Tabroom.com

46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2020 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aisha Abdelhamid Hire 8 rounds None

Nishma Abeyweera Stuyvesant HS None

Ashley Acosta-Serrano Gilbert Classical Academy None

Clement Agho-Otoghile George Ranch HS

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:11 AM CDT

Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

amira al amin Hire 8 rounds None

Jorge Alcantara Hire 8 rounds None

Natalie Alexander Hire 8 rounds None

Mahwash Aman Brooklyn Technical HS None

Lauren Amos Lake Highland Preparatory

Curtis Anderson Thales Academy Rolesville Speech and Debate

Dr. Rajani Anne King High School None

Andrew Aoyama Regis High School

Caspar Arbeeny Edgemont HS

Last changed on Sat April 17, 2021 at 10:27 AM EDT

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

One team tells me to.
I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

Harold Arkoff Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Toby Arment Hire 8 rounds

Nicholas Arozarena Ransom Everglades

Hannah Babcock Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 17, 2020 at 2:47 AM EDT

I am a senior at Harvard, so I only judge PF during this tournament each year. In high school, I competed in Congressional debate and speech. I do my best to follow the standard tournament PF rules.

I keep a flow during debate, and I like to see strong rebuttal when I'm considering who won on a certain topic. I balance strength, logic, and evidence of your constructive arguments with thoughtful, empirical, and/or logical responses to the other team's arguments. I like to see evidence used to back up your points; however, usually both sides are going to have evidence for their case, so I also like to see you use logical reasoning to tell me why I should favor your claims and supporting evidence over your opponent!

Overall, I like to see the balance of presenting your own arguments in an organized, efficient way, while also attacking the points of the other team. Weighing your arguments in summary and final focus is helpful for me when making my decision about what to consider; since I have a limited judging background, I'm not extremely familiar with the rules about what speeches you can/can't make new arguments in, but it's helpful for me to organize my thoughts if the last speeches are truly a focus of what points you won on and why you won, and why I should believe that you won those points.

I also like to see a productive cross examination with clash on the main points of contention. I don't like to see a lot of arguing back-and-forth about the minutiae of a point, especially if it's taking up a lot of time. I also like to see respect! I don't like to see condescending or disrespectful attitudes toward the other team. Let your arguments speak for themselves. No spreading. If you can speak quickly and I can still understand you and flow, that's fine. If you're speaking so quickly that I can't understand you, then I can't use any of the information you're giving me.

Judging PF is fun for me, because I remember being in your shoes. I love seeing the talent that you guys bring to this meet! Have fun, and good luck!

Yashvardhan Bardoloi Hire 8 rounds

Matt Bartula Sequoyah High School

Pranav Baskar Hire 8 rounds None

Esther Bateson Hamilton High School

Josh Beistle Gilbert Classical Academy

Swapna Bellamkonda North Allegheny

Julia Belov Stuyvesant HS

Emma Bernstein Hire 8 rounds None

Romi Biswas Potomac Debate Academy

Marcie Black Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS 8 rounds None

Sarah Borland E.L. Meyers High School

Alex Bornote Hire 8 rounds

Michaela Bove Harley School, The None

ed bracey Hire 8 rounds None

Matthew F Brandstetter Milton Academy

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:49 AM PDT

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

Luiz Bravim Cardinal Gibbons

Last changed on Fri March 15, 2024 at 8:45 AM EDT

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim. 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over.

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

PF Prefs

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary to Final Focus.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it).

On Speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team and all the judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That's not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech.

On theory: I've heard my share of theory arguments and find the majority of those rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing.

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all 3are part of effective argumentation)

LD Prefs

I'm best at adjudicating traditional LD rounds. However, I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If it's getting debate on fw is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else.

Slow down on card tags, warrants, weighing, and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Don't drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

In order of preference:

1.) Traditional/lay 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4 times and I've judged a lot of debate rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of the tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.

Congress Prefs

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be ready, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Reading at top speed, close to top speed, or 200+ wpm for most of the round.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care a lot less about your argument than if you seem to have a stake in it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running.

Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

Outside debate, I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic lit, retro video games, and cats.

Good luck to all!

Chelsea A Briggs Stoneman Douglas HS

Julia Brogdon Carrollton

Christian Browder Hire 8 rounds None

Ray Brown Boca Raton Community HS

Will Brown Walt Whitman

Last changed on Wed December 2, 2020 at 7:04 AM EDT

hi im will i debated for whitman for 3 years. I stole this paradigm entirely from Azraf Khan, I am so much less cool in real life.

important stuff

1) be nice. please be nice. i am way more likely to want to vote for you if you are almost absurdly nice. obviously anything blatantly offensive will mean u get dropped. being mean or dismissive to your opponents will make me not want to vote for you sorry not sorry.

2) you can wear whatever you want and makes you feel the most comfortable to debate. crocs! sweatshirts! flats! sneakers! ive debated so i know how generally stressful it is and i dont want to add to ur stress or discomfort in any way!

3) debate the way you want to debate! have some fun.

round stuff

1. if offense isn't extended (warrant and all) in summary AND ff, its not in my ballot. that means full scale warrant extensions. links with no impacts > impacts with no links

2. i'll evaluate weighing first, then who links into that weighing best. if you want my ballot, you best be weighing.

3. please, please frontline. you HAVE to respond to your opponents rebuttal/case/arguments in general. if u dont do that you aren't debating, you're just saying things

4. im only slightly tech over truth - if you're saying stuff that is factually incorrect the response can literally be "that's false, google blank" and i will google it. if you have ur own real evidence, even better!

5. debate is a weird and sometimes really fun game. read weird arguments, i loved them when i debated. do fun strategy. have fun with the game and it'll be worth it. yay fun tech debate!

6. card dumping is like whatever but really annoying lol. however, the more responses u read, the less good the responses to them have to be. also, if you don't warrant your responses, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

If you do a hand motion while you're speaking that I've never seen before, I'll boost your speaks.

ALSO: The last time I judged was Harvard, so two major important other things.

1. This is my first time doing NSDA campus/online judging, so keep that in mind. I do know how to use computers however, so I don't think there will be any technical issues.

2. I have no familiarity with the topic whatsoever. The normal thing that people do in front of flow judges where they skim over stock blocks/args because they know the judge understands how the arg works will not work on me, because I do not know how any of these arguments work.

email is wdboct12@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook

Katie Burke Randolph High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:40 AM EDT

A bit about me -- I am a history, philosophy, and gender studies teacher. Keep this in mind when you are making historical or philosophical arguments. Try to be historically accurate!

I have been coaching since 2017.

Debate should not be a competition of essays or research papers. I will not flow a case that is sent to me. Instead, I only flow what I hear.

I firmly believe that Speech & Debate should be an inclusive, accepting, and kind place. Treating your opponent(s) with kindness and compassion should always and forever be the goal, and we should encourage rather than discourage people from continuing in this activity. Treat others how you wish to be treated, and leave the debate space better than you found it.

World Schools Debate:

I have been coaching Team NJ for the last two years. Make sure you explain, explain, explain. Because we are not using cards here, or using less cards, you need to tell me the logical conclusions you are reaching when you reach them. Tell me the "why" and the "how" behind the resolution or behind your model. Just saying "this will happen" or "this is obvious" may not be so clear to the judge. The "why" and the "how" behind your thinking is often much more important and will develop the round more clearly.

Be global in nature! This is World Schools Debate. While the United States is part of the world, it is not the only example out there - be creative! I would even add - the United Kingdom is part of the world but not the ONLY part of the World worth debating. Try to take a global mindset and worldview when you can, and it will make the round more fun.

Creating models or counter-models are totally fine with me. But, be clear! If things are wishy-washy, it leaves room for interpretation and could be easily attacked by your opponents. I also like details! Just stating "change will happen" or "we support innovation" (for example) is not enough. What kind of change? What kind of innovation? I love a debate that really creates a clear picture of your vision for the judge.

Ask POIs! Make them topical and respectful! Be creative with your hooks! These are some of the most fun parts of World Schools Debate and they will certainly help you with style/strategy.

Public Forum:

Above all, I want you to debate based on your style. Don't try to "read me" and change your case mid-round. The best debaters have been people who have been themselves and done what they do best - within reason.

However, I have judged PF more than anything else, and I am a firm believer that PF is designed for the public. Trying to run theory on me/your opponent to intentionally confuse me/them/us is NOT PF. In addition, this isn't LD. Using LD tactics that are not friendly to the public is not good debate.

As I said before, I am a history teacher. Be accurate. Don't make things up. It's usually pretty obvious.

Calling cards - In terms of evidence/intervening.... I don't like to intervene in a round. I would much rather prefer you to be able to make things clear. However, I may call for cards if I have to at the end of a round. I generally don't want to do this. To me, having to call cards means that the round was messy and not really productive.

Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.

Arguments - Please signpost and be clear with your cases. If I have to keep jumping up and down the flow to "find" the turns or arguments that you're speaking about, it will be difficult for me to keep up with the round, and then difficult for me to pick you up. Weigh your arguments. I don't want to hear the classic "lives v. money" weighing -- be specific! Go deeper with your analysis. Make sure that you use both offense and defense, and interact with your opponent's case. It's always upsetting to sit through an entire round where the cases were argued simultaneously but did not clash.

Crossfire - I really like cross. BUT, make it productive. Arguing for arguments sake, being rude, interrupting, talking over your opponent, not answering questions, or turning CX into another speech will lead to lower speaker points.

The biggest thing... do not be rude. Being rude discourages people from joining this activity.

Lincoln Douglas:

Most things from PF also apply here in LD. I definitely judge PF more than LD, but love the philosophical aspect of a good Lincoln-Douglas round. I definitely prefer traditional debate compared to progressive. Please make sure you understand the philosophy you base your case on - I am a philosophy teacher.

Arguments - I am fine with K's in a Lincoln-Douglas round as long as it is topical to the resolution. Running one to be abusive to a younger opponent or purposefully confuse either the opponent/the judge is not good, and you should not do this. If you are running one, be respectful of both my time and the work that your opponent has put in. K's that are not topical are extremely hard to judge and that will be reflected in your speaker points. Besides that, in terms of arguments, I want to see good debate. Make sure you are historically accurate, nonoffensive, etc. I'm a pretty traditional judge, but can be convinced to see some progressive debate. However, again, if I'm missing a crucial point on the flow because you were not clear or you spoke too quickly, you did not do your job as a debater. Weigh arguments, make sure you are actually debating each other (rather than running simultaneously cases that do not clash/interact), etc. Don't just tell me that "X dropped the card" and leave it at that. Tell me how and why they dropped the card, and/or it turns to your case. Above all, be clear in the round.

Lara Bursal Lexington HS

Last changed on Thu August 8, 2019 at 4:57 AM EDT

i debated for 4 years at lexington high school (1 year in novice policy and 3 in varsity pf) and am now a sophomore at boston university.

i'm not super particular about much, but here's what i do care about:

1. warrants: have good ones. i don't care who said what if you can't explain why.

2. weighing: do it, as early in the round as possible.

3. dates: read them. recency is important on pretty much every pf topic.

4. framework: i will default to util unless you give me a compelling reason to do otherwise.

5. analysis and evidence: i want to hear both. i want neither for you to spew evidence at me nor for you to make a bunch of unsubstantiated arguments. that said, if you're second speaker and you don't have evidence against an argument your opponent made, i would much rather hear a fully analytical response, rather than you wasting my and your time with a random card that's only vaguely relevant.

6. responses: there are few things that annoy me more than a second speaker getting up for rebuttal and saying some shit like "we have 17 responses" and then reading a bunch of weak cards that only sort of respond to the contention as a whole. i would rather hear fewer but better responses, that actually respond to the specific arguments being made.

7. extensions: don't extend through ink.

8. collapsing: do it. if i hear all of the arguments in your case again in summary and final focus, i will be sad. please don't make me sad.

9. speaker points: obviously, speaking more fluidly and persuasively will earn you higher speaker points. if you have a good sense of humor, i will raise your speaks. i really appreciate it if you make me laugh. if you are rude or offensive, i will lower your speaks. please be nice!!

if you have questions about any of this or something i didn't mention, feel free to ask me about it before the round! if you have any questions about my rfd after the round or want some extra feedback, i'd be happy to talk to you.

tl;dr: here

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 11:03 AM EDT

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

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. Good eloquence, analysis, and 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.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

rebecca cadenhead Hire 8 rounds None

Ashley Cai Stone Bridge HS

Lu Cai Hire 8 rounds

Erica Carlino Ft Lauderdale HS None

Adam Carlisle Delbarton School

Elizabeth Caronna Newton South HS

Shawn Carraher Waring School

Matej Cerman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 9:56 AM EDT

I'm a senior at Harvard with experience in world schools and parli debate. I've never competed in PF.

General thoughts: I flow. I guess I'm tab in the way it's usually understood, but I think the way in which it's usually understand is wrong. This article was written for a different format but it's insightful and very close to how I think about debate.

Harvard Tournament 2023 (Public Forum):

1) I really like warrants. Evidence can make your argument stronger, but I weigh well-explained mechanisms very heavily. Don't claim that your argument is "just empirically true" because of cards, go beyond them and make your internal links as detailed as possible. Like Inko Bovenzi's paradigm says: "Strong Warrants > Warrants with Evidence > Warrants > Evidence"

2) Please weigh explicitly. Debaters tend to be smart and topics tend to be controversial. The logical conclusion is that both teams are usually saying something that makes sense. This is why it is crucial to weigh. If neither side weighs explicitly, you're relying on my intervention. This is unpredictable. I am moody. I'll give you a frustrating RFD.

3) I have a presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts like nuclear war. I will listen to them and evaluate them, but generally believe that you're better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments than showing how the resolution increases the risk of WW3 by one-millionth of a percent.

4) Please don't spread. Brisk conversational pace is ok but if you feel like you need to double breathe, you're going too fast.

5) I've never done a format with theory: I don't know anything about it and generally have a strong bias in favor of arguments about the topic. I will listen to theory if you read it, but make sure to over-explain every concept instead of relying on jargon--I won't know what an RVI is.

6) Be civil and respectful. I won't hesitate to drop you for being mean to your opponents.

7) I won't read a speech doc. I'll occassionally call for evidence, mostly when you tell me to, but use this very sparingly or I'll be angry at you. Remember point 1), I'm extremely unlikely to actually vote off evidence alone (unless you outright lie about it, then you'll lose!)

Kumar Challa Newton South HS

Dakota Champagne Edgemont HS

Nilesh Chander American Heritage Plantation HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:44 AM EDT

Add me on the email chain: nilu6060@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

Any offense in final focus needs to be in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make an argument suggesting otherwise.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and sometimes probability weighing is just defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my threshold for a response and your speaks could go down. Please read theory as soon as the violation occurs.

- I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K. Most of the time I find myself thinking they don't really do anything. Read at your own risk and I will try my best to properly evaluate.

- If there are multiple layers of prog. (ie theory vs K vs random IVI) do some sort of weighing between them.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good, but won't intervene.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, but humor helps, especially sarcasm.

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Elynna Chang Hire 8 rounds None

Julie Chasse Newton South HS

Sabarni Chatterjee Potomac Debate Academy

Kevin Chen Cary Academy

Sakura Shiya Chen Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon August 17, 2020 at 9:59 PM CST

I have 6 consecutive years of experience in PF debate since junior year in middle school. I am an active member at northeastern university debate society since fall 2018; member of Harvard debate council since 2016. I have coached public forum debate for two years since summer 2018. And I have taught both middle and high school students enrolling in international school in mainland China, including students from British Columbia Academy, Shanghai American School, Western Academy Beijing, International School of Beijing, etc.

Judging PF debate, I evaluate more on your weighing in the impacts on a particular data/ evidence you and your opponents brought up in a round. I do not like to have four people speaking at the same time when it's grand-crossfire, if that happens, I will not take notes from either side. I can flow speed but I also prefer you to speak/ pronounce everything accurately and present your contentions with concrete evidence and supportive logic.

1. I hate speakers asking "do you have evidence on that" all time. If you do challenge your opposing team for evidence on a particular argument, explain to me why evidence in this case matters.

2. If you give a road map/ speech mapping, I would not time you. You can go as specific as possible. I would prefer you use signposts in your speech because that would make it easy to follow.

3. If you compare framework, make sure why yours is superior than the opposing team's. I do not need you to refresh both frameworks for me. Same thing when you weigh impacts. I don't want you to repeat what you and your opponents said. Always make sure you explain to me why yours is better in order to win my ballot.

4. I would not apply what you mean unless you mentioned the technical terms. For example, if your opposing team DROPPED an argument, make sure you mention it.

