, but i honestly am not a fan of it at all. i'll evaluate it, but i'd much, much rather see a high quality content debate! Ks are more interesting than theory to me but i'm not as good at evaluating them

strong bias against friv theory and tricks. it's terrible for debate and it's gna be hard to convince me otherwise

if there is no offense, i will presume to vote for whoever is the 1st speaking team. this is because of the structural disadvantage that 1st speaking teams experience in pf

if you have questions, feel free to ask before round.

other paradigm references: i was coached by Mark Allseits in high school if you wanna see what my background is. also, everything in this paradigm also applies to me as well (debate partner from hs)

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how you treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Spreading offers no educational value to debate. Talking fast I am cool with if you have the diction for it!

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

I debated four years of PF at Eagan and I coached there for six years. This is my first year not coaching, so I am not prepping any topics this year.

I try to vote off the flow, and my paradigm is pretty typical. I am very flexible in terms of argumentation, and the best way to win my ballot is to use quality arguments and tech.

Here are a few basic things:

-I'm fine with speed, but it's better to be clear

-Any offense you hope to win on needs to be extended in both summary and final focus

-Weigh the impacts clearly

-Explain the evidence clearly and sign post

-Terminal defense doesn't necessarily have to be in summary

-Speaks are basically how I feel about your performance in the round compared to the competition at the tournament.

I am willing to consider any argument, but I would not advise running anything controversial in front of me.

henrynomeland@gmail.com

I look at the chain to check evidence. I won't be flowing off of a doc.

Debated PF for Lakeville. I study Statistics at UW-Madison. Briefly did instructing/coaching after High School.

UPDATED FOR TOC 2024

I know nothing about this topic. I also haven't thought a lot about debate since around 2021 so keep that in mind.

PLEASE be chill and nice to everyone in crossfire and during speeches.

I flow extensions and care about them being good.

I appreciate if you have cards.

Collapse to as few arguments as possible. Please do not go for multiple contentions/case arguments in summary.

My favorite arguments are relatively niche, relatively small impact scenarios concerning interest groups that get less attention in most debates.

I evaluate arguments and not the labels of arguments. Pointing out that your opponent's responses don't use the jargon and preconceived frameworks that you're anticipating them to use isn't going to win my ballot.

Voting where debaters tell me to vote >>> Voting where I personally think you messed up

I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes.

If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing. If there's no clash and no weighing I will be sad.

How I resolve weighing

Absent comparisons by debaters themselves:

I value well-warranted prereq, short circuit, and link-in arguments most.

For obvious reasons I prefer conceded, warranted, and comparative weighing.

I generally prefer weighing introduced earlier in the round.

Prog Stuff

I would seriously prefer to judge a substance round. I don't understand postmodernism, philosophy, and the state of debate discourse over the past three years nearly well enough to judge these issues as accurately as many other judges. This being said:

I will vote for any argument you win and weigh. I debated theory a lot more than Ks when I was in debate. Frivolous theory and tricks are usually bad and my threshold for responses is low.

Other Stuff

These people taught me debate:

Maddie Cook

Bryce Piotrowski

Gus Gerlach

I reserve the right to drop you for making the space unsafe.

I also reserve the right to drop you for blatantly violating NSDA or tournament rules (there are probably rules that are bad, I promise I won't arbitrarily enforce bad rules or trivial technicalities). Fabricating or egregiously misrepresenting evidence is basically always an instant loss.

Did public forum debate at Blake for 4 years (Blake '21)

email chain (blakedocs@googlegroups.com) - please put what the tournament, round number, and name of both teams

"tech>truth"

cards >>>>> paraphrasing -- all args need to have warrants

______________________________________________________

When it comes to evidence, read cards. At the very very least, you need to have a card with the full cite (not just the url) ready if your opponents call for your evidence. You need to produce a card if your opponents ask for it. I do not like long evidence exchanges - you should already have the card cut and ready to be sent.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline the answers from 1st rebuttal as well as answer the opponents case. Summary needs collapse and weigh. Summary and final focus need to mirror each other. In order for an argument to make it into my ballot, it must be in summary and final focus. Signpost everything.