Shortcuts:

speed √

weighing √

summary and final focus √

check cards √

time for yourself/ opponents √

exceed time for >10s √

shouting in crossfire X

cutting speeches ("no no no"/ "answer my question please"/ "let me..."/ "what I was saying...") X

speak too loud/ low X

disrespect X

personal attack [ABSOLUTELY] X

Raymond Chin World Journalism Prep High School

Brian Choi Ivy Bridge Academy

Aditya Choudhari Hire 8 rounds

Evan Chyriwski Regis High School

Last changed on Wed May 6, 2020 at 11:00 AM EDT

LD PARADIGM

Speak clearly, logically, at a reasonable speed

Actively respond your opponent's arguments-don't just claim an argument is abusive. Debate is about healthy engagement, not dismantling the system or decrying everything

PF Paradigm

Clear delivery is important. It matters that I can understand what you are presenting. If cases are presented frantically and incoherently, it is difficult for me to appreciate the amount of work you put into your case. More simply, if I can't understand you, I do not want to listen.

I respond well to when teams actively engage with the arguments presented to them and are able to adjust their cases based on the other side's examinations. Crossfires are meant to be dialogues, rather than platforms for one side or the other to restate their speeches. Being able to have a strong presence not only in prepared speeches but in cross demonstrates true skill in this activity. That being said, cross more often than not is unproductive in my view, I don't flow it, just try not to shout at each other.

Extremely disinterested in spreading, unsubstantiated evidence, and unnecessary and distracting rhetoric. There's a difference between being clever and resourceful, and being cheap. Don't be cheap. Debate rounds do operate with a winner/loser, but I'm less interested solely in the drive to simply "win". Rounds should be balanced with presenting the most effective case, as well as a willingness to engage with the resolution at large.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms during your speeches, it means that you have become loud, incoherent, and not worth listening to. Increased volume does not equal a better argument. Please be mindful of that.

Off time road maps are unnecessary. Just start speaking.

Debate jargon drives me crazy. No one in the real world speaks like that.

Have all of your cards ready. Assume the other side will call all the cards you cite. Taking too long to produce them unnecessarily prolongs the round, and may factor in my decision.

I feel the need to include this since it has happened -- If you run a joke case to intentionally throw a round, I will report and reprimand you accordingly. It is a waste of everyone's time and undermines the effort many people give to make this activity possible.

I don't shake hands. It's not because I don't like you, I just prefer not to.

Be respectful, and have fun.

Danny Cigale Stuyvesant HS

Last changed on Fri September 30, 2022 at 8:26 AM EDT

I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.

General Ideas

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.

I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Add dcigale01@gmail.com and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com to email chains.

Stephanie Ciocca Christopher Columbus HS

Milani Clark Academy Charter High School None

David Coates Hire

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM CDT

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Joshua Cohen Newton South HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EDT

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Melanie Cohn Summit HS

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 5:19 AM EDT

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program.

For e-mail chain: melaco@gmail.com. Speechdrop is also great.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

Number of Years I’ve been judging debate since 2018.

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.…)

If you read nothing else, read this: I am a flow judge. (IMO, truth does not exist within the confines of a debate round. The setting of the resolution is the beginning of world creation, which you will build upon and participate in during the round and that is outside the confines of "the real world." I fall short of being a tech judge, but I lean tech.) I expect teams to warrant and clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. Be very clear in your final speeches on why you are winning the round. State clearly what your path to the ballot is. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. I prefer for you, in your final speech, to tell me the RFD you would like me to write.

I don't vote on anything in cross, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on new arguments brought up too late in round.

Happy to clarify any of my prefs, ask before round begins.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: I went to a critical theory-oriented art school MFA program, so no surprise, I love theory, kritik and tricks because it reminds me of grad school. I have a pretty broad background on much of the literature. That being said, it's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik/tricks. You need to completely understand your argument (and not just reading something you found on the wiki or that a friend gave you), and it needs to be clearly presented during the debate in an accessible way. I need well-explained, warranted voters. Please warrant your implications. Be very clear on why I should vote for you.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I expect you to also be keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you pause prep to call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Everything Else:
Cards (where applicable): I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during cross. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the debaters brought up in a speech and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tab immediately.

Judge Disclosure: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. As a judge, I should be able to give you a good RFD after the round. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Judging after 8pm: I'm a morning person. If it is after 8pm, I am probably tired. Clarity in your speeches is always important, but takes on even more importance after 8pm. Talk to me like I'm half-asleep, because I might be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown:
30: Excellent job, I think you are in the top two percent of debaters at this tournament.

29: Very strong ability. You demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round

28: Ability to function well in the round, however at some point, analysis or organization could have been better.

27: Lacking organization and/or analysis in this debate round.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. May have made a large error.

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

Trevor Colliton Achievement First Brooklyn HS

Jaime Colon Hire 8 rounds

Siobhan Connolly Ivy Bridge Academy

Nate Conoly Vestavia Hills HS

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 3:18 PM CDT

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Lauren Cooney Austin SFA High School

Last changed on Mon March 8, 2021 at 4:13 AM CDT

Email chain: lauren.cooney@austinisd.org

I coach Speech & Debate @ Austin High

I prefer to judge PF and traditional LD case-debate and framework. ***See Speech pref's below***

Want perfect speaks? I like an educational demeanor --even better, have fun! be deliberate, not aggressive.

Spreading is OK, but you should be able to slow down and paraphrase your cards every time you make an extension-- don't assume the provision of evidence alone will suffice... "I have a card for that" doesn't equal an automatic win.

I don't usually flow CX and expect you to impact concessions throughout your speeches. For example, just because your opponent dropped an argument doesn't mean I bought it-- you must still impact why its so critical. I love an "even if" critique.

I don't love hearing the same case again and again so if your team is sharing a case you need to personalize it. In fact, I prefer more radical interpretations than canonical arguments.

SIGN POSTING IS IMPORTANT. IF YOU DON'T TELL ME WHERE TO FLOW YOUR ARGUMENTS, OR WHERE TO CROSS-APPLY EVIDENCE, in the time it takes me to find it on the flow, I've probably already missed your point. Tell me where to look on the flow.

You should be able to break arguments down to their smallest components, just because you yell esoteric debate jargon I am not impressed.

I try to keep a poker face during the round so that you're not affected by any reaction, but I am listening and you should always be engaging with me first (respect the invisible wall between you and your opponent).

**** For Speech events:

Intro's are important to me. I think a good intro that creatively INTERPS the piece is what sets our events apart from traditional theater. Your intro should contextualize the piece (this is very important considering we won't have necessarily read or be familiar with your script already, so tell us what we need to know to follow along!), draw any important relevance of the piece into our own lives or your own interest, and explain what we should take away from the piece. Your answer can be anything, it might just be for pleasure, entertainment etc. but even then I expect you to translate your expectations into your intro.

Generally my feedback is to slow-down, so don't be afraid to take a pause.

I do prefer pieces/topics that are lesser explored. There has been a trend in Speech events towards the more dramatic/triggering topic areas, and I have to say that when judging 10+ rounds each with an extremely sensitive topic, it's not so much that it is triggering or offensive but rather that it is a bit emotionally exhausting, and can feel borderline exploitive... as well, often due to the time constraints, performances can oversimplify certain experiences. I don't want students to limit their interests, but rather, explore one specific part of their topic that makes it more distinct and nuanced. You should be thinking "what hasn't been said about this subject, and how can I add to the conversation?".

Blocking/movement should be purposeful

Articulation is key

Characters should be distinct, and I prefer a more subtle character vs. a stereotype being played out (for example, when playing different women, try not to just heighten your pitch! or, when you're angry, it doesn't always mean to just get louder. Try a smoldering anger, try talking through your teeth, etc.)

Sound effects are cool when they're done right

Mostly I just hope to see you enjoying this medium and being yourself. I already think y'all are so brave for performing and especially on-camera, I'm already proud of the work you're doing!!

Alexander Corzo South Plantation HS

Name: Alexander Corzo

School Affiliation: South Plantation HS

Number of Years Judging Public Forum/LD: 6 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: None

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: None

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All except policy

What is your current occupation? Debate Teacher/Coach

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

Speed of Delivery: Should not be spreading in PF, Ok in LD ( although I don't enjoy it) Edit for FBK2020:

Spreading is hard for me to follow and will more than likely affect my judging ( in a negative way) because I will be reading instead of listening to you speak. So, do yourself a favor and don't spread if at all possible! you can still run non-Traditional LD, as long as it's not abusive and gimmicky. (you're trying to trick and confuse your opponent)

Format of Summary Speeches Line by Line

Role of the Final Focus: Weighing

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Required.

Topicality: Very important, don’t stray too far.

Plans: Not a PF thing, LD ok.

Kritiks: How could a lay judge follow this? So, no.

Flowing/note-taking: Essential

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Definitely 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, I don’t flow cross, if you want credit, it needs to be in a speech.

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? It’s not mandatory, but extremely helpful. Sometimes, time doesn’t allow.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Grand Cross, only under extenuating circumstances, FF, never.

I value weighing over mindless card reading. Good luck!

For LD, many of the same comments apply. I'm more of a traditional judge in LD, meaning that although I understand theory and K strategies, unless there's a really good and compelling reason to resort to these progressive strategies, I enjoy traditional LD. In other words, I find many of the "progressive strategies" to be gimmicky.

Taya Cowan Hire 8 rounds None

Joe Cox Hire 8 rounds

Julie Crosson Newton South HS

Ilana Cuello-Wolffe Hire 8 rounds

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:12 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions: nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Ana Czachor Ransom Everglades

Aaron D'Souza Grand Oaks HS None

Ritu Dayal Lake Highland Preparatory

Coco De Marneffe Phoenix Country Day School None

Alan Deane Westborough HS None

Ellen Deng Hire 8 rounds

Sally Deng Newton South HS

Sachin Dhamdhere Algonquin Regional High None

Aditya Dhar Hire 8 rounds

Christoph Diasio Pinecrest HS

Craig Diskin Hire 8 rounds None

Rob Dougherty Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS None

Sunny Douglas Waring School

Kerry Doyle Vancouver Debate Academy

Steve Duckworth North Allegheny

Kelsey Dunn Hire 8 rounds None

Sirisha Durbhakula Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed October 14, 2020 at 10:57 AM EDT

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. I can flow a round pretty well but am not a technical "flow" judge.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quanitity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable, or just don't focus so much on evidence accuracy.

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

How to win:

If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:

1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important

2. WEIGH and preferably give me a weighing mechanism to warrant me voting off of a specific argument

3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round

4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments

5. TELL me a story/narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

I follow the NSDA guidelines for speaker points. I will give 30s if I think you are one of the best I've seen.

Chidera Ejikeme Hire 8 rounds

John Eliadis Newburgh Free Academy None

Elina Encarnacion Hire 8 rounds None

Ozan Ergungor Edgemont HS

Olivia Erickson Hire 8 rounds None

Arturo Feliz-Camilo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 5:20 AM EDT

Arturo Féliz-Camilo

I studied and practice law, hold two law degrees and teach History. I'm familiar and like the economic/social/historical arguments. I've been coaching (mostly PF) since 2013 for New Horizons Bilingual School in the Dominican Republic.

I love debate, and the strategy game. I love to see a good clash of ideas and interesting/novel analysis. I'll buy any argument as long as you link, warrant, and support it with relevant evidence. Still, I think some arguments are just in bad taste.

I believe communication is key. If I can't understand it due to speed, I won't flow it. I won't ask you to slow down. I almost never intervene. Debate should not be about brute force your opponents into submission, but about a clash of ideas.

I really enjoy a civil CX. Ask for evidence if you must, but don't make the round an evidence match. If you call for evidence I hope you're planning to do something with it. I listen to CX but won't flow it. I'll note cool stuff in the hopes it makes it into your speech.

It's ok to offer an off-time roadmap, just don't take a minute doing so. Quickly give it and move on. Don't ask. Just do it.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case, don’t just read it. Weigh, impact, link, extend, boil down, crystallize. Feel free to sign-post/roadmap. Absent a framework and weighing I'll go with what stands in the end.

I'm not in love with Ks or Theory. Run them at your own risk. I like to think that we should debate under the agreed upon rules. I will buy arguments on technical aspects of PF, as a matter of order and fairness. I think too many debaters are running disclosure in a dishonest way. All that said, I will buy anything that makes sense, including abusive behavior, bad faith misgendering, and anti-violence. I am notabsolutely close to theory, but I'll usually only buy it, if it's run in good faith, and not as a strategy to win a round.

Pettiness will not win me over, but you gotta stand your ground. Sassiness is awesome, but the line between the two is just so thin.

You want to win your round? Be smart, creative, fun, thoughtful, and strategic. Outweigh, outsmart, outperform, outclass your opponent.

Add me to your evidence chain arturo@arturofeliz.com

Matthew Feng Hire 8 rounds

Peter Ferraiuolo Regis High School

David Fleischer West Broward HS

mariela flores-hernandez Hire 8 rounds

Cynthia Fontaine The Bromfield School

Glenn Foster Hire 8 rounds None

Emma Friedenberg Independent Campbell Hall

Mark Fusco Hyde Leadership Charter Schoool None

Tyra Gallagher DuPont Manual High School

Mahesh Ganesan Westborough HS

Sreenivas Gannavaram Potomac Debate Academy

Roman Garcia The Spence School

Jay Garg Hire 8 rounds

Pushkal Garg Newton South HS

Evan Kamakana Gates Hire 8 rounds None

Kyle Genzer Mannford HS None

John George Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Ashok Ghosh Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Paul Glenn Brooklyn Technical HS

Andrew Glickman Bethesda Chevy Chase

Last changed on Sat September 11, 2021 at 9:27 AM EDT

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

Add me to the email chain: azgphoto@hotmail.com.

If providing / exchanging speech docs: Please email the text of your speech to me. I prefer this to a link to your doc in the cloud. If you also want to send a link, that is fine.

Time: Speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." Prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

Virtual evidence exchange: Teams must be able to pull up evidence and provide it promptly. Teams asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep your prep time from starting. Any team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

----

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This was a while back. Abraham Lincoln was the President. (Obviously joking.) This is my fifth year judging PF debate for what is now my son's former high school. See my judging record below.

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if I can't understand enough of what you are saying, I will say "clear."

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. The NSDA allows paraphrasing but I don't think it is worth the potential trouble that can result. Context is often very important. If a team is paraphrasing and the evidence is critical to the round, I encourage you to call for it and look for weaknesses in your opponents's characterizations. Also, consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

Asit Goel Westborough HS

Kristi Goemmer Bridgeland High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 7:52 AM EDT

I was a policy debater in the 1990’s and have been coaching since 1999, currently, I am the coach at Avalos P-TECH School. I know that ages me, but it should also tell you that the debate I grew up with was much different than what is going on today. I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate. As a debater, it is your job to be clear at all times so you don’t lose me.

General:

DON’T BE RUDE
I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS
It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage
Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues
I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage
Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.
Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Speed: I am good with moderate speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. Keep in mind that I am old so you probably need to slow down a bit.

Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to. If you don’t weigh for me I have to do it for you and you do not want that to happen.

Other:

Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together. Remember I am old so I will probably lose pieces along the way.

One last thing, I am old fashioned. You are participating in a speaking event. Stand up during your speeches and CX/CF periods (Grand Cross would be the exception). You need to persuade me as to why I should be voting for you.

Speaker Points:

26-30

Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary.

Elisa Gonzalez Hire 8 rounds

Haritha Gopinathan Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Bridger Gordon Hire

P.J. Gormley Montville

Vietta Grinberg Bergen County Technical High School

Richard Grosso Nova HS

Last changed on Fri February 14, 2020 at 5:38 PM EDT

Hi! Son of judge here. I would describe my dad as a flay judge that leans more towards lay. He will vote off of content (he won't drop you for speaking style) but he won't necessarily vote off the flow. If I were you I would prioritize winning the narrative debate and just having a very clear warrant story rather than winning off of technical extension. Even though he isn't a flow judge, he takes notes and tends to be pretty decent at understanding arguments even if he won't hold you accountable for extending them cleanly.

Progressive Args: He is willing to listen to anything really, but he's lay. If you run a Kritik of some kind that links to the topic, you should be fine so long as you just treat it like a normal argument and weigh it as "morality" rather than calling it a K. If you're running shells that are off topic (disclosure, paraphrasing, dates etc) or say "the resolution isn't important, debate XYZ instead" he will drop you instantly and be in a bad mood all day, so don't do that for my sake. He believes that debating a topic is about persuading him that your side of the argument is the more correct one, furthering understanding of issues and helping decision-makers make the best decisions. For him, its about the issue to be decided, not the process or game of debating.

Speed: I wouldn't go past 200 WPM, obviously if you openly spread and give him a speech doc, he won't read it and he'll just drop you. He's a smart guy but he's lay, and believes that you cannot persuade a judge who can’t understand what you are saying.

Decorum: He's one of those lawyer judges that LOVES professionalism in round. If you show any sign that you aren't taking things seriously or are not respecting the other side, he will HATE it. Wear professional, what old people would call "court room" clothes. He believes that being relaxed and humorous can be an effective form of persuasion, but be very tasteful and charismatic. Don't just go off.

Rudeness: VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION HERE, he loves "aggression and power" in speeches, NOT crossfires. If you're rude in cross he'll probably drop you, not even because he's offended by rudeness, he'll just assume you're losing and don’t have the better argument if you have to "resort" to being rude.

Linda Gu Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Danielle Guillette Cardinal Gibbons None

Amit Gupta McDowell HS

Rajan Gupta Ridge High School

Marissa Gurtler Hire

Garrett Halsell American Debate League

Hsiu Han Boston Latin School

Lixin Han Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Ye Joo Han Hire 8 rounds

Max Hardt The Potomac School

Last changed on Sat December 5, 2020 at 10:38 AM CDT

https://gph.is/2HThgly

I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: quentinmaxwellh@gmail.com for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

Ryley Hartwig Capitol Debate

Last changed on Mon August 26, 2019 at 7:58 PM EDT

Background

- 3 years national circuit PF at American Heritage-Plantation in Florida (2013-2016)

- 2 years policy debate at FSU (2016-2018)

- 2 years coaching PF for Capitol Debate (2017-current)

Paradigm

- Do anything you want to do in terms of argumentation. It is not my job as a judge in a debate community to exclude certain forms of argumentation. There are certain arguments I will heavily discourage: Ks read just to confuse your opponent and get an easy win, theory read to confuse your opponent, anything that is racist, classist, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I will not immediately drop you for trying to confuse your opponent, I might for the latter half. The threshold for trying to confuse your opponents will be if you refuse to answer crossfire questions or give answers that everyone knows aren't legit.

- The most frequently asked questions I get are "can you handle speed?" and "how do you feel about defense in first summary/does the second speaking team need to cover responses in rebuttal?" To the first, if you are spreading to make this event in accessible to your opponents, I will give you no higher than a 20 in speaks. I am fine with spreading, but if either your opponents or I clear you, I expect you to slow down. If your opponents need to clear you 3 or more times, I expect you send them a speech doc (if you had not already done that). To the second, I do not care. It is probably strategic to have defense in first summary/ respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal, but if you do not do that, I'm not going to say it has magically become a dropped argument.

- K's are cool, theory is cool. You need to know what you are talking about if you read these. You should be able to explain it to your opponents. If you are doing performance stuff give me a reason why. You should be prepared for the "we are doing PF, if you want to do performance why not go back to policy" debate.

- I default to whatever debaters tell me to default to. If you are in a util v structural violence framing debate, you better have reasons to defend your side. I do not default "util is trutil" unless it is won as an argument.

- Sound logic is better than crappy cards.

- The TKO is in play. If you know, you know.

- Speaker points will be reflection of your skill and my scale will remain consistent to reflect that. The average is between a 28.2-28.5. If you are an average debater, or your performance is average in round, that is what you should expect. Do not expect a 30 from me unless the tournament does not do halves.

Any questions:

email- ryleyhartwig@gmail.com

Or you can ask me before the round.

Codey Hawkins Carrollton

Moti Heda Hire 8 rounds None

Josh Herring Thales Academy Rolesville Speech and Debate 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 12:08 PM EDT

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

Shawn Hikosaka Evanston Twp HS None

Rozey Hill Hire 8 rounds

Lauren Hince New Trier High School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 7:18 AM CDT

Blaine High School '14 / Ripon College '18 / Assistant Coach New Trier '18-'20 / Chicago Debates UDL '20-

She/Her/Hers

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Me:

I'm a former debater from the Minnesota Circuit and have experience debating/judging PF, LD, and Congressional debate. I now work for Chicago Debates recruiting judges for their policy program (don't assume this means I am a "policy" type judge). Since I don't cut cards or coach for a living, I won't come with deep knowledge on every topic. In fact, most of my time will be spent in the policy world so whatever topic I am judging may be my first exposure for the season. I say this so you don't assume anything when making arguments. I come into rounds with a pretty blank slate and that's how I will evaluate your arguments.

***NOTE FOR ONLINE: Typically I'm ok with speed but with online tournaments audio can be choppy and hard to understand. You will need to slow down and adjust for this new reality we are dealing with. I'm going to get annoyed if you're running at top speed and I can't understand you because you didn't adapt to zoom.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging LD:

When I competed in LD I was mainly on the local circuit and thus had a lot of VC debates. I understand that LD has changed a lot since I competed. I am open to alternative structures and off case positions but understand that I won't be technically versed on all of the nuances within these positions. Keep that in mind when making your selection. I'm not a circuit hack so if you're going to run theory, Ks, etc. just make sure you're crystallizing and being clear. DAs, Plans, and CPs are what I'm most familiar with and as an old school LDer Phil debate can even be a fun a time. Other than that I'm open to listening.

****When it comes to email chains I will only reference them if absolutely necessary such as evidence check. As a judge it is not my burden to read your docs. As the debater it is your burden to be clear and easy to follow so I don't have to reference the docs.

Speaking of being easy to follow, the flow is very important to me and thus so is organization and clear signposting. My biggest pet peeve is the abandonment of a clear signpost. Also if you're going to be throwing multiple arguments against one particular card/argument make sure to number your responses. This may seem super trivial but makes a huge difference in the quantity of arguments I'm able to evaluate at the end of the round. My rule of thumb is if I don't flow it I don't vote on it. If you're unclear or messy I won't flow it. Deductive reasoning should tell you that I'd prefer quality over quantity of arguments/positions.

In addition to signposting, weighing is huge for me! If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

More common questions that come up: Yes I will accept disclosure theory and believe it is a good norm but I don't personally care if you disclose or not. That's up for your opponent to decide how they strategically want to handle it. Cool with speed but please see my note if this is a virtual tournament.

Speaks start at a 27.5 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

tl;dr: I try to approach every round with a blank slate. The most organized and persuasive debater who takes care of the flow will win my ballot. This is a communication activity after all. Oh, and PLEASE WEIGH. It's that simple.

Judging PF:

My biggest issue with Public Form debate is card clipping and evidence abuse. You need to make sure if you are reading evidence they are full cited cards and not a random sentence you cut for an article and strung together with sentences from other articles.

When it comes to first rebuttal I don't have preference if you go back and frontline/defend your own case. That's a strategic choice you need to make. The summary speech is the most important speech to me and often where I write my ballot. Make sure you are fully extending and weighing your arguments here. This is not just a second rebuttal. The best debaters will make time to boil down the debate and setup their partner for the final focus.

[copied from my LD section] If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!

I also look for cohesion between partners. You are working as a team so don't setup key issues in the summary and then ignore these key issues in the final focus. Work together to make a complete and clean extension through the round.

One of my biggest pet peeves in PF is when someone asks before CX "Do you mind if I ask the first question." Uh you just did. Take control and just ask a question.

Speaks start at a 27 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.

Judging Congress

If you're competing in congress and reading this, kudos to you for being strategic about your judges. I believe judge adaptation can totally be a thing in congress.

Despite what people may think, congress is still a debate activity. The debaters I rank highest in the chamber are those that show a range in their speaking, create clash, and are actively involved through the entire session. I am not only judging your speech but also the amount of questions you ask, if you're utilizing Robert's Rules, and when you choose to speak. If you are someone that is going to give 3 sponsorship/first neg speeches then you won't rank that high. I'm much more impressed by a debater who can be flexible and join the debate at any point than a well rehearsed speaker. I also look at number of sources and times you reference other senators/reps. Flowing is still a thing that can be utilized in congress and I notice when you do it well.

If you serve as a PO that's already license for a higher rank but I will be watching to see if you take control of the chamber and if you're consistent with calling on questioners without showing preference.

Lastly the speeches you give should still be a well organized and presented speech with intro, 2-3 points, and a conclusion. I love a cheesy intro with a bit of personality so have fun with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please Don't Do These (applicable for all formats)

-Forget to signpost (This is #1 for me). I hate disorganized debate

-Argue sexist, racists, or homophobic points

-Card Clipping

-Extend without analysis or impact. It's not enough to tell me to extend a card.

-Ignore the framework debate if it is applicable

-Turn the last speech of the round into a second rebuttal.

-Excessive off-time road maps, especially when there is only an aff/neg flow to worry about.

-Be mean or obnoxious to novice or newer debaters

-Look at me for facial expressions and validity if you think your opponent is being dumb or whatever. I usually have a straight face while judging and won't give any indication to validate you. The best way to tell if I'm getting everything you're saying is if my head is down and flowing.

Robey Holland Plano West Sr HS

Last changed on Sat February 9, 2019 at 3:55 AM CDT

Experience:
I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain: robeyholland@gmail.com

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.

Speaks:

· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.

Framework:

· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.

Procedurals:

· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.

· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.

Performance:

· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.

CP/DA:

· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.

Tricks:

· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Gabriel Hopkins Shrewsbury

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 3:25 PM EDT

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

Hannah Hopkins Shrewsbury None

Maim Hoque American Debate League

Last changed on Sun February 16, 2020 at 1:32 PM EDT

Hi folks,

I hope all is well. I’ll keep my paradigm as simple as possible. I’ll break it down into two broad categories: general and specifics. The general section is what I expect from all debaters and the specifics is what I weigh on when determining a winner.

Note: This paradigm is geared specifically towards public forum debate.

General

The general section covers what I expect from debaters and a few tips that I provide. First and foremost I expect all debaters to be well mannered and courteous. Be nice to each other and I expect you all to conduct yourself in a professional manner. I will deduct points if I notice any outright rude or inflammatory behavior such as sighing outloud or eating during the round. Having that said I want the debate round to be extremely interesting so please be as energetic and loud as possible. I will reward you extra speaker points if you “command the presence of the room with your voice.” Of course don’t be so loud that it equivalates to screaming on top of your lungs , and that is a huge turnoff.

NO SPREADING!!!!! (fast talking)

NO KRITIKS PLEASE

KEEP THE DEBATE AS CONVERSATIONAL AS POSSIBLE while maintaining the nature and rules of public forum. This makes it so much easier and enjoyable for me to follow along.

While you’re debating and if it gets heated don’t focus on your opponents, rather the judge/audience. After all your job is to convince the judge on why they should receive your vote. Again going back to behavior please DO NOT CUT OFF YOUR OPPONENTS- automatic points deducted. I often see this during cross examination and I notice that too many debaters turn the cross examination into a mini debate which it’s not supposed to be.

I get very annoyed with topicality based cases. Where essentially you don’t actually debate the resolution or clash with your opponent’s but rather why their interpretation is ‘wrong.’ Of course don’t get me wrong please bring up topicality if there is abuse of the interpretation on one side.

For example, I witnessed a resolution “Economic sanctions are better than negotiations.” Pro argued that economic sanctions were very effective. While con argued that economic negotiations were better than sanctions. Pro ran a topicality against con, saying that they “ weren’t supposed to talk about economic negotiations but rather negotiations in general. Therefore their entire case was invalid because pro defined it as general negotiations ” I felt this was disingenuous and I was not pleased.

That leads me to my next point: CLASH. CLASH, CLASH, AND CLASH. An excellent debate round is one in which there is a strong clash between both debaters. I am open to any kinds of arguments however keep it within social norms.

Specifics

Now here’s the specifics on whether you'll win my vote. First is following what I have laid out in the general section. If you skipped it please skim through it at least.

Please road map and signpost during the debate. Weigh during the round and establish the logical connection of the evidence and the claims that you’re making. Also, just relax and have fun. Don’t focus solely on winning but rather actually enjoying the intellectual activity known as debate.

Finally, this is a harsh truth but I feel you should know this by now: At the end of the day debate is a persuasion game.It’s something that I feel so many people miss in the debate community. Never let debate determine your self worth. So please don’t beat yourself over if you lost a round and instead learn to lose with grace.Take it from someone who has lost multiple debate rounds proudly. It will not only help you during tournaments but life in general.

Overall, learn to have fun because some of your best moments may be in debate. :)

PS If you scrolled through this entire paradigm and say "thank you so much for the wonderful round judge." (Hopefully it will be wonderful) you might get a little extra.

Brooks Howell Bergen County Debate Club

Charles Huang Hire 8 rounds

Laura Huang Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Tony Huang Winston Churchill High School

madeline hudalla Hire 8 rounds None

Natasha Huggins Lawrence Academy None

Bernard Hui The Bronx High School Of Science

Delaney Hurley Hire 8 rounds

Timothy Huth The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:11 PM EDT

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Celine Ibrahim Hire 8 rounds None

Ashley Inoa Hire 8 rounds None

Subba Inta New Jersey Independent

Joshua Isak Bergen County Debate Club

Shreyas Iyer Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 13, 2021 at 9:27 AM EDT

Background:

Debated for four years in Public Forum at Munster High School in Indiana. I won Indiana States twice, made late elim rounds at NSDA multiple years, and competed at the TOC, so I have experience with technical and lay debate. I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard University, where I compete in parliamentary debate (mostly APDA).

I'm probably tech > truth, meaning I'm not going to vote on unwarranted and poorly contextualized arguments.

Rebuttal:

I prefer to see frontlining (defending case) in the second rebuttal. I think it makes for better debate, and it's also strategic for you. However you want to do the split is up to you, but just know that I think the bare minimum for second rebuttal is addressing terminal defense and turns. Tread lightly when reading DAs/new offense in 2nd rebuttal — I'm not completely opposed, but it's easy to be abusive when doing so (I will vote on abusive second rebuttal theory - see below)

Summary and FF:

I should see your arguments properly extended in both of these speeches, that means both the warrant and the impact. Also, nothing you bring up in final is going to matter for my ballot if it wasn't also in summary (exception is that defense is sticky). I know some judges are ok with new weighing in final, but I'm personally not a fan of it.

PLEASE GIVE ME WEIGHING IN BOTH SPEECHES.

Weighing:

This is the easiest way to win the round. I should at least be seeing discussion on magnitude, scope, probability, but introducing things like strength of link, clarity of impact, etc, will usually earn you my ballot and good speaks. Start this as early in the round as possible (ideally rebuttal), and do it in every possible instance. This means that in addition to seeing you weigh arguments, I want to see you weigh and implicate things like turns.

Theory/Ks:

I've been reading a lot of K lit lately but proceed with caution and make sure to go slow with these arguments; I have seen from experience that PF typically does not permit enough time for these arguments.

For theory, I have experience with source, date, and abusive second rebuttal overviews theory shells. I have a low threshold for theory in PF, but I will vote on it if it's explained clearly and the abuse is legitimate.

Evidence Ethics:

I'm ok with paraphrasing, and in some cases think it's better than reading cards, but you better be able to provide that source quickly and if you tell me to read pages upon pages of a PDF I'm gonna be sad :(. As far as citations in case, I want to hear dates and author qualifications.

Evidence misrepresentation really grinds my gears. I know the difference between a power tag, or evidence getting overhyped as the round goes on, and a lie. If you ask me to call for a card I 100% will, and I don't think it's interventionist for me to ask for something your opponents didn't. If I think some shady stuff went down, I'll dock speaks at the very least. If it's particularly egregious, I'm comfortable voting off it.

Other Important Things:

Signpost: I want to know where you are on the flow, and I'd prefer if you number your responses. You do not want me to think you undercovered or even dropped something just because I didn't know where you were. Make sure we're on the same page and we'll be good.

Speed: I am cool with speed and am fairly confident I'll be able to flow you. However, it is in your best interest to slow down for tags and important responses/extensions. The reality is, the faster you speak, the less I get down. That being said, I do not want this to be something that excludes someone from the round. If you need your opponents to slow down, just say "clear." If you blatantly ignore the opposing team's request to slow down, I will significantly drop your speaks and most likely drop you :).

Aggression: Don't be a jerk so we can all have a good time.

Crossfire: I usually don't listen to crossfire that intently, so if there's an important concession, it has to be in a speech to go on the flow. Again, don't be a jerk.

Analytics: I like logical responses a lot. Good logic is going to beat bad evidence, and I will 100% evaluate something that makes sense even if it's not carded.

*Definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Eli Jacobs Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 2:15 AM UTC

2020: The last college policy debate I judged was in 2013. I have not been following argumentative trends and know very little about the topic. If I can’t understand your argument from your speeches, I will not read your evidence to try to piece it together.

While the information below still seems reasonable to me, I have been away from the activity long enough that I suspect my preferences have probably changed in unpredictable ways. So tread carefully.

2013: I'll vote on almost anything. You should do what you feel gives you the best chance to win. But here are some things:

1) Evidence very rarely speaks for itself. Most of the time, arguments are necessary to tie a piece of evidence to the debate. As a result, I will vote based on the arguments debaters make, not the cards they read. Ideally, I would read zero cards after each debate.

2) Strategy is more important than technique. No argument is “dropped” if it is answered by an overarching meta-argument. That being said, packaging really matters. If debaters don't successfully communicate their strategic approach or its implications for other arguments, I'm not going to put things together for them.

3) I like to decide, not compromise. My decisions tend to be full of "the aff/neg won this" and not "the aff/neg won a risk of this". There are situations where risk is appropriate (when there are multiple warrants in a uniqueness debate, for example, with each side winning some warrants and losing others, there could be a risk that X bill will pass), but these are atypical. This means that there is not "always a risk" of a DA.