Weighing: The very best way to get my ballot is to weigh. There absolutely needs to be comparative analysis in round. The earlier weighing happens in the round the better. Weighing should always come earlier in the round than second final focus. If there is no weighing in the round or the weighing comes too late, you may not like the decision I make. Weighing gives you the best opportunity to influence the outcome of my ballot.

Arguments need a link, warrant, and impact.

In order for something in crossfire to be flowed through, it must be brought into speeches.

I really do not have a lot of experience evaluating progressive argumentation. I am still learning how to evaluate progressive arguments. If you plan on reading any theory, kritiks, etc., please explain the arguments fully and clearly. I will do my best to evaluate them. That being said, if you are reading a progressive arg you probably want to decrease the speed that you read and extend the arg.

Be accountable for timing your own speeches, crossfires, and prep time.

I can flow public forum speed.

no tricks

don't read new ev that directly contradicts your links to get out of turns

Be respectful of your opponents and your partner. Racist/sexist/homophobic/any other hateful and offensive arguments won't be tolerated.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask!

hey Ale

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you don't.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that crow about their opponents missing a "hidden link" or doing weighing to the effect of "prioritize strength of link because it leads to less intervention".

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument. I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. Fairness bad arguments are illogical. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

Last update: December 2022; a few clarifications, a few additions based on things that have come up recently, removed bullets that were specific to virtual debates (long may they remain unnecessary)

Debate Background and General Info:

I did PF for four years in high school (I graduated in 2014). I consider myself a flow judge, but I will still drop for offensive or inappropriate behavior or rules/ethics violations even if you "win" on the flow. Details on my preferences below, I'm also happy to answer questions before the round.

Details

1. Frontlining: In most rounds you should probably be spending at least a minute on your side of the flow if you are giving the second rebuttal, but I'm willing to be a little more generous in how I flow a "response" given the time constraint (e.g. I would view saying "cross-apply Card XYZ from my response to their C2" without the full level of analysis/impact as a full response, assuming you did actually give a full response to their C2). A good rebuttal that covers the entire flow will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

2. I like to see the round start to condense in Summary, but I understand that in some rounds you need to cover at least part of the flow line-by-line. I leave it up to your strategic discretion how to balance those two approaches; similar to above I will reward you with higher speaker points if you can effectively respond to key points made in the rebuttals but also start to crystallize the round.

3. I like creative arguments, I don't like non-resolutional arguments (and I won't vote for non-topical arguments). If you aren't sure how I would categorize the argument you are planning to run I'm happy to answer questions before the round.

4. If you are giving me "voters" still tell me where you are on the flow.

5. You should be responding to the specific warrants within your opponent's contentions, not just to the taglines.

6. Signpost. Extend arguments fully. Weigh. Impact. Don't be rude.

7. I'll assume CBA if neither side has an alternative framework. Don't introduce a new framework out of nowhere late in the round.

8. I don't flow CX, so you should mention important points in your next speech. I am still paying attention though, so don't lie and say something was said in crossfire that wasn't.

9. I'm really not a fan of offensive overviews in the first rebuttal that don't relate to anything said in the constructives. I'll still flow it, I might even vote on it, but you will probably get lower speaker points if you're doing this.

10. My default speaker point score is 27; I will move up or down from that based on if you impress or disappoint me relative to my expectations for the tournament/pool (i.e. a Novice 29 is not equivalent to a Varsity 29).

11. I don't usually have an issue with speed in PF, so unless you are an outlier you are probably fine. That being said, if your entire speech consists of blippy, one-sentence cards I am probably going to miss some of them if you are going fast.

12. I hate evidence exchanges that take forever. At a minimum you should be able to show them the card immediately because you just read it. I get it might take a minute to pull up the article, but part of your prep should be organizing your evidence in a way that makes it easy to find in round. We shouldn't be sitting around for 5 minutes waiting for you to find something.