4) Side bias: in college debates in 2011-12, I was 22-19 for the neg. Pretty even, but I do think I have some fairly systematic tendencies, at the margins. I'm better for the aff in good debates - since the 2ar knows exactly what they need to beat to win their important positions. Conversely, I'm better for the neg in mediocre debates - since mediocre teams tend not to identify the crucial points in the debate until the final speeches, at which point important framing arguments (like impact calculus, for example) tend to be "new," and I have a pretty strong predisposition towards protecting the 2nr.

Theory

I don’t really think I have any strong side biases. However, I pretty firmly believe that the purpose of debate is education. This doesn’t mean that theory arguments about fairness are unimportant; they just need to be impacted in terms of education to be persuasive to me.

Framework

I think a lot of framework arguments are silly. The implementation of a plan is important, but the methodology, assumptions, rhetoric, etc. that underlie and justify a proposal cannot be separated from its content. The relevant question is the relative importance of each component of policy formulation. I think debaters should argue about the relative significance of all these components of an advocacy. I don’t tend to find theory arguments about how it’s unfair to think about representations even if they’re important to be that persuasive – see above theory thing. Similarly, it's hard to persuade me to consider representations exclusively and ignore the plan.

That being said, I think having lived in our nation's capital for a year will change the way I evaluate these debates. The government is a complex bureaucracy that has a lot of inertia and vested interests in the status quo. It's really hard to change policy, much less the fundamental way we conceive of policy decisions. This is purely speculative, but I think this means that I'll be a bit less eager to dismiss small but not paradigm-altering changes as insignificant.

CPs

My predisposition is that a CP competes with the plan. CPs that compete by defining words in the topic but don’t compete with the plan text are, in my opinion, not competitive.

Another of my predispositions is that the 2NR needs to choose what their final position is. If the 2NR extends a CP that's worse than a bad plan, I'll vote aff unless instructed otherwise. "The status quo is always an option", to me, means that the 2NR can choose to advocate the status quo.

Sanjay Jain Newton South HS

Chris Jayavendra Westborough HS

Hannah Ji Vancouver Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat October 3, 2020 at 11:56 AM PDT

Oakwood ‘19 - debated 4 years on nat circ

Yale ‘23 (I don’t debate in college now)

Top-Level:

Debate is an educational activity but too many times made inaccessible or an unsafe space for students and participants. Please don’t be an asshole to your partner or other speakers in round. I get it if you get passionate in round/in CX but please give respect and remember this is supposed to be fun.
Overall, I don’t have a preference for what you read (minus offensive, racist, homophobic, etc ), as long as you know what your reading and it clashes within the round.
Please be clear - don’t try to mumble spread 15 off-case if you are sacrificing clarity and articulation
On that note, I prefer in-depth nuanced debates over a few positions rather than debates where teams try to go for 12 blippy offcase in the 1nc and then try to shadow extend 6 of those in the block.
Line by Line is important - Doesn’t matter if your a traditional policy team or only run k and k affs. It’s incredibly frustrating if you go for a 4 minute overview and then blow through the line by line saying, “refer to the OV”. The most interesting debate comes from clash and specificity of arguments within the context of the round.

Topicality: Sure I’ll vote on it. The way look at T debates is 1) does the aff meet the neg interp 2) If it doesn’t why should I vote for the neg’s interpretation. It’s not enough for a neg team to say, “aff doesn’t meet”. You have to explain to me what debate looks like in the world of the Aff’s interp vs the world of the neg’s interp and why neg’s interp is better. Don’t just push out generic standards, but really go in-depth into issues of education/ground, etc in the context off the world that an aff interp/neg interp would generate.

Theory: SLOW DOWN: If you are giving rapid-fire theory args and not sending analytics, you better make sure that you are speaking with high clarity. Although a 5 minute 2ar on condo is not my favorite debate, I’ll vote on it as long as you warrant out why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Policy Affs: Sure. Ran mostly soft-left policy affs throughout high school with a heavy emphasis on framework. In general, Aff teams should know their case inside and out. I love case debate and think affirmative teams don’t use their case enough to their strategic advantage. It’s literally an entire 8 minutes of your speaking time so make it count.

Plan vs CP/DA: For affirmative teams, like I said above, don’t just answer the offcase positions, but use your 1ac to gain strategic leverage over the negative. You should know your case better than anyone else to the point where the neg should be behind on specific solvency/link issues on the CP and DAs.

Negative teams: I am sympathetic to teams that run generic politics/topic DAs. I was the only policy team at my high school and understand if your squad isn’t big enough to generate a bunch of new specific DAs for every plan on the topic. However, please try to form specific link and impact scenarios. Even if you don’t have a specific link card for every aff, you should be able to spin and create a persuasive story in the neg block.

Also, please to impact calc - you might be sensing a theme here but contextualization is key. Pay attention to aff strategy and adapt your neg strat to it.

Plan vs K: This goes for teams on both sides– specificity and contextualization of your arguments will be most rewarded in the round. Affirmative teams need to substantively engage in the literature of the negative team and use their own case strategically to hedge back against the K. This should come in the form of both carded and analytical evidence.

Ks: Love it. Personally, I found doing research for ks the most interesting and rewarding part of debate. That being said, don’t presume I know all the literature of your K and even if I do, I still put the onus on debaters to explain and contextualize the K. While I find the literature very interesting, it’s very frustrating when debaters throwing around buzzwords and “k tricks” without explaining and warranting out their arguments. I think its highly persuasive when neg teams not only flush out the theory of the k, but give empirical examples to prove the thesis of the k.

By the end of the round, as a judge, I should know a specific link story to the aff, not just to the squo. I am much less persuaded by generic USFG/state links and more persuaded by indicts to the aff itself. This goes the same for if you are going for the alt. While I don’t think an alt functions the same as a CP, I’m only going to vote on it if I have a clear understanding of how it works, and how it resolves the k’s links to the aff.

Also, don’t gloss over the fw debate. First, it sucks to lose to k tricks on the fw debate but also will help you a lot on the alt debate for both neg and aff teams.

Nontraditional/Planless Affs:

For the most part, I think these debates are incredibly educational if debated well. Although I never went for planless affs, I think well developed and strategically written affs are incredibly persuasive. That being said, I do think they generally should have some relation to the topic. I generally don’t think that the ballot should be used as a survival strategy for the team, because the ballot should be about arguments, not people.

For T-USFG/FW: I went for this 9/10 in HS against planless affs. When going for it, please 1) engage with the aff and tailor your T blocks to the aff to garner offense on your model of debate. 2) Don’t go for so many impacts in the 2NR - just for one or two with strong internal links 3) Read a TVA 4) please get to the case debate and debate it substantively. Try to make your case arguements work cohesively with your t args

For the aff team: warrant and flush out clear arguments rather than generic state bad, rez violent, etc. Your aff was probably written with specific strategic advantages in mind so use them! Also, provide a C/I and actually explain what your world of debate looks like in comparison to the neg.

Maria Alexandra Jimenez Hire 8 rounds

Nathan Johnston Trinity Preparatory School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 4:24 AM EDT

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

David Jones Newton South HS

Mike Jones Regis High School

Tanner Jones Edina HS

Last changed on Thu March 16, 2023 at 2:02 PM CDT

Extemp:

I competed in extemp for three years at Edina HS. My career highlights were reaching NCFL and NSDA National finals. Since then, I have coached MBA RR invites, NSDA, ETOC, UKTOC, and NCFL national finalists at Shrewsbury HS (MA) and Edina HS (MN), where I currently coach. I have also privately coached students in South Florida and South Texas and have some familiarity with those circuits.

I am what you might call a content judge. But I do care about time and time allocation (it’s not a fair competition if you get 8 minutes while your opponents get only 7; tough to make a good argument in only 30 seconds, etc.).

This is how I will rank you and your opponents, items rank-ordered:

1. Did you answer the question? If you answered the question, I evaluate you against others who answered the question. If not, vice versa. This is the most important point for me as a judge. He or she who provides the best answer to his or her selected question will win the round. If you do not answer the question — giving a “how should” answer to a “will” question, for example – expect to earn a bad rank. I've watched NSDA and TOC finalists fail to answer the question and I did not hesitate to give them the 5.

2. Did you emphasize the arguments? Did your claims have warrants? Did you terminalize your impacts back to the question? Importantly, were there contradictions within your substructure or between your points (even if these weren’t expressely articulated, the logical conclusion of one point may contradict that of another point)?

3. With what sources did you corroborate your arguments? Were your sources recent? High quality? Did you consider the key experts in the field?

4. How were the performative elements (delivery)? Did you exude confidence and use your voice and body to command the space? Did you offer a relevant AGD? Were you monotone or did you provide vocal variety? Did you have on-tops? Did they meaningfully contribute to the speech?

I care least about delivery because evaluations of delivery are necessarily subjective. Just as people react differently to jokes, judges will find performative elements (humor/emotions) differently entertaining/funny/sad/etc. In my mind, a content focus is the only consistently fair judging paradigm for extemp.

When deciding between two or more high quality extemp speakers, I find that four things set speakers apart (not rank-ordered, all items matter to me):

1. Difficulty of question. If two speakers provide equally good speeches but one speaker answers a much more difficult question (triads, obscure policies/issues, etc.) that speaker may earn a better rank (same logic as opp. averages as a tie breaker).

2. Quality of sources. Did you cite think tanks, esteemed professors/thinkers, journals, BOOKS?

3. Framing the question. Did you give me key background on the actors/terms in the question and tell me the gravity/importance of the question? Did you explain to me what an answer means in terms of the wording of the question (what it means for a policy to be “successful” or “effective” etc.)?

4. Delivery/wit.

Debate:

Add me to the email chain: tannerhawthornej @ gmail.com. I coach Edina HS PF and extemp speaking.

I debated LD and PF for Edina High School for three years. I’m now a junior at Dartmouth, I'm on the policy team. I personally know Raam Tambe.

I can flow fast and will evaluate all arguments. The winner of my ballot will be the better debater(s), not the the debater(s) that run args I like. As such, I won't draw arbitrary lines at certain types of arguments. Speaks will suffer if a debater is rude/offensive. If you have more questions feel free to ask before the round.

For PF, I will not evaluate offense that’s dropped in summary. If you go for something in final focus it needs to be in summary (except d). PF is more about persuasion than the other debate events, I’ll keep that in mind. Weigh or you’re asking for intervention. Don’t really care about speed for PF but I haven’t seen speed give much of a competitive advantage on PF. Evidence ethics is the biggest problem I’ve encountered in PF. I will call for cards so be ready to have good evidence ethics. I will give incredibly low credence to bad ev ethics. Analytic responses are fine, misconstruing evidence is lying.

For LD, I’m good at flowing the T/CP/DA/stock FW debate but often don’t know the K lit. This doesn’t mean I’ll drop Ks, I just need a clear articulation. It probably needs to be slower than you're used to. I won't flow what I can't understand. Slow down for theory. You’re calling out in round abuse not reading a card so I need to understand what you’re saying. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory.

For Policy, my experience is one term competing in college on the NDT/CEDA circuit.

Joseph Jung BCAcademy

Nicole Kagan Hire 8 rounds

Prateek Kalakuntla Plano West Sr HS

Ashutosh Kale DuPont Manual High School None

Lawler Kang Waring School

Won Joon Kang Bergen County Debate Club

Last changed on Thu March 2, 2023 at 4:24 PM EDT

Debate coach at Bergen Debate Club for almost 10 years. Feel free to ask me debate-related questions at the end of the round--I always enjoy chatting about the topic, arguments, theory, and philosophy before moving on to the next round.

For new debaters: Have fun and try your best! I have an endless amount of patience for new debaters. Welcome to the world of debate!

PF Paradigm

Everything will be based on flow, so everything that is said is binding--you are responsible for all extensions including cross comments.

The following are not listed in order of importance, so please consider each element with equal merit.

Evidence:

- Add me to email chains: wkang.1221@gmail.com

- I will follow NSDA rules and time you for 1 minute for each card you need to find and then use your prep time for the remainder of time it takes you to send the card. The round is easier when you start the round with a shared Google Doc or email chain to streamline the card-sharing process.

Speech Components:

- Signposting: Non-optional! This always adds to the clarity of any debate. Please don't just say "On my first contention"... full signposting includes what that first contention is. (I mention this because debaters usually begin signposting effectively and either forget/forgo/become lazier as the round moves forward and stop signposting clearly).

- Turns: Please extend your warrants (this does not mean to just re-read your cards)--contextualize your response. Additional reasoning/warranting never hurt anyone.

- Frontlines: Essential starting from 2nd rebuttal! Remember that everything holds in the flow. If you don't frontline, their response(s) against your speech holds until the end of the round.

- Defense: Likewise with weighing, please implicate your defense.

Weighing:

- Weigh as early as possible in the 2nd rebuttal/summary after any necessary frontlines and be explicit in voters during FF. Weigh as effectively as possible (in a clear manner) within the allotted time.

- Comparative weighing is essential. If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please comparatively weigh AND implicate your arguments so that I don't have to do it in my head for you.

- Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

- Please metaweigh!

- Merely because you've won a framework, does not mean that you've won the round--ensure that you outline/complete weighing during the Sum & FF.

Presentation:

- *Well-warranted argumentation is good, but analytical and nuanced argumentation of well-warranted arguments is even better.

- (Un)fortunately, as a long-time debate coach, I am a tech over truth judge (even if I know the topic/argument/evidence)--meaning that how well something is debated determines how much truth value I place upon it.

- If there is a loss of professionalism from either side, I will ensure to give 25s & a loss to the individual(s).

- Turning on questions is expected, but if any individual during any CF refuses to answer a single question (in a clear manner), I will consider it to be poor handling of the CF. Depending on the severity/consistency, this may result in lower speaks.

Two asides:

1) I will always disclose (unless the tournament rules prevent me from doing so). My RFDs tend to go through everything on the flow, but due to time constraints of presenting RFDs, I will go through them relatively quickly so that we can all move on to the next round--so, I tend to speak somewhat quickly. If at any point you are unclear about something I've said, please ask before I let you go. I try my best to be constructive, so I hope that you listen to the feedback rather than waiting for a win/loss (If you just want to hear win/loss then lmk and I can do that to save everyone time!) If we have time and it's not too late in the day, feel free to post-round me by asking questions.

2) Theories/Progressive arguments are fun but do not make them your end-all-be-all. You still have to be clearly topical, btw. If the opposition responds with reasonability args/inability to engage statements--I respect it and understand it as a once novice debater.

LD Paradigm

Everything will be based on the flow. (Would be much appreciated if you add me to the email chain at the start to supplement this element). Additionally, a clear analysis of your arguments will be pivotal to winning.

I've studied philosophy so feel free to present the technical stuff, theories, and Ks, but if you do so, it would be helpful if you took a brief moment to review the parts of the arguments that you wish to ensure I focus on in my flow. Theories of justice, moral philosophy (mainly regarding forgiveness), and contractualism are what I'm primarily comfortable with, in the absence of additional analysis. Regardless, feel free to run what you desire, so long as you adhere to the reviewing element mentioned prior.

Keep the following in mind:

- Critical Theory arguments need to genuinely add something to the round, not be an excuse to avoid topicality. I focus on topicality when discussing theory. I will most likely skew the debate in favor of whoever presents a case to which more components can prove to be topical. This is especially true for link chains — I need to see a link from the case and Ks to the topic.

- K debate is great when it serves to challenge existing power structures and/or address the marginalization of groups. Remember: if you are going to run theory, don't just read theory cards to confuse your opponent.

- Please don't make your whole case just by reading cards. Rereading your cards does not equate to analysis when asked to elaborate on a piece of evidence during a cross.

- If you are going to abbreviate anything, please state what you are abbreviating initially before just using the abbreviation to avoid unnecessary remarks between debaters.

Alan Kao Phillips Academy Andover

Esther Kardos Byram Hills HS

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 10:46 AM EDT

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

John Karnes McDowell HS

Julia Kennedy Lakeland

Scott Kennedy Newton South HS

Stephen Kesselman Bard High School Early College Queens 8 rounds None

Ben Kessler Hire 8 rounds

Manish Khare Westborough HS None

Alice Kim Great Neck South - Unaffiliated

Ethan Kim Horace Mann HS None

Jun Kim Hire 8 rounds

Nathan Kim Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 18, 2023 at 1:50 PM EDT

PF 2022/2023:

I debated in PF competitively for 6 years and graduated from Tufts University, majoring in Economics and Community Health (take that as you may). If you have any other questions, feel free to email me at nathankim925@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

General:

Signpost throughout so I know what's going on.
Dropped arguments are critical. Dropped arguments are near-impossible to recover from (given the argument is reasonable), and if a team weighs and extends the argument effectively, consider the round over.
I enjoy creative arguments that show you researched the topic well. I always expect stock arguments to be the focal point of a round, but innovative arguments that allow me to analyze the round in a new way will be rewarded. However, there is a limit to truth & reality in all arguments.
If you have any advice that would make me a better judge, let me know after I disclose.
Pre-flow before you enter the room, especially if you're flight 2.
If you want to email me your case before the round starts so I can pre-flow, that would be very helpful.

Evaluating the Round:

You should do the work of telling me what to prioritize when voting.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH
If you want to email me your case before the round starts so I can pre-flow, that would be very helpful.
I evaluate impacts on both magnitude and likelihood so I’m not going to let bizarre stuff dictate a round, even if it’s dropped.
It'll be difficult for me to evaluate theory/Ks as I have no experience using them. That being said, I’m open to different types of argumentation so if you explain it well then it’s to your benefit.

Notes on Second Rebuttal:

No offensive overviews in second rebuttal.
In second rebuttal you should frontline first rebuttal. I understand there isn't a lot of time, but at the minimum, respond to turns.

Summary/FF:

Summary & FF should mirror each other – consolidate all offense you want to use in summary & FF.
Defense that's frontlined in second rebuttal should be addressed in first summary.
Defense is sticky but if you want to collapse on sticky defense, quickly bring it up in summary & FF to remind me.
MAKE SURE TO WEIGH!!! If you're weighing is ambiguous/unclear, I'll have to evaluate it on my own. You don't want that.
During FF, please give me voters - don't do a line-by-line.

Cross:

I don't flow cross but I think it's an important part of the debate. If something round-altering happens, make sure to tell me in your next speech.
If both sides agree we can forego grand cross and add an extra minute of prep to both teams.
No leading questions!

Cards & Explaining Evidence:

Read cards in constructive.
Explaining evidence is part of extending evidence. "Extend Goncalves 19 from our case" is not an extension. "Extend Goncalves 19 because it explains..." is an extension.
I dislike evidence wars. Don’t go back & forth on the validity of a source
I will call for cards if: 1. you ask me to; 2. it's critical to my decision; 3. the card seems "too good to be true" and I want to verify it.
If you intentionally alter info about a card in any way to help your team, speaks will be deducted and/or I'll give the ballot to the other team.

Speed:

I have never been a big fan of speed but if you want to go fast, slow down for authors & warrant taglines
Don't compromise clarity for speed. Pick up on non-verbal cues to slow down if necessary (not flowing, looking visibly confused, etc.)

Speaks:

I usually will give 26-30, anything <26 is reserved for anything offensive/spreading after many signals not to do so.
Avg. speaks given by division: Varsity: 28.33; Open/JV/Novice: 27.03 (smaller sample); Middle School: 28.21

Patrick Kim Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Tue December 1, 2020 at 2:21 PM EDT

Judging Philosophy

-The winner of the debate is normally the team with the best arguments, not necessarily the best speakers (speaker points).

-However, keep in mind that a poor presentation can detract from the way the judge (me) might perceive the strength of your arguments. Likewise, even a weak argument can seem better if presented in a convincing manner.

-Fast-Talking ("spreading") is OK, but you'd better ensure that I can understand what you're saying. Also, speaking quickly in order to get a high number of specious arguments out there is counterproductive. If you've got a lot of strong points, by all means speak quickly so I can hear them all. But if you've got an array of weaker and stronger arguments, I don't need to hear the weak ones. If in doubt, err on the side of speaking more slowly.

-Be sure to answer your opponents' weak arguments. I am not going to judge arguments based on my own experience and knowledge; I am relying on YOU to do the research, to bring strong and supported arguments to the debate, and to point out your opponent's weak arguments. Even if an argument seems outlandish on its face, you need to at least mention it on rebuttal (and hopefully cite a card of your own that contradicts it). Of course, no need to cite a card to contradict obviously lousy arguments (certain things are contrary to common sense, i.e. the sun won't rise tomorrow).

-CIVILITY over ALL. I feel very strongly that public discourse across a wide range of fora (in academia, in politics, and just communicating with others in general) has been overtaken by an "us against them," tribal mindset that encourages ad hominem attacks that substitute for rational argument. Meaningful debate cannot occur when such conditions exist, and we cannot allow such practices in our competitions. I expect strong and honest airing of the best arguments for and against the resolution. However, if I feel a team has violated the standards of respectful, civil discourse, they will lose, no matter how strong the arguments.

DeAnna Kirby Sequoyah High School

Robert Klein Hunter College None

Devesh Kodnani Lake Highland Preparatory

Last changed on Sat February 25, 2023 at 12:55 AM PDT

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

Have fun, and best of luck!

Anna Koltunova Stoneman Douglas HS

Rodney Kornegay Mountain Brook HS

Kimberly Kouri Boca Raton Community HS

Kapil Kumar Acton-Boxborough Regional HS None

Vinay Kumar Westborough HS

Lilia Kupovich Newton South HS

Philip Kupovich Newton South HS

Jason Laks Boca Raton Community HS None

Roger Lam Potomac Debate Academy

Sophia Lam Poly Prep Country Day School

Adrian Lask Vancouver Debate Academy 8 rounds

Gael Le Guellec Potomac Debate Academy

Alexander Lee Regis High School

Brendon Lee Hire 8 rounds

Eileene Lee Hire 8 rounds

Kattie Leito Plano West Sr HS

Yvonne Leung Newton South HS

Nicole Levine Hire 8 rounds

Ben Lewis Pinecrest HS

Gaby Lewis Newton South HS

Bin Li Acton-Boxborough Regional HS None

Daize Li BL Debate

Last changed on Sat February 11, 2023 at 8:08 AM EDT

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pengyue Li Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Sharon Li Newton South HS

Sky Li Acton-Boxborough Regional HS None

Xinhua (Gene) Li Newton South HS

Yiwei Li Potomac Debate Academy

John Lin Early Scholars None

Anping Liu Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Jonathan Liu Hire 8 rounds None

Xu Liu Great Neck South - Unaffiliated

Jian Lock Newton South HS

Lena Lofgren Hire 8 rounds None

Ellis London Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 13, 2020 at 9:28 PM EDT

About me:

I did PF from 2013 to 2017 at Walt Whitman High School in Maryland. I coached/ judged frequently as a first year out, although I've been semi-retired from high school debate since 2018. Currently, I'm a student at Brandeis University in Massachusetts, where I'm majoring in economics and history. I regularly compete in APDA and BP style parliamentary debate. I use he/ they pronouns.

Major preferences:

Unless you want me to intervene, you have to weigh competing impacts as well as links into the same impact. Weighing should be comparative (X outweighs Y because) or superlative (X comes before everything else because). Comparative weighing tends to be more persuasive than superlative because it actually accounts for the quality of your opponents' arguments instead of precluding them on face. That being said, I'll vote for any weighing as long as it's done correctly.

I touched at this in the last paragraph, but to reiterate: you must weigh your link(s) against your opponents' link(s) when you're both trying to access the same impact. In all the rounds I've judged, failure to weigh links is easily the most common mistake that costs debaters the round. (This is especially true for higher-level rounds.)

Don't wait until second final focus to weigh, doing so deliberately avoids clash and makes it nearly impossible for the first speaking team to win on weighing. I will reluctantly evaluate new weighing in second final focus if it's the only substantive weighing in the round, or if it's the only way to resolve clash over existing weighing.

As you may have noticed, the past three paragraphs have all been about weighing. That's because weighing is important. A lot of successful debaters have a habit of telling teams they judges to "weigh more" or "weigh better" without explaining how, and I despise this. If you want to improve your weighing but you're not sure how, find me after the round and we can talk.

Second rebuttal doesn't need to address defense, but they must cover offense and/or theory arguments introduced by the first rebuttal. Weighing from first rebuttal should probably be addressed, but I'm fine with you waiting until summary. Dropped defense must be present in final focus for me to evaluate it, but I don't need it in first summary (first summary still needs to extend/ rebuild defense if it was responded to in second rebuttal, otherwise I won't buy them in final focus.)

Offensive overviews, new "advantages" or "disads", and "turns" that are really just blippy new arguments with the same terminal impact as your opponents are fair game in first rebuttal, but not in second. Actual turns on their arguments are fine in second rebuttal.

As long as they're properly warranted, I usually don't care if arguments are carded. (Arguments predicated on empirical/ fact claims are the exception to this.) Evidence comparison is not as compelling as argument comparison, but I'll vote on it if you tell me to. In rounds where teams should have compared warrants but didn't, I often intervene on evidence. Your opponents get free prep time while you're searching for evidence; this is a good norm because it encourages teams to have evidence readily available

Theory is fine in the case of egregious abuse by your opponents. If you read theory and I think it's frivolous, I probably won't drop you but I will tank your speaks. I default to reasonability because this is PF and your opponents probably don't know what a counterinterp is. Theory must be introduced immediately after the violation has occurred if you want me to evaluate it. Cross (or questioning during prep) checks. Feel free to ask me how I feel about specific theory arguments before the round.

Plans and CPs are fine as long as the resolution actually proposes an action. You don't need to prove your advocacy is probable unless your opponents make an argument saying otherwise. If you read a specific plan/ CP that's very unpredictable and probably abusive, I'll heavily err towards your opponents if they contest it. (So don't be afraid to call your opponents out!)

Kritikal arguments are fine if you actually know how to make/ implicate them. I'm probably most conducive to cap, security, or orientalism (especially on the BRI topic). Read dense continental philosophy or postmodern arguments at your own risk.

Try not to speak above 215 words per minute. My upper limit is probably around 230 WPM, so go fast at your own risk.

Don't be mean. Stop making dramatic faces at your opponents' arguments, they're not going to persuade me. Avoid repeatedly cutting your opponents off in crossfire. Don't be blatantly dismissive or hostile towards your opponents' arguments when you respond to them (this is mostly directed at you, male debaters with non-male opponents).

Minor preferences (there aren't round-deciding, but please show some competency and do what I say):

Flip for sides and preflow as early as you can. (This especially goes for you, second flight.)

Please don't give me a full-on roadmap unless you're doing something really unusual. (I've judged enough rounds to know that you're going down their case and back to your own if time permits.)

Please don't try to shake my hand after the round.

I don't care if you sit or stand, so please don't ask me.

I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, so please don't ask me.

Brandon Lu Livingston HS

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:35 PM EDT

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

Michelle Lu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 15, 2021 at 1:25 AM UTC

I did PF for four years (JV and Varsity) at Ridge High School and graduated from there in 2014. I was involved on both the local, state, and national (including TOC) circuits and have judged the Harvard Forensics Tournament for a few years.

Things to know about me as a judge:

- I'm fine with speed. Speak as quickly as you'd like, though don't get to policy-levels of spreading unless you're extremely clear and understandable. I flow all speeches but if I can't write as quickly as you are speaking then there's a risk I might miss an argument or two.

- I will not consider an argument that you bring up in your case and then drop. If you want me to consider an argument, remember to extend it in summary / FF. If your opponent continues to extend a warrant / evidence / argument from their case into summary / FF and you have not rebutted it at all or ignored it, I will extend it to the end of the flow and consider it when judging who won the round. I generally vote off summary / final focus so if there's something you really want me to consider, bring it up then.

- I do not flow CX and will not consider an argument that is brought up there and then subsequently dropped.

- Please, please weigh your arguments for me. If you don't weigh your arguments against that of your opponent, I will be forced to weigh them myself which is no fun for you. Give me your impacts and tell me why your impact is bigger or more important.

- I'm not a stickler for evidence battles, so don't go too crazy repeatedly asking for your opponent's evidence unless you are pretty sure their evidence is sus or wrong or inaccurate, then of course go ahead and ask for it and then attack it during CX or one of your speeches. However, if the round comes down to a specific piece of evidence, I might call for it myself. If it's grossly exaggerated, wrong, or misconstrued then I'll drop that evidence from my consideration.

- Please don't use non traditional frameworks such as LD or policy-like theory frameworks. Even though I am comfortable with more technical arguments (as opposed to a truly lay judge) I still do believe that teams should stick to the heart of PF in being accessible to all and I will most likely ignore the framework completely.

- Track your own prep time (and if you want to, your opponents prep time) - because I won't.

- Be respectful!

Sam Lu Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Grace Luckett Walt Whitman

Jeffrey Luo BCAcademy

Last changed on Sat October 2, 2021 at 7:36 AM EDT

I'm currently a university student studying computer science at the University of Toronto. In high school I debated for 4 years, in PF, CNDF, BP, and Worlds style, and I am currently a coach. I have been judging for almost 4 years now.

On evidence/logic: I will buy logic over evidence in certain cases, and I'm very sympathetic towards logical analysis due to my background in BP/Worlds. If a logical argument is more substantive and is able to explain why a piece of evidence is reasonably flawed/untrue, I will take the logical analysis. When challenged on statistics, teams should be able to defend their numbers by explaining exactly how those numbers were found or what study produced the numbers. For example, if an increase in the capital gains tax leads to a decrease in the size of an economy by 10%, then a team should know exactly how that 10% was measured, and under what conditions it was measured (if challenged).

On argumentation/structure: I'm very standard on structure. Do all the general things: extend arguments and refutations in summary, and weigh in final focus. I strongly value engagement with arguments: directly respond to arguments and responses, and shift the debate to a scope that better reflects the clashes in the debate. Note that I have zero tolerance for bringing up new material in final focus and I will immediately drop teams that do this. I give lots of credit to teams that can weigh effectively, and paint me a clear picture of exactly what their world would look like vs the world of the other team, and characterize the harms on either side. I strongly believe that a team doesn't have to win every single argument in the debate in order to win the round.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, but I will try to remember what was said. If you want me to flow something that transpired in crossfire please mention it during the speech. Example: "during crossfire, our opponent conceded that... "

In general: Treat me as a standard flow judge, but one that accepts logical argumentation and considers it strongly. I am generally non-interventionist in rounds, so I don't have exact speed preferences as I believe that there are times for both fast speaking and slow speaking. Please adjust to your discretion and what you deem to be most effective.

Michelle Luo Newton South HS None

Kelly Lutgen Chanhassen HS

Diane Ma Horace Mann HS

Meredith Macleod Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:23 PM CDT

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

Bill Madigan Newton South HS

Last changed on Fri February 14, 2020 at 1:53 PM EDT

Some background about me: I am a parent lay judge and have judged at locals for the past three years. My daughter is currently a senior and has been debating for South since her sophomore year. The last time I judged a tournament was one year ago at Harvard.

Now, onto in-round stuff.

Speed: If you want me to understand your argument it is to your advantage to speak slowly.

Arguments: I will look for convincing arguments that are rationally presented—even if I suspect that they are not necessarily true. Be careful though, I am a huge history/current events buff and if you say something that is factually incorrect there is a good chance I will realize that. (If you run into me in the halls, or we’re waiting around before round, and you want to talk about conflicts of the 20th century I would be happy to do so).

Evidence: Extend card names throughout all your speeches. If there is clash over one particular card tell me to call for it in final focus and I will look at it after the round is over.

Extensions: I already mentioned card names, but for overall arguments I will only vote for something if you extend it throughout the round and mention it in final focus. I am not persuaded by second speakers who “wave the wand” (extend offense—or defense if you’re second—in their final focus that was not extended in summary). I will only vote for arguments that are extended in final focus. I will not vote for a contention that was dropped after summary.

Round strategy: Please collapse on your arguments. By summary I should have a rough idea of what contention/link(s)/impact(s) you’re going for. Do not extend everything in your summary, and most definitely don’t extend everything in final focus. I like when debaters pitch “narrative” for the arguments they extend. This narrative helps me understand your argument better and is also a good way to get in weighing without throwing out unwarranted jargon like “scope” and “magnitude.”

Debate jargon: I am unfamiliar with most jargon. My daughter just explained what a “turn” is so you can say that and I’ll pick up on it. Besides that though, avoid using jargon and actually explain what stuff like “mitigate” means rather than saying it quickly before a response.

Other stuff: please signpost, this helps me follow your argument and also flow your rebuttal correctly. Please be respectful and kind to each other during round. If I sense that a debater is overwhelming an opponent by spreading or constantly speaking over others in cross I will be less inclined to vote for you. I have zero tolerance for any sexist/ racist/ homophobic etc. behavior.

Lastly, I don’t judge for my own personal enjoyment; I judge because my daughter loves this activity and I want to support her.

Anju Mahesh Ivy Bridge Academy

Scout Malloy Carrollton

Ryan Maloney Mercyhurst Prep

Ethan Mandelbaum Summit HS

Albi Manfredi Trinity Preparatory School

Lorenzo Manuali Regis High School None

Lauren Marano Waring School None

Morgan Marguiles Trinity School

Last changed on Fri January 24, 2020 at 3:41 AM PDT

Public Forum:

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

If you think it matters, my poliicy paradigm is below

7/31/2017

email - marguliesmorgan@gmail.com

tl;dr - Two important things:

1. Tech over truth

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

Who?

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

Args

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be kind, respect your opponent, and have fun!