13. If you are doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it, BUT I will probably only look at it if there is a question raised in the round as to what a card actually says. I don't view the email chain as a substitute for a clear flow, and I don't want to spend a ton of time reading through your cards if I don't have to.

Personal Pet Peeves: (I won't drop you for doing something on this list. But if you want a 30 these are some things to avoid):

1. I seem to judge a lot of teams that are rolling their eyes or openly scoffing at things their opponents say. Don't do this. Maybe their argument really is bad, but that's my job to decide, not yours. I will dock your speaks if you do this.

2. Spending significant time in all speeches and crossfires on a framework debate and then using an unrelated framework (or no framework at all) to weigh the round in FF.

3. Yelling. I've really never understood why people think this is necessary.

4. Having one mega-contention with a bunch of unrelated subpoints. If your subpoints don't relate to each other they should be separate contentions.

5. Saying "Partner ready?" before you start your speech. If you are stopping prep it's assumed your partner is ready.

6. Talking to or passing notes to your partner during speeches and/or solo crossfires. You have prep time for a reason, you should make sure you are on the same page before you start speaking.

7. Speeches that go over time, especially in Varsity. I will stop flowing once time is up, so trying to squeeze in one more card when you are 10 seconds over isn't going to help you and I will dock speaks for this.

Im a previous debater for Lakeville North under the infamous Bryce Piotrowski!

stuff I need to see in a PF round:

- add me to the email chain please: romajscia91@isd194.org

- I will only vote off the flow don't worry all that much about speaking pretty (although it helps), I give speaks based on strat. I can probs flow how fast you are going just I need it Clear! ALSO YELLING DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE GOING FASTER!!!! Saying that I do want to see passion backing your points.

- must see Frontline in second rebuttal or I see it as dropped

- Weigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG PLEASE WHEIGH!

- Compare links like extend warrants (I will not extend anything for you)

- do not read FW if you're just going to read Cost ben

- I do not want to hear def of the res unless you have to respond to some wack stuff brought up

- when it comes to theory and all that jazz I don’t really know how it works but that doesn’t mean I won’t buy it. I’ll just need extra explanation

- Do your own timing (10 sec grace period but try and not go over) if it’s way over stop your opponents

- I don’t take prep time for calling cards ( but I will be very annoyed if you abuse this power)

- if you reference BRYCE PIOTROWSKI in round I bump speaks by .5

- keep the round fun please!

- also y'all can buy the beautiful sticker of Bryce for $5 (if you want that circuit clout). Which you can find on bottom right corner of my computer.

-also im too lazy to write out this whole paradigm so I also agree with this paradigm

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=Bryce&search_last=Piotrowski

In regards to congress:

- If I’m forced and I mean forced to judge congress first impression mean everything, don’t worry I’m qualified to judge. In high school I qualified to congress nats 2x the second winning southern minnesota senate finals.

For Public Forum Debate:

I don't have a technical orientation to debate anyway, but especially in this format I value and reward displays of critical thinking and appeals to basic common sense and logic. You can win an argument with me even if your opponent has a card and you don't.

Generally I am skeptical of cards when I hear them. I'm very sensitive to and annoyed by over- and mis-interpretation of evidence. I am thrilled if you probe your opponent's understanding of their cards and the expertise/validity of their sources.

I'd rather have you step back, slow down, and talk me through a well reasoned argument than take time brainlessly spouting some bad piece of evidence pulled from a french law student's blog.

Particulars and pet peeves:

* I have a 30% hearing loss in one ear to SPEAKING UP is especially important to me.

* Confidence is important and a plus but you should also be overly-polite. Don't condescend to your opponent...

* ... or to me by telling me that I "have to" give you the win for any given reason. This is almost never true, especially in the less technical PF world. Encourage and influence me to weigh the way you'd like but it just bugs me when you get all bossy.

LD:

I competed in LD for four years in high school, and coached/judged LD in Minnesota from 2010 - 2021.