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

Jennifer Mariano Harley School, The None

Hunter Martin Charlotte Latin School

Daniela Martinez Hire 8 rounds

Ishan Maunder Lake Highland Preparatory

Last changed on Sat November 23, 2019 at 5:30 AM PDT

**Optional Section**

If any individual in the round would prefer these rules not be applied, let me know at the start and I'll waive them for the round, no questions asked.

1. Effective use of Kanye West lyrics and/or Frank Ocean references will bump speaker points

2. If you want walk-up music of any kind before ur rebuttal or summary or whatever lmk i'll try to play it for you

Have fun, and best of luck! Seriously. Have fun. Otherwise it's not worth it.

**end**

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

Mariah Mayo Chaska HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:04 AM CDT

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!

Elisa McCartin Walt Whitman

Last changed on Sat September 18, 2021 at 1:50 PM EDT

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as a PF coach. This is my fourth year judging/coaching PF. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- If second rebuttal frontlines their case, first summary must extend defense. However, if second rebuttal just responds to the opposing case, first summary is not required to extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already).

-I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

- I don't need second rebuttal to frontline case, but I do require that you frontline any turns. Leaving frontlining delinks for summary is fine with me.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I love warrants/warrant comparisons. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases. Trigger warning theory is probably the only theory shell I will ever vote on, but I really really don't want to because I hate voting on theory. PLEASE TRIGGER WARN YOUR CASES AND/OR ASK YOUR OPPONENTS IF THEY READ SENSITIVE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE ROUND BEGINNING TO AVOID TRIGGERING PEOPLE AND THEN RE-LITIGATING THE TRAUMA FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. If you care about protecting survivors, you will ask before the round if a case has sensitive material. Also, I hate disclosure theory. Just ask your opponent to share their case if it is a big deal to you.

- I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but BE BRIEF.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks.

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you.

Robert McCormack Phillips Academy Andover

Devi McKalko BASIS Ahwatukee None

Robert Mckenzie Sequoyah High School

Ali Medina Hire 8 rounds

Raveendra Mekala Westborough HS None

Sherry Meng ACP Independent

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:11 PM MST

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Jeffrey Miller Marist School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Rosemarie Miller Boca Raton Community HS

Last changed on Sun October 13, 2019 at 4:07 AM EDT

Hi, I am a mom judge who takes notes. This is my fourth year judging and I have a daughter in Public Forum. I love to judge and listen to interesting argumentation, however making a decision in a close round is often a challenge for me so it would be to your advantage if you follow my paradigm and make this cleaner and easier for me to evaluate. P.S. if you ask for my paradigm it most likely won’t be as in depth as this; follow this don’t just “do your thing”.

LINGO- Chances are, you all know more about the topic than me because you’ve been researching for weeks. this being said, make sure that you don’t throw around “topical lingo”. Make sure you explain to me the terms fairly clearly. Also, don’t use fancy debate rhetoric that is typically spammed for flow judges. If you say “turn” or “flow to our side” or “extend” I’m probably gonna get a little confused. Just explain to me where and how I should evaluate the argument. Also why are you giving a roadmap if it’s super complicated and you’re hopefully going to tell me where you are anyway???
SPEAKING- The way I look at it, debate is about adapting to whoever your judge is. For the purpose of this round, it would be strategic to just persuade me. Make eye contact and show me that you’re engaged in the activity. ..It’s okay to be aggressive to an extent but don’t be rude to your opponents. If you’re getting “beat up” fight the fire with fire though… Usually I give midstream speaks around 26-28s but a 29 is relatively easy to get if you argue effectively, professionally, fluently, and have good argumentation the whole way through. That being said, I don’t think I’ve ever given a 30 but don’t let that stop you from trying to change that. Don’t go too fast, I want to be able to understand something your saying but even perfect diction probably won’t be able to compensate for this entirely- the slower the better.
ANALYSIS- Please weigh. This will make both of our lives so much easier. I really don’t want to revert to being the judge who votes off of something random because it’s the only thing I remember or understand at the end of the round. Tell me why your link chain makes sense and why I should prefer it over your opponent’s. Also if both teams are weighing then tell me why to vote off of your weighing mechanisms, don’t just repeat them. When weighing, don’t just throw out random words like “scope” and “magnitude”- explain them to me and why it applies directly your argument.
CLASH- I like when in debate, both sides are actually debating and not just giving two completely different sides. Obviously you don’t know if your cases are going to clash but in later speeches engage in the debate, this is probably where I’ll end up voting.

Terry Miller Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Anju Misra Myers Park Unaffiliated

Heba Mohamed Hire 8 rounds None

Laila Moolji Horace Mann HS

Jae Moon Potomac Debate Academy

James Morgan Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Annie Moris Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Marvin Mujko Regis High School

Aashutosh Mukerji Bergen County Debate Club

Nitin Nadkar Ivy Bridge Academy None

Michel Nehme Hire 8 rounds None

Wenge Ni-Meister Potomac Debate Academy None

Shannon Nix Cary Academy

Shawn Nix Cary Academy

Last changed on Sat December 17, 2022 at 10:48 AM EDT

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

Chloe Noh Hire 8 rounds

Dennis O'Donnell Regis High School

Daniel Oestericher The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Fri January 7, 2022 at 7:43 AM EDT

I debated for four years at Bronx Science and am currently a junior at Yale. That probably makes me a pretty traditional flow judge at this point, but I have no idea. I would say do normal things and you're good

If you want more specifics

I don't think that first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think second rebuttal has the burden of frontlining your own case. Personally, I probably don't think either is strategic, but it is totally up to you

I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but also relates to the types of arguments you make. In general, I have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments, and I would be very receptive to teams that use probability as a way to evaluate the round

On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the truth value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round

I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision to a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump

Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but truthfully I had very little experience with them when I debated. While I understand that is what tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me

s/o Mr. Huth, Ben and Elias :), and the Bronx debate team. Big things only

Osezele Okoruwa Vancouver Debate Academy

Last changed on Fri December 3, 2021 at 10:19 AM EDT

I competed in PF and Congress (3 and 4 years respectively) at Durham Academy.

TL; DR:I will be flowing the round, so feel free to refer to the flow on points you would like to reintroduce. Don’t spread, this is not LD. You can speak quickly, so long as you are delivering your points clearly. The main focus of my judging is who is winning the debate. You provide the set of criteria that defines what winning means. Respect each other. No off-time roadmaps.

Constructive: This speech is the foundation for the entire debate. As such, all of your main points should stem from this speech. At the beginning of the speech, I expect that you will introduce a weighing mechanism or lens through which the debate ought to be judged*. Your impacts should lead into this mechanism or lens. All claims made during the constructive need to have warrants and each warrant should have a reputable source. With that being said, the constructive speech is a great time to provide depth to arguments. I would prefer a more robust explanation of points in two contentions to a list of numbers in a case with 4 contentions. Additionally, this speech is the only one that should be fully prepared ahead of each round and should be spoken clearly, articulately, and should end on at the appropriate time.

Rebuttal: This speech should focus on explaining why your opponent’s points are either wrong or outweighed by your own. You can certainly use the time to extend your constructive, but you should ensure that you leave time to address your opponent’s points.

Summary: The summary serves as a funnel for the debate. It should narrow the scope to the points that you see as the most important. These do not need to be your own points, but they should be weighed to explain why you’re winning on those points.

Final Focus: The final speech in the debate should focus on voters and weighing. I strongly dislike reaching back for points that were not extended through summary. I appreciate when the weighing mechanism or lens for the debate are brought back in for the final focus, especially when your opponents have accepted that weighing mechanism or lens.

Crossfire: Please be respectful of each other. Each side should have the opportunity to ask questions. Keep the focus on the topic and avoid ad hominem remarks.

*This isn't required, but if you don't provide a framework then I will assume you're running util.

Miscellaneous:

· Use your prep time. There are no bonus points for leaving prep time on the board.

· Stay calm. It will help you maintain a reasonable speed and deliver points clearly.

· Avoid off-time roadmaps. Just signpost throughout your speech instead.

· Attire is not something I tend to worry about. I will not be counting it for or against you, but some judges might. I recommend professional attire.

Congress

Maintaining decorum during the round is important. Each competitor ought to be respectful of each other, regardless of what occurs during the round. I will be judging based on how each student operates as a legislator. Participating in cross-examination, presiding well, properly using points of order, and generally demonstrating a thorough understanding of the event will all be considered when I make my judgment. When giving a speech it is important that you support your points with evidence. Credible evidence should be clearly cited from a reputable source.

First and foremost, respect each other. Link your arguments back to the standard. When attacking your opponent's argument, make sure you use the standard established in the round.

Evidence: If you cannot produce evidence quickly when it is called by your opponent, I'll simply disregard that piece of evidence.

Spreading: Feel free to do so, but I value the quality of your arguments far more than the quantity.

Eric Olvera Hire 8 rounds

Harper Oreck Hire 8 rounds None

Idalina Orta Ft Lauderdale HS

Angelo Osofsky Regis High School None

Rina Padua Hire 8 rounds None

Zenon Padua Hire 8 rounds None

Ulrich Palha Fort Lee High

Clark Pan Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS None

Sunitha Paravasthu Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Ramona Park Hire 8 rounds

Tanay Patri Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 12, 2019 at 1:30 PM EDT

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

Michael Patti Thales Academy Rolesville Speech and Debate

Phil Pavich Regis High School None

Marco Paz-Solano Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 10:37 AM EDT

Technically a senior on leave from Harvard, I debated 4 years in Public Forum for The Dalton School.

For 1st Speakers:

During Constructive: Please make eye contact with me during your constructive speech. You have ideally read your own case at least 2 times before round, so I want you to at least try to make a personal connection (i.e. genuinely try to sell me on your case).

During Summary: Please start boiling down your points. I want you to start weighing during this speech, and tell me how you're winning.

If you go for every single point in the round, you will lose 0.5 speaker points. Your job is to start condensing it for me. Also, don't just do it for me; as a former 2nd speaker, I remember how much easier my job became when my 1st speaker would deliver a very clear and effective summary. So, please do it for your partner, too!

For 2nd Speakers:

During Rebuttal: Please start out with an overview, explaining why I should listen to your framework / overview over your opponents, not just telling me why your framework is valid.

If you're the 1st speaking rebuttal, just go down their flow. Don't just dump evidence; you could read me all the evidence in the world, but I want you to provide me with the logic behind such arguments. Explain any turns you may make clearly.

If you're the 2nd speaking rebuttal, I want you to not only go down their case, but also respond to any turns your opponents make on your case.

During Final Focus: Write my ballot for me. Do this, and you will win. Explain to me what arguments you are winning on; hammer in on things I should extend in the flow and explain to me why they're important. Don't just read me evidence I should extend, or else I have no justification for doing so. Anything that you say in final focus that wasn't mentioned in summary will be ignored.

General Stuff:

1) PLEASE SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow, or else I will be lost, which will be very frustrating.

2) I don't actually flow cross, so please provide crossfire analysis at the beginning of subsequent speeches if you want anything said during cross to be weighed in the round (concessions, turns, logic explanations, etc.).

3) Any disrespectful or racist, sexist, inappropriate, etc things said in round will lead to an automatic 25 speaker points or less, and depending on severity, may even lead to an automatic win to the other team.

4) At the end of the day, it's just a debate round where you guys are arguing a topic you've spent hours researching. Have fun, WEIGH, and enjoy!

Evelin Pedro Hire 8 rounds None

Tali Peretz Miami Beach Sr HS

Janell Perez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 10, 2020 at 12:09 PM AST

"Let us hold our discussion together in our own persons, making trial of the truth and of ourselves"

Protagoras of Abdera (Father of Debate)

Hello debaters!

I've been coaching and judging in PF debate for four years now. I flow main arguments, responses and monitor time. I like clash, that your cases include for each of the claims the warrants and you explain clearly the impacts (explain why your arguments are important and what could happen if this is not done, in an accurate and understandable way)

Please know the purpose of each of the interventions:

-Constructive Speech: Time to present your side/ your case to me. I like contentions that are unique, have quality, that are relevant, credible, and creative. Watch out with the pace...No problem if you are speaking fast, but too fast or too slow affects your delivery and how you'd be understood.

-Rebuttal: You are to respond by refuting, invalidating, blocking the opposing team's arguments most of the time. Give evidence, and you can include some defensive arguments as well.

-Summary: The word says it, you will make a recap of what has happened, highlighting the stronger points of your team's side.

-Final Focus: "Last shot" to convince me and explain all reasons why I should vote for your team. Go ahead, be persuasive!

-Crossfires and Grand Crossfire: CLASH! Back and forth questions and answers... Remember that in the Grand Crossfire EVERY SPEAKER participates.

General:

Do your protocol, be formal, don't be rude.

Use all your time. When you do perfect timing, it means you have practiced and prepared well enough, so I take it into account.

It is hard to make decisions if both teams have good performance and are competitive. If you win: you had a little extra something that I thought was important, so congratulations...if you do not win the round (YOU WON EXPERIENCE!!!): you may be disappointed, but please: learn and reflect from it, keep working hard, never quit or stop doing your best because in life sometimes you win or sometimes you don't.

Last but not least, remember to take this as a learning experience... SO HAVE FUN!

Vikki Perijainen Hire 8 rounds None

Matthew Pickering Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 4:46 AM EDT

I am a college student who debated for four years of high school in mainly PF and Congress with a dash of policy in the west. The following are my paradigms:

PF: I will vote 99% on the voters you give me, so make them obvious and make them count. I know debate vocabulary changes regionally, so no need to call them voters exactly but I will always be grateful to teams that say something to the tune of, "The three essential voting issues of today's debate are x, y, and z and we win them for the following reasons...." in the final focus particularly and often in the summary speech. If your opponents do this and you don't, then more often than not you WILL lose the round. It makes my job much easier when you tell me what to vote on; if you make me figure out what your strongest arguments are instead of telling me them, then all of your winning chances fall on which arguments I pick, which will not always be the same ones you would choose. BOTTOM LINE: I will vote on (almost) anything as long as you tell me to, and not telling me what to vote on can result in a loss. The remaining 1% is me willing to vote you down for being unsportsmanlike or otherwise toxic to debate; be careful to walk the fine line between aggressive debate and disrespectful debate. In PF, I strongly encourage debaters to speak persuasively as if to a general audience. I will flow the round, but I will vote up a team that sensibly persuades me over a team that spreads 20 contentions into one speech so that their opponents drop one. I discourage speed in PF; it distracts from proper and in-depth argumentation. Evidence is important, but be prepared to back up statistics with logical conclusions, impacts, etc. In 7 years of being involved in debate, I've not once heard a useful roadmap in PF, so anything more than telling me where you are going to start is not recommended (unless other judges in a panel particularly DO call for road maps, of course).

On a final note, don't be scared by the somewhat harsh asks and ~all-caps~ text above. I like competitors who have fun with it, so don't feel pressured to take everything too seriously.

LD: See PF paradigm. Coming from a traditional PF background, I tend to give more weight to practical arguments, but I will vote on any well-thought out and well-explained argument, practical, moral, or otherwise.

Policy/CX: I have limited experience with policy debate, but am willing to vote on any argument, regardless of complexity, if it is well supported and you give me enough reasoning as to WHY that argument merits a vote. I was never formally taught what a kritik is or the anatomy of a topicality, but I will vote on either if you spend enough time telling me the significance of each element being argued. Evidence is big and will often decide close rounds on important points like solvency. Speed is fine here, but if I've put down my pen I've stopped following. Roadmaps and clear signposting are a must.

Congress: Above all, I will award congressional debaters who progress the round in some fashion. Every point discussed should either combat a previously made point, create a new argument, or point out a novel development in a previously made point. I try my hardest to reward a good, efficient chairperson.

Thank you for reading! I'm more than happy to answer any questions about anything above before the round.

Bency Pierre Academy Charter High School None

Tyler Pipkin Yukon HS

Brenda Plasek Grand Oaks HS None

Brendan Powell Regis High School None

Rakesh Purohit Stuyvesant HS

Last changed on Fri January 15, 2021 at 12:52 PM EDT

About Me: I am a parent judge with my first experience starting in 2019. Since then I have judged 30 rounds as of end of 2020. I have primarily judged Public Forum for high school students but have also a few rounds of Parliamentary debate for middle school.

Why Debate Matters To Me: As Scott Fitzgerald wrote, "“the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” To me, debate is one of the best real life arenas where this gets tested. I believe in debate as a forum for highlighting the strength of narrative, expression and persuasion that is based on a foundation of research and thoughtful insights and sharpened by intellect. I see it as a dynamic mix of strategy and tactics that is an essential life skill in any professional or social setting.

Procedural Preferences: A limited list of things that I like to emphasize to help debaters present their case, and for me to do justice in understanding your arguments:

(i) Please minimize spreading - this is not a speed-reading contest. If I as a judge cannot clearly follow your argument, I will have limited basis to judge you on the merits of your contentions and overall case

(ii) Signposting is important - both while setting up your contentions and when rebutting your opponent's contentions, evidence or impact. It helps me establish your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals

(iii) Identify yourself - at the start. I will ask for this explicitly to ensure that I get your names and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points

(iv) Time yourself - I will not be validating or judging you by how many seconds under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized. I am less impressed when you wrap up 20-30 seconds before your allotted time.

(iv) Be polite - to your opponents. We are not at war. Similarly, the judge is not here to put you down - relax!

Evaluation Criteria: My evaluation criteria goes with the flow. What that means is that, as you progress through the flow, I expect you to build on your contentions, cite the impact of your evidences, de-emphasize your opponents' arguments and rebuttals, and finally summarize the progression in the Final Focus.

With that context here are a few guidelines of my evaluation -

1. Case building will be evaluated on the depth of your research that truly emphasize your contention(s). Great contentions with weakly supported evidences and impact will not get you high points - but, and this is important, I will not unilaterally evaluate the merit of your contention, if your opponent team does not clearly highlight the weaknesses

2. Evidence is important, but your support of that evidence to reinforce your contention and weightage is far more important. Simply citing a source as the truth is not enough, it has to be proven by facts and supported by analysis. Just because a publication or a source says something, does not make it true

3. Cover all of your opponents contentions and evidences in your rebuttals. Leaving a point un-responded, essentially means that you have not been able to find a good contrary argument and evidence and hence strengthens the opposing team's argument

4. Weightage is important, but not just by stating it. It has to be accompanied by reasons why your weighting framework is better than your opponents'

5. Speaker points are provided on 3 specific criteria - presentation, quality of argumentation, and strategic choices. The strategic choices are your extemporaneous evaluation of your opponent's case and how you choose to re-position your case and work through your research to analytically de-emphasize your opponent's key contentions, evidences and impact

That's it. Good Luck to one and all!

Rakesh Purohit

Justin Qi Hire 8 rounds

Jennifer Qin Westlake

Baily Raffensperger Hire 8 rounds

Aishwarya Rajapur Hire

Priya Ramanan Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Last changed on Mon April 13, 2020 at 10:53 AM EDT

I am a lay judge, who has been judging in the New England area for the last three years. I have debated in my high school and college days some 25 years ago, and by no means was that structured the way debates run today. I have picked up some of the PF debating jargon, but am definitely not at expert level yet. So, please do not assume I'm familiar with debating jargon and don't assume that I'm familiar with arguments, just because they've been common on this year's topic.

I'm not logistically challenged, so please feel free to find a comfortable spot that works best for you and makes you feel confident. This is about you not me.

Public Forum (PF) is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals. All I require is that I can understand the argument. Clarity is more important than speed for me, so please DO NOT SPREAD. I value quality over quantity. It is extremely difficult to listen, digest and take notes, when the debater speaks too fast! I often say, if you can't reach me, you have already lost the round!

Provide and agree on definitions, so that everyone including your opponents and the judges are the same page. Provide citations and be sure to explain how the cited information supports or refutes a point. I'm not big on statistics for the sake of statistics. Please remember numbers and arguments can be twisted any which way to support or refute a hypothesis. So, analysis and interpretation needs to be logical, reasonable, and believable. Please don't resort to doomsday soothsaying. It doesn't grab my attention, unless you can prove your impacts with the right evidence and logic!

I place a premium on well-supported "real-world" links, but this doesn't mean you throw a bunch of stats/ or jargon at me, you'll definitely lose me. Instead warrant/ impact your arguments logically to their full conclusion, make sure there is ACTUAL CLASH and possible vote. It is best to show me that your evidence presents a coherent story with both warrants and resulting conclusions that support your argument. Consistency with historical precedence/ the world we live in is very important for me. I'm open to hypothetical/ theoretical/ creative argumentation, as long as you can support your argument with logical reasoning, specific evidence/ statistics and/or historical antecedents from around the global. Remember, history doesn't belong only to the United States. Research global historical events and use them to your advantage.

In conclusion, my ballot often depends more on link credibility than on impact magnitude. Outline the case, restate and/or carry your main points into the summaries and final focus. Do not introduce new arguments after the first summary and do not forget to extend your case. Crystallize your case for me. DO NOT make me do the analysis and conclusions for you! I may get it completely wrong and you may not like the result!

Please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round. During crossX, please be inquisitive, investigative and probing, but not contentious or disrespectful. CAMARADERIE and HUMOR are always a PLUS! Most importantly, have fun debating and learn from each of these amazing experiences. Enjoy!

Susan Ramsey Henry W Grady HS

Krishna Rao Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Maya Razmi Hire 8 rounds None

Fabian Redler Nova HS

Jennifer Redlin Denver South HS

Laura Richard Newtown High School

Stephanie Rifkin Hire 8 rounds

Alexis Rivett Hire 8 rounds

Michel Robles Grand Oaks HS None

Tom Rollins (Jr) The Potomac School None

Cristina Roman Hire 8 rounds None

Shira Rosenberg Hire 8 rounds

Ranjan Routray Cinco Ranch High School

Last changed on Fri April 20, 2018 at 5:58 PM CDT

Name: R. Ranjan Routray

School Affiliation: Cinco Ranch High School, Katy, TX

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 0.5 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0.5 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A

What is your current occupation? Management Consultant and Program Manager

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

Speed of Delivery: Speed on it's own is not that important. However, it should not be too slow, neither it should be so fast that audience has a hard time understanding or following. Clarity of communication is important.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Summarize conclusion and recap key supporting points, in bullet format

Role of the Final Focus: Important. Recap your key point(s), rebut opponents key point(s), expose any inconsistencies by your opponents

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: no strong opinion

Topicality: like setting a common ground

Plans: like setting a common ground

Kritiks: don't like off-topic arguments

Flowing/note-taking: ok

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? - Argument more important than style, still style can not be completely ignored.

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? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No strong opinion either way.

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 am a relatively new judge who has judged few tournaments. Since I have no formal debate coaching background (except debating in school long time back), I may not be as structured as a debate coach. I look for the following:

- Clarity of expression and thought,

- Consistency of argument,

- Successful defense of your own position,

- Finding weaknesses in opponents arguments,

- Clear and concise closing arguments.

Marley Rywell Ransom Everglades

Russ Rywell Miami Beach Sr HS

Sam Saba Hire 8 rounds None

Gopi Sadagopan Westborough HS 8 rounds

Gabrielle Salvado Hire 8 rounds None

Thomas Sandi Newburgh Free Academy

Anand Sathiyamurthy Ivy Bridge Academy None

Veer Sawhney Newton South HS

Jason Scheller Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 10, 2019 at 8:53 AM CDT

I did High School Debate Speaking at Eagan High School in Minnesota. I competed mostly on the national circuit during my time in highschool. I specialize in lay appeal.

TLDR: I am a youtuber who is just trying to have a good time.

Things to Remember…

1. Framework: If you don’t provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.

2. Extensions: No extensions through ink. I don't require 1st summary to extend defense, but link/impact extensions have to be in summary to evaluate them for final focus.

3. Evidence: prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case.

6. Theory: I have a pretty low threshold for theory. I also think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued. Disclosure is good for debate.

7. Critical positions: I pretty strongly agree with the standards for critical positions, and more specifically, identity based argumentation, that have become established in Policy/LD. Meaning, absent personal connection, there better be an EXTREMELY compelling reason for you to be the voice for the position.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

Tech ---X------------------------------------- Truth

To understand my scale of Truth look to the following:

Vaccines -------X--------------------------------------------------------- Climate Change

Lay --------------------------------X- Flow

PF Coaches ----------------------------------------------------X--------- Extemp Coaches

AT -----------------------------------------------------x--- A2

AFF (acronym) --------------------------X----------------------------- aff (truncated word)

Mariah Cady -----------------------------------------------------x--- NCFL's

Harrison Schlossberg Poly Prep Country Day School

Jack Schroeder Delbarton School

Josh Schulster Capitol Debate

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2019 at 4:45 AM EDT

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Arun Sekaran Potomac Debate Academy

Wayne Selogy Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches

Jacob Senghas Wayland High School

Christopher Shaari Horace Mann HS None

Tina Shan LI Independent

Somya Sharma Hire 8 rounds None

Amy Shaw Phillips Academy Andover None

Selena She Hire 8 rounds

Jalal Sheikh Marriott's Ridge High School None

William Shen Hire 8 rounds None

Ang Sonam Sherpa Hire 8 rounds

Faraz Siddiqui James Logan HS

Anjali Sidhu Westborough HS

David Silvian Newton South HS

Ellie Singer The Blake School

Last changed on Sun October 2, 2022 at 6:38 AM CDT

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that.

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

Noah Singer Hire 8 rounds None

Michelle Slezinger Brooklyn Technical HS

Emma Smith Durham Academy

Last changed on Mon June 12, 2023 at 10:39 AM EDT

I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I just graduated from Duke University and am finishing up my fourth year coaching PF at Durham Academy.

For Nats 2023, please put me on the email chain- smith.emmat@gmail.com.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

- Please preflow before the round. Holding up the tournament to take 15 min to preflow in the room is really annoying :(

- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason. At the very least, I'll tank your speaks and write you a kindly worded educational ballot about making rounds unnecessarily hostile.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- HUGE DISCLAIMER: My biggest pet peeve in PF right now is the use of progressive args to make rounds inaccessible to teams who don't know how to handle them. Reading progressive args against a clearly inexperienced team to get a cheap win is an easy way to auto lose my ballot. ALSO I am really not confident in my abilities to evaluate progressive arguments. If you choose to run them, you take on the risk of me making the wrong decision despite doing my best. Proceed with caution!

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

Kim Smith Newton South HS

Patricia Smith Cardinal Newman HS

Julia Smolyanskiy Bergen County Academies

Kiera Sona Hire 8 rounds None

Hongbiao Song Thomas Jefferson HSST

Henry SooHoo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 5, 2020 at 9:55 AM EDT

Lives don't matter. If you want me to weigh lives, you must first tell me why lives matter. Otherwise, talk about literally anything else.

TL;DR: Always sign post in summary and final focus, extend, and provide warrants for impacts and responses. Do the weighing for me.

Signpost: Please signpost your voting issues at the top of your summary and final focus. Then as you speak, reiterate them at the top of each voter. If you don't signpost, I have no idea what you are talking about. It just sounds like you are extending your whole case or doing another rebuttal. Either way, I have no idea what to vote off of. IF YOU DON'T PLAN ON SIGNPOSTING, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

Don’t extend through ink: If you get a concession out of your opponent, extend it in your speeches. I am flowing only the speeches so if you don't bring it up in your speeches, it didn't happen. Also, do not say "extend my 5 impacts" or "extend my 5 responses." Actually say these impacts or responses.

Collapse: Collapse all your arguments down into 1-3. If there is clash between teams, you can make that one voting issue. As long as the things are relatively related, I have no problem.

Consistency: Voting issues should be consistent between speeches. If you have two voting issues in summary, then you should have the two same voting issues in final focus.

Timeframe: All impacts should have a timeline. It is hard to weigh impacts if I have no idea how long it takes for them to realize.

No audible alarms: Please try not to use audible alarms. They are annoying and only serve to cut yourself off. While it will not affect speaker points if teams insist on using them, I will drop my pen when it rings regardless of where you are in your sentence.

Cross-applying: I will cross apply arguments and impacts that each team extends into summary and final focus even if teams don't do it themselves. In addition, if I card you and the evidence is critically relevant to either side, I will cross apply that also. This does not mean that I will create and vote off of new arguments I find in the evidence. This just means that if your card provides two impacts and you neglect to mention the other impact could negate the first one, I will take that into account and apply it for you. I am not an activist judge; I just want to make sure that evidence is being used properly and is not misconstrued. If I feel something is purposely misconstrued or left out, I will drop that card and any resulting impacts.

Weigh: Explain why the impact of one issue is more important even if the metrics are different. Hint, prioritizing lives is a losing battle, refer to top of paradigm.

Speaker Points: If you signpost, speak coherently, cover the flow, and are engaging, you can expect a 30. Prioritize coherency over speed because 1) Stumbling knocks off speaks and 2)Anything I can't flow I can't weigh. Not covering everything on the opponent's flow is OK if you cover all the important impacts and warrants. Missing a thing here or there won't affect speaks. Engagement just means you don't speak in a way that would lull me to sleep. Tournaments are long; I get tired. If you are funny, sassy, or at least make eye contact, I will be more than happy. Please don't look at your flow the entire time. Always SIGNPOST in summary and final focus. This is my biggest pet peeve. If you don't signpost, that's 2.5 points gone. Just tell me "first voter is x" and "second voter is y." Very easy to get these points and makes my RFD easier since I know what the big issues are.

Assume that I have a general understanding of the topic but definitely explain any esoteric ideas or little know events/facts.

Also, please don't be rude or condescending; it's a competition but everyone should enjoy their time in debate, not feel harassed.

Victoria Sotomayor Berkeley Carroll School

Chase Souder Hire 8 rounds None

Andrew Souther Hire 8 rounds

Asher Spector Hire 8 rounds

Eliza Spinna Stuyvesant HS

Anika Sridhar Newton South HS

Shane Stafford The Blake School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:36 AM CDT

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Dorien Steadman Achievement First Brooklyn HS None

David Stolow Newton South HS

Lorrin Stone Montville

Last changed on Thu December 9, 2021 at 3:25 PM EDT

yo, email chain me: lorrthestone@gmail.com

I don’t care what you wear; whatever is comfortable. I'd prefer if your cameras were on, but if not I won't down you for it.

If your microphone is bad, I will do what I can but if I cant hear your arguments, (as unfortunate as it is) I can't vote on them.

TLDR; if you win, I'll probably vote for you and reward you well. If you're scummy, well, I don't like scummy.

PF paradigm

4 years of PF experience with Montville, currently a junior at Brandeis.

I vote off the flow. It needs to be in a speech if you want me to flow it (i.e. I don't flow crossfire).

I'm alright with most speeds, but just know that if you go too fast, I'm going to stop flowing and that isn't anyone's fault but your own. If you're flat out spreading, I need a speech doc or I'm not going to flow anything. I will say clear whenever I feel it is necessary. COVID UPDATE: Because everyone has different internet speeds, and I've experienced that faster speaking speeds tend to become choppy with poor internet connections, please avoid speaking too fast. Try to keep it slower, but if it has to be PF SPEED, I guess you do you but make an attempt not to. Don't spread, please. [edit: The point is to try to make speeches slower]

Please signpost. Tell me where to flow. Otherwise, there is a good chance your argument gets lost in limbo. If I drop you because I don't know what you are talking about, because I wrote your response in the wrong spot, you're taking the L on that one.

Sticky defense is ok with me (defense doesn't have to be extended in summary, but if it's frontlined it should be backlined). Offensive warrants DO and MUST be extended in summary order for me to evaluate them. If there is no warranting, or if there is BLIPPY warranting (not fully fleshed out, i.e. you just extend a one-line warrant) I will not vote on this argument! You heard it here! If there is bad warranting extended and I don’t understand the argument come final, I will not vote on it and you will not access your impacts! I like full link stories, read me a book! For this reason, I highly suggest you crystalize on as few as possible arguments and spend quality over quantity.

The ultimate crux of my paradigm is weighing. I don't care if weighing starts in final -- which really is awful, please don't do that -- I just need some way to comparatively vote. If no one weighs, I intervene, and no one likes that. If there are no impacts or offense left I will default to the status quo. If I really have to, I will vote on risk of offense.

I probably vote truth over tech, but the only time I intervene is unethical evidence.

ALSO - I call cards. Be prepared at the end of each round to present your so impactful cards. I also like context with the cards, so if you're giving me this 3 line cut card nonsense I won't be happy (pull it up online if you need, just don't take too long). [[if you have an email chain, just add me to this as you send cards throughout the round. I will look through them too during prep times]]

Speaks:

At the end of the day, I don't care too much about what you do while you speak since I tend to just look down at my flow during your speech. I tend to default 28-29 speaks, unless if you say something that isn't true or strategical, or if you say something that impresses me.

Technical debate

My experience debating and evaluating tech debate is incredibly limited! As such, run it at your own discretion, but I might not be the best judge for it. I understand it on a PF level, but that doesn't mean I fully have a good enough grasp on it to comfortable vote. With that, here are my thoughts about tech debate in PF:

- I will evaluate theory in the case of actual abuse. If you run theory with no abuse (which is up to my discretion) you will lose

- A lot of Ks are read in PF because you think the other team doesn't understand what's going on- that's a bad practice. If you think that reading a K would add to the educational value of the round in a way that is accessible to your opponents, go ahead. The only accepted alt is to reject the aff - no CPs in PF.

Random things that I value in debate

- if you miscut evidence or abuse paraphrasing, there will most likely be a penalization in some way.

- If you are funny, make me laugh. However, I don't like it when you're mean or are aggressive to the point where it makes you rude or condescending. I don't have anything against the aggressive debating style (I used it and had some success with it) but do your best not to be a jerk. If I find you in violation I'll probably dock your speaks or call you out on it post-round depending on the circumstances.