In a round, I prefer to vote based on offense that links to the winning criterion and outweighs the other side.

Speed is fine with me, but I will only say clear once then I will stop flowing.

I am fine with any position as long as it is well warranted and explained.

Treat one another with respect. I will call out and not vote on harmful arguments.

PF:

I coached/judged PF regularly from 2010-2021.

Only read a standard if it serves a purpose. I come from LD and don't think standards are ever run well in PF.

I prefer to vote on weighed offense.

Treat one another with respect. I will call out and not vote on harmful arguments.

Hi! I am currently a paralegal and used to be a PF debater :)

TLDR; To win my ballot win on the warrants, narrative, and flow. To get good speaker points, be respectful. Please don’t run any theory in round, this is public forum.

Here are my preferences in round:

1. Be nice. I absolutely hate when debaters are super aggressive, it's unnecessary in my opinion. One debate round isn’t the end of the world, calm down and be respectful.

2. Reference your flow! This is extremely important, in every speech after constructive. In your speech, make sure you tell me exactly which contention, argument, or card you are referencing. Remember, my flow will contain only what you tell me.

3. I am okay with a little speed, but make sure that it isn’t as fast as a policy round.

4. Don’t paraphrase evidence. Always cite each piece of evidence you read (author, qualifications, and date), and make sure you have access to the full article. If evidence isn’t provided when asked, I will not weigh it.

5. I weigh evidence over logic, but you can use logic to de-link evidence.

6. You should extend terminal defense in the first summary, and should collapse to voters in both summaries. These voters should be repeated in final focus. Create a narrative and extend it. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you.

7. WEIGH. “Prefer this because…”. Make sure to respond to clash. Debates without clash aren’t fun for anybody, especially the judge.

8. If you're racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way you're speaking points will reflect your behavior.

9. Feel free to ask me questions before round :)

Speaker point breakdown:

30- best speaker at the tournament

29- above average speaker

28- pretty good speaker, but could be better on analysis or speaking

27- good speaker, but needs improvement in both analysis and speaking

26- lacks proper speaking skills, or made an error in round

25 or less- paraphrased evidence that isn’t true or was disrespectful in round

Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylarrwang@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Notes for 12/2 -I'm not familiar with this topic, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating!

General:

- Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on

- Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing

- Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way.

This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this

- Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted!

- Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted.

- Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link.

More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate."

- I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to Ks than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory)

- Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read.

Back half specifics:

- Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted

- Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus

- For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary

- Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks

Speaks:

- I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- avg is 28

- will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior

Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.

Hey! I am a former varsity debater from Edina High School in Minnesota. If you need anything (extra questions/accommodations), contact me on Facebook or at iywu@usc.edu

First and foremost, I am a tech > truth judge, so if you win an argument and extend and weigh the argument, you will probably win my ballot.

Speed: I can keep up and flow however fast you go, but make sure that you are not going too fast for your opponent. However, if you're spreading unclearly, I'm probably going to stop flowing and call clear. If you can't understand/flow what your opponent is saying, please say "speed" or "clear".

Extensions: While I think that creating a story is really important, I think that you should also extend cards in Summary/FF to go with the story. PLEASE extend cards in your final 2 speeches to win your arguments and win the round.

Second Rebuttal: I think that speaking second in the round is extremely beneficial but can be abused easily. I think that you should come back to your case as well and frontline the turns and best defense on your side. Not only do I think that it makes the debate a bit fairer, but it can also be very strategic.

First Summary: You don't need to extend defense from rebuttal if it is uncovered in the second rebuttal, but you should be extending turns since they generate offense for you.

Disclosure: You don't need to disclose, I probably won't vote on disclosure theory.

Progressive Args: I'm not that comfortable with progressive args, but I'm willing to listen to them as long as they are well-warranted and explained.

THINGS I LIKE

WEIGHING: Weighing is something that can easily win my ballot. Weighing is really important to compare the arguments from both sides that have been brought up in the round. GIVE ME A REASON WHY TO PREFER YOUR ARGUMENT/LINK/IMPACT OVER YOUR OPPONENTS.