------------------

LD paradigm

compare the lengths of my pf paradigm and my LD paradigm -- I've never competed in LD but I have experience in PF. I understand contention level debate very well and I understand theory and kritiks just barely enough to vote on them (but I don't like too). I understand LD is very different from PF, but my opinion is that corrective theory debate should only read if it needs to be. Also, value debate is a mishmash to me so treat me like a lay judge in that sense.

Delanya Storey Hire 8 rounds None

Pirada Suchamniworakarn Hire 8 rounds None

Abrahan Sued Hire 8 rounds None

Yipeng Sun WWP South Independent None

Austin Tang Scarsdale HS None

Min Tang Potomac Debate Academy None

Anthony Y Tao Hire 8 rounds

Iulianna Taritsa Hire 8 rounds None

Charlie Tent Summit HS

Benjamin Tolkin Hire 8 rounds

Maria Torres Hire 8 rounds

Ranjit Tulasi Ivy Bridge Academy

Alyssa Turk Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches

Joseph Uhler Westlake

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 2:44 PM CDT

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters end up talking more about how the debate is going down rather than the actual issues at hand. Try your best to avoid debating debate and debate the resolution.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

Hayden Uihlein Edina HS

Teresa Uthurralt Hunter College

Prashant Vaikunth Westborough HS

Last changed on Sat January 30, 2021 at 5:06 AM EDT

Hi, I am a parent judge from Westborough. I try my best to take notes in the round. Here are some suggestion that will help you get my vote.

1) I would love to see one well constructed argument that is properly explained throughout the round.

2) Please speak at a conversation speed if you speak too fast I will miss a lot of the points you make. I really feel the need to emphasize this I have a had too many rounds where debaters go way too fast and I lose interest because I have tough time following what is going on.

3) I would also like to see good evidence that supports your argument. Please make it explicit when you have pieces of evidence to support your argument. When people call for evidence please have them ready it wastes time when you do not have the card and have to google it. If you do not have the card that was asked for I will not value it in my decision.

4) Please avoid using debate jargon I have no idea what it means and it only hurts your persuasion. Additionally, make sure you introduce the entire name of an organization before using the abbreviation. Ie: before you say the WHO it is the World Health Organization.

5) I will vote of the arguments that I understand best so please explain your arguments well. If you think you are overexplaining you probably are not.

6) I do pay attention to cross, while it is not going to make or break a round I do value it in my decision and it will reflect in your speaker points.

7) Please have a respectful crossfire, screaming during round does not help get your point across.

8) All arguments that you want me to vote for in the round has to be in the opening statement, it is really confusing if you bring up arguments out of nowhere and expect me to vote on it.

9) I love when a team does a great job in rebuttal refuting the other teams case.

10) I really like if you can bring up real world examples and support your arguments with statistics and facts.

11) Tie the resolution in your speeches tell me how voting pro/con leads to your argument. Also reading the topic word for word before your speech is helpful.

12) I would love to see a respectful and educational debate.

and lastly, Have Fun!

Emily Valle Hire 8 rounds

Nancy Vargas Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS None

Ramana Venkatakrishnan Newton South HS

Jim Verquist Newton South HS

Last changed on Thu February 11, 2021 at 5:37 AM EDT

Hello! I am a third-year judge for public forum high school debates. I look forward to hearing you debate!

For each person, I score your two speeches and crossfire on scale of 25-30. Then I average these 3 scores and deduct any decorum penalties. Here’s what I’m looking for:
a. Construction: Present your case = succinct organization, sound reasoning, credible evidence, and clear delivery.
b. Rebuttal: Refute opposing side's arguments. Do not use Rebuttal to cram in more arguments.
c. Summary: Crystallize your case, in light of everything that has happened.
d. Final Focus: Frame with clarity why your team won the debate.
e. Crossfire: Dig into other side’s arguments during CX rounds to find and expose weaknesses.
f. Decorum: I expect professional decorum at all times. I penalize anything less.

My hope is this approach will give you more insight into the areas where you are strong, and where you can improve.

Do not "spread," or speed read (more than ~150 words per minute). You should lay out a few clear arguments supported by your strongest evidence, and clearly articulate the impact of each argument. Quality, not quantity. Less is more. You will not earn points if I can't understand you, or process what you say.

Be reasonable about requesting evidence. Request evidence you don’t believe or you feel is misrepresented. But don’t request evidence you already know to be true. And make sure your evidence is well organized and available offline to maximize efficiency in case a team calls for your evidence.

In scoring each speech and crossfire, I ask myself 3 questions:
1. Did you focus on the task at hand?
2. Did I understand the argument?
3. Was the argument persuasive?

Speaker #1 score = [Construction + Summary + Crossfire] / 3 - Decorum Penalties.
Speaker #2 score = [Rebuttal + Final Focus + Crossfire ] / 3 - Decorum Penalties.

The final score for each person will be: [24] bad decorum. [25-26] below average. [27-28] average. [29-30] above average.

The team with the most points wins the debate. In the case of a tie, I decide based on which side I found more persuasive.

Good luck!

Karthick Vishwanathan Westborough HS 8 rounds

Shudipto Wahed North Allegheny

Alice Wang Boston Latin School

Andy Wang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 7:27 AM EDT

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

Jett Wang Plano West Sr HS

Victor Wang Acton-Boxborough Regional HS None

Anish Warty Hire 8 rounds

Diana Waters Northview High School

Bryan Weber Cascadia Debate 8 rounds

Jacqueline Wei Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:20 AM CDT

I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. tell me and I will intervene as necessary.

I competed in PF and Extemp for Plano West and graduated in 2019.

***Please preflow!***

If you don’t paraphrase and read all cut cards in case, tell me and I will give both speakers +1 speaks. Paraphrasing in rebuttal is fine (unless you misconstrue the evidence!)

If both teams agree, I am willing to turn GCX into three extra minutes of prep for everyone.

Important Stuff:

Speaking fast is fine. I can flow spreading but you will receive significant speaker point hits and I will not like you.
Defense from 1st rebuttal sticks unless responded to; defense in 2nd rebuttal does not stick.
No independent contentions in rebuttal; DAs are fine.
I prefer all weighing to be set up in summary at the latest (there's 3 minutes now, use the extra minute for weighing). If you'd like to set up weighing before that, go for it (often strategic!). I will not evaluate new weighing in final focus unless it is the only way to resolve the round. If you don't weigh, I will intervene with a common-sense weighing mechanism (probability or magnitude). I will not presume neg unless there is zero offense in the round.
I do not strictly require 2nd rebuttal to respond to offense or defense from 1st rebuttal.
carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. “This is unwarranted” is an acceptable response. Don’t card dump.
I am unwilling to evaluate new arguments in 2nd final focus. If your delink suddenly becomes a turn, or your impact suddenly becomes a million times bigger, or your link suddenly has a new "nuance" in 2nd final focus, I will ignore you.
I do not think frontlines are sufficient to serve as case extensions. You should extend not only your entire link chain + impact but also the warrants as to why your links/impacts are true.
I'll call for evidence if it's important to my decision and 1) someone asks me to or 2) I think it sounds misconstrued.

Speaks: 27 - 30 unless you are rude, condescending, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If you have any questions, ask before round.

Keith West Boston Latin School

Last changed on Mon February 11, 2019 at 10:25 AM EDT

I'm the coach at Boston Latin School, and I've been coaching at the high school and college level for about the last 15 years. I've done most forms of debate at one time or another, including Policy, Parli, LD, and even Congress and Worlds. I'm generally fairly well versed in the topic area, but it doesn't hurt to define unusual acronyms the first time you use them. Also, just because I can follow technical debate it doesn't mean that you need to be a spewtron with a million cards to impress me. Especially in PF I tend to appreciate a slower, more well reasoned case over a ton of carded claims any day.

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag - not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop if you're stuck with me as a judge : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, If you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask.

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.

Jon Williamson Piper High School

Aidan Wilson Avant School of Debate None

Aaron Wohl Freehold Township None

Ron Woznock E.L. Meyers High School

Sean Wu Richard Montgomery HS

Teddy Wyman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 11, 2021 at 3:16 PM EDT

My primary judging philosophy is that the judge should adapt to the debaters, and not the other way around. You should do whatever you feel puts you in the best position to win, or get whatever else it is that you might want from this activity (but i recognize this is a competitive activity with a winner and a loser, so by all means feel free to prioritize winning if you want). I really will vote on anything so long as you explain to me, using clear warranting and impacting, why that should be the voting issue and why you win it. Just write my RFD for me. I'll always do my best to adjudicate based solely on the words that come out of your mouth and nothing else. Lastly, intelligent arguments that are well warranted, weighed, and developed throughout the round will get you the highest speaks.

Other notes:

- The easiest way to win my ballot is to win the round. Winning the round makes it extremely easy for me to vote for you (and, conversely, losing makes it virtually impossible to do so).

- I will only vote on arguments present in the round, so if you want me to vote on an argument you should deliver it in the round I'm judging you. Arguments made in, say, April 2017 will not factor into my decision, nor will any future arguments you think you might make.

- Racism, sexism, and homophobia are bad.

- When weighing, imitating a scale motion with your hands will clue me into the fact that the arguments you're making aren't any old arguments - they're weighing arguments.

- Don't be afraid to treat me like I'm a little stupid if you're explaining something obscure. I'm a senior studying econ/math at BU so I know a couple of things, but err on the side of over explaining if it's something I really need to understand to vote for you. My smooth brain and I will appreciate it.

- Quoting Kanye is like fine or whatever, but quoting Jasper Primack in your speech is what guarantees you a 31 from me.

Of course, feel free to let me know of any specific questions you have before the round! Facebook messenger will be your best bet to get a hold of me.

Changqing Xie Richard Montgomery HS

Lin Xie St.Petersburg High School None

Chao Xu Ivy Bridge Academy None

Julia Xu Boston Latin School

Satoshi Yanaizu Hire 8 rounds None

Shubo Yin Hire 8 rounds

Chris Young Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Harry Yu Stratford

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:38 AM CDT

Updated -Nov. 2023 (mostly changes to LD section)

Currently coaching: Memorial HS.
Formerly coached: Spring Woods HS, Stratford HS

Email: mhsdebateyu@gmail.com

I was a LD debater in high school (Spring Woods) and a Policy debater in college (Trinity) who mainly debated Ks. My coaching style is focused on narrative building. I think it's important/educational for debate to be about conveying a clear story of what the aff and the neg world looks like at the end of the round. I have a high threshold on Theory arguments and prefer more traditional impact calculus debates. Either way, please signpost as much as you can, the more organized your speeches are the likelihood of good speaks increases. My average speaker point range is 27 - 29.2. I generally do not give out 30 speaks unless the debater is one of the top 5% of debaters I've judged. I believe debate is an art. You are welcome to add me to any email chains: (mhsdebateyu@gmail.com) More in depth explanations provided below.

Interp. Paradigm:

Perform with passion. I would like you tell me why it is significant or relevant. There should be a message or take-away after I see your performance. I think clean performances > quality of content is true most of the time.

PF Paradigm:

I believe that PF is a great synthesis of the technical and presentation side of debate. The event should be distinct from Policy or LD, so please don't spread in PF. While I am a flow judge, I will not flow crossfire, but will rely on crossfire to determine speaker points. Since my background is mostly in LD and CX, I use a similar lens when weighing arguments in PF. I used to think Framework in PF was unnecessary, but I think it can be interesting to explore in some rounds. I usually default on a Util framework. Deontological frameworks are welcomed, but requires some explanation for why it's preferred. I think running kritik-lite arguments in PF is not particularly strategic, so I will be a little hesitant extending those arguments for you if you're not doing the work to explain the internal links or the alternative. Most of the time, it feels lazy, for example, to run a Settler Col K shell, and then assume I will extend the links just because I am familiar with the argument is probably not the play. I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round. I prefer actually cut card and dislike paraphrasing (but I won't hold that against you). First Summary doesn't need to extend defense, but should since it's 3 minutes.

I have a high threshold for theory arguments in general. There is not enough time in PF for theory arguments to mean much to me. If there is something abusive, make the claim, but there is no need to spend 2 minutes on it. I'm not sure if telling me the rules of debate fits with the idea of PF debate. I have noticed more and more theory arguments showing up in PF rounds and I think it's actually more abusive to run theory arguments than exposing potential abuse due to the time constraints.

LD Paradigm: (*updated for Glenbrooks 2023)

Treat me like a policy judge. While I do enjoy phil debates, I don’t always know how to evaluate them if I am unfamiliar with the literature. It’s far easier for me to understand policy arguments. I don’t think tech vs. truth is a good label, because I go back and forth on how I feel about policy arguments and Kritiks. I want to see creativity in debate rounds, but more importantly I want to learn something from every round I judge.

Speed is ok, but I’m usually annoyed when there are stumbles or lack of articulation. Spreading is a choice, and I assume that if you are going to utilize speed, be good at it. If you are unclear or too fast, I won’t tell you (saying “clear” or “slow” is oftentimes ignored), I will just choose to not flow. While I am relatively progressive, I don't like tricks or nibs even though my team have, in the past, used them without me knowing.

I will vote on the Kritik 7/10 times depending on clarity of link and whether the Alt has solvency. I will vote on Theory 2/10 times because judging for many years, I already have preconceived notions about debate norms, If you run multiple theory shells I am likely to vote against you so increasing the # of theory arguments won't increase your chances (sorry, but condo is bad). I tend to vote neg on presumption if there is nothing else to vote on. I enjoy LD debates that are very organized and clean line by lines. If a lot of time is spent on framework/framing, please extend them throughout the round. I need to be reminded of what the role of the ballot should be, since it tends to change round by round.

CX Paradigm:

I'm much more open to different arguments in Policy than any other forms of debate. While I probably prefer standard Policy rounds, I mostly ran Ks in college. I am slowly warming up to the idea of Affirmative Ks, but I'm still adverse to with topical counterplans. I'm more truth than tech when it comes to policy debate. Unlike LD, I think condo is good in policy, but that doesn't mean you should run 3 different kritiks in the 1NC + a Politics DA. Speaking of, Politics DAs are relatively generic and needs very clear links or else I'll be really confused and will forget to flow the rest of your speech trying to figure out how it functions, this is a result of not keeping up with the news as much as I used to. I don't like to vote on Topicality because it's usually used as a time suck more than anything else. If there is a clear violation, then you don't need to debate further, but if there is no violation, nothing happens. If I have to vote on T, I will be very bored.

Congress Paradigm:

I'm looking for analysis that actually engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

I'm used to LD and CX, so I prefer some form of Impact Calculus/framework. At least some sense as to why losing lives is more important than systemic violence. etc.

Some requests:
- Please don't say, "Judge, in your paradigm, you said..." in the round and expose me like that.

- Please don't post-round me while I am still in the room, you are welcome to do so when I am not present.

- Please don't try to shake my hand before/after the round.

- I have the same expression all the time, please don't read into it.

- Please time yourself for everything. I don't want to.

- I don’t have a preference for any presentation norms in debate, such as I don’t care if you sit or stand, I don’t care if you want to use “flex prep”, I don’t care which side of the room you sit or where I should sit. If you end up asking me these questions, it will tell me that you did not read my paradigm, which is probably okay, i’ll just be confused starting the round.

Hongmei Yu Boston Latin School None

Paul Yu Boston Latin School

Ting Yu Early Scholars

Andrew Yun Hire 8 rounds None

Farhan Zaidi Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy

David Zell Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Sat March 6, 2021 at 2:31 AM CDT

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a graduate student at the University of Alabama. My email is dmzell@crimson.ua.edu

Strake RR Paradigm

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything besides weighing in final focus must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Tell me why your argument justifies a vote for you even if your opponent’s arguments are true.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer all offense.

4. If you are going to concede your opponent’s argument, it must be in the speech immediately after it was made.

5. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive crossfires and rudeness.

6. Evidence ethics matter a great deal to me. I don't care if it’s called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect", where a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

In General

I am a fan of speed and tech debate, but I'm out of practice--particularly with flowing. Just keep in mind that the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something. If you want to spread, try to reduce the risk of this by slowing down for key parts of arguments/cards and signposting well.

I will listen to pretty much any argument, but I may not know what to do with it. If you're going to make progressive arguments, make sure you're clear on how you want it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth in the sense that dropped argument are true ones

Truth > Tech in the sense that I'm more than happy to listen to uncarded analysis if it's good.

If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team, not neg. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.

David zhang Boston Latin School None

Eric Zhang Montgomery High School Independent

Fern Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Hongwu Zhang Boston Latin School None

Vivian Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Nathan Zhao Wayland High School

Lan Zheng Acton-Boxborough Regional HS

Qin-Fan Zhu Acton-Boxborough Regional HS None

Richard Zhu Edina HS

Login to Tabroom

46th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2020 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF Paradigm List

Judges