SIGNPOSTING: Signposting where you are on the flow is really important to let me know where you are so I can flow what you are saying. If you don't signpost, I might miss something really important, just because I don't know where you are.

EXPLANATIONS: Please explain all of your arguments and how they are true. Don't just say "extend our cards/contentions", explain the argument and the entire link story. If you explain your entire argument and extend evidence along with it, I will be very inclined to vote for you.

EVIDENCE COMPARISON: If there are 2 cards in the round that directly contradict with each other, explain why I should prefer your evidence via postdate, warrants, credentials, etc.

SUMMARY AND FF COHESION: The final 2 speeches in the round for each side should mirror each other. Your speeches should go for the same arguments and rhetoric, with the summary collapsing on the argument and the final focus also going for that same thing. Make sure your voting issues are in both summary and final focus, or else voting for you is going to be very hard.

THINGS I DON'T LIKE:

RUDENESS: If you make an offensive comment (ex: racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), I am ~NOT AFRAID TO GIVE YOU BELOW 10 SPEAKER POINTS~ and the L. Debate should be inclusive and safe for people.

MISCONSTRUING EVIDENCE: Your evidence should say what you say it says. If needed, read full cards to make this fair. If I think that a piece of evidence is too good to be true or someone tells me to call for it, I will call for the evidence after the round.

CARD CALLING DELAYING: If your opponents call for a card, please be able to pull it up in a reasonable amount of time. If you are unable to produce it in a minute or so, I will just cross the evidence off of the flow.

EXTENDING THROUGH INK: If you are going for a response/argument, and your opponents respond to it, please respond to the response. Extending your argument through their responses makes the round extremely messy as I don't know whether to buy their responses or your argument.

If you take no prep and actually win the round, I'll give you a 30.

please start an email chain: syadavdebate@gmail.com

----------

I would call myself a fairly flow judge. "tech > truth" unless the evidence that is being read is very misrepresented.

Anything you want me to vote on must be extended in summary. There's no such this as sticky defense. Frontline in 2nd RB. Frontline, if applicable, and extend in summary.

You do not have to extend case in 1st RB.

I prefer the weighing done for me; as in a bunch of warrants, defense and turns will do nothing for me if they are not contextualized. I expect to hear why I should prefer your side with reference to warrants. I could maybe vote on something left off of FF, but I won't extend something from case/rebuttal to summary UNLESS it makes sense in the round (ie opponent brings it up again). Weighing should be comparative, doesn't help if both teams say they have a high probability without comparing to their opponent.

I do not flow cross-ex (but I do listen). if it's a new argument/warranting in CX, it should be in a speech. Be nice

As for mechanics, I am pretty flexible and should be comfortable with speed (unless it will be very fast/spreading) as long as you are clear. A speech doc will be well appreciated if you are speaking fast. I'm open to theory, as long as it is not frivolous (ex: no shoe theory). Ks and shells are both ok. I default to reasonability. Please note I am not an expert with theory, and again speech docs will help me understand more. (especially in online debate)

Have evidence ready, shouldn't take longer than 1-2 min to find it or send it out. Also, I will take it from your prep if you're prepping when your opponent is getting a card. I know online debate means I can't enforce this too well so honor system.

About paraphrasing: It takes away from the education of the debate, I do hate it, and while I won't drop you (on face) for it, I won't like you any better if you give me 40 one-lined "cards" in case or rebuttal. Plus it just takes away from the round when your opponent has to call for 10 cards because you read them too fast. (Anti) Paraphrasing theory will pretty easily win my ballot if done well.

..............................................................................................................................................

Overall, I try my best to make the right decision (but I'm nowhere near perfect). If you have ANY questions feel free to contact me (syadavno1@gmail.com) or ask me before/after the round. Thank you!

I look for clear speaking and reputable evidence. I will not intervene unless something is rude or offensive