Hi! I’m a recent college grad who did PF throughout high school but have been out of the debate world since.

• I vote off the flow. Please signpost, collapse, roadmap (but only if it’s weird), weigh, etc. Whatever makes it easier for me to follow and ultimately vote.
• I don’t have much exposure to the February topic besides casually keeping up with the news so don’t use jargon, especially early on in the tournament.
• Speed- You can speak quicker than you would for a lay judge, but don’t spread either. I’m not used to flowing anymore so I want to make sure I’m able to get down what you say and will signal if you should slow down.
• Evidence- It’s sad but unsurprising that so many paradigms I read before making mine had to say this, but please don’t misconstrue evidence. I won’t look at anything unless someone asks me to but it is important to me that evidence is used fairly.
• Speaks- I’ll start at 27 and go from there. Being polite is good.
• Disclosure- I’m cool with saying who won but will likely save giving feedback for later.
• Timing- Please time yourselves and the other team. I don’t trust myself to keep track lol.

I have four years of experience debating, workshopping, and judging cases for novice and varsity PF, and I am a current sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania.

1. Please do not spread. In my experience, spreading is used more as an intimidation tactic than as a true measure of logical coherence or debating skill. I understand that there are amazingly talented debaters who use this tactic. However, an adept debater should be able to concisely deliver their argument and select only the most effective or appropriate information to present--not simply rely on the crutch of swamping the opposing team with all relevant information. If spreading is absolutely an inextricable part of your practice, I will allow it within reason, but I'd prefer if you clear it with me beforehand and give me a heads-up. I will dock points for spreading that is continually deemed excessive, inappropriate, or obnoxious after I have previously commented on it.

2. Don't card-dump. This makes it difficult to confirm the credibility of your sources and arguments, and I will not include it in my flow.

3. Roadmaps and signposting are appreciated. They help me to not miss anything in my flow, and assure me that you are aware of your own arguments' positions in the context of the larger debate.

4. Don't call for every card. Unless it is relevant to a point you are intending to make or valuable for understanding context, if can easily become excessive and disrupt the flow of the debate. (That being said, this is subjective and I tend to be more lenient on this point.)

5. Define your acronyms and jargon--either in-debate or beforehand. I am not an expert in what you are debating.

6. Be ethical in your evidence sourcing. If your card is called and the actual content is significantly different from how you construed it, I'll drop it from my flow.

7. You will be respectful and courteous to your opponents. While I understand that getting heated is a natural part of debate, the strength of your arguments does not matter if you are abrasive and unprofessional. I will dock considerable points for behavior deemed condescending, intimidatory, or rude.

I am a lay judge with a couple years experience. I appreciate structure (rebuttal should be used to rebut your opponent’s case; focus should be used to tell me why your argument wins), and I will try to follow your flow. If you get me early in the tournament, you should explain acronyms and detailed points before assuming that I know what you’re taking about. You’re the expert, you need to make sure I understand your points. Please refrain from jargon and technical debate terms. I know what a block is, but I get lost when a team refers to terms they may have heard a coach use. I understand better when you use plain english to explain your structure and the effectiveness and meaning of your arguments. Unless you are amazingly talented, speaking ridiculously fast will be lost on me. You will be polite and respectful to your opponents.

Background:

I debated Public Forum for four years at The Blake School on the national circuit including breaking at TOC and Nationals. I also had some experience in Policy and Worlds debate.

I am currently a junior at the University of Pennsylvania.

Paradigm:

TL; DR: Flow judge who prefers debaters reading actual evidence over pure analytics or summarizing/paraphrasing

Feel free to ask any questions you may have before round

(Credit: A lot of this is taken from the great Christian Vasquez/Ellie Singer)

Evidence

For any card you read in the round, I expect that you can produce them if your opponent asks for them. This means that if you're claiming Johnson 17 says this, you can pull up that card in a reasonable time. Reasonable to me is within a two minute if it's in your constructive, and within a few more if it's in the rebuttals or summaries. Taking unreasonably long amounts of time means I'm just going to wipe it off my flow. You're wasting your time, your opponents' time, and delaying the tournament. I've seen rounds where it's taken more than ten minutes total for people to produce evidence and it's ridiculous.

I am not a fan of shady evidence ethics. At all. If I call for a card and it's very different from what you said it claims and how it actually reads, I'm dropping it from my flow. I will try to be explicit about what cards I'm calling for and the authors. If I'm wrong, correct me immediately, as I want to make sure I'm looking at the right piece of evidence.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I do not think it is fair for a team to claim what they are reading is simply them paraphrasing a several page PDF. Prep time is just not long enough for your opponents to hold you accountable if they have to read more than maybe a couple paragraphs. If I call for a card and you tell me that its summarizing these 5 pages of some PDF, I'm going to be very skeptical if you cannot point to me exactly where what you are arguing can be found.

Rebuttal Split

TL; DR: Second speaking team ought to split

If you are the second speaking team, I expect that you will respond to the speech that happened before yours at some point in your rebuttal. Zero split between attacking their case and rebuilding your own doesn't constitute an automatic loss or clean extensions on their part, but I'm going to be a lot less accepting of brand new answers in the second summary when the first speaking team doesn't have any time to deal with them. I'll be a lot more forgiving of extensions by the first team as long as they point out the ridiculousness of the new answers. I don't require a perfect two minutes-two minutes, but something has to be done to make the debate fair. Otherwise, the second speaking team should just win day in and day out, unless they're making continuous strategic mistakes and dropping everything on the flow.

Summary and Final Focus

TL;DR: Needs to be in both to be voted on

If you want something to be a voting issue in the final focus, it also needs to be in the summary. If you're just trying to extend everything, your analysis is probably dropping off because of it. I want to see weighing in depth and not making blippy arguments.

Speaker points

I base my speaker points largely on the quality of the arguments made and less about more typical Speech-style considerations. I am more forgiving on clarity and some stumbling through words than maybe some other judges because I know things out of your control like braces, etc. can effect your speaking (I know from experience).

My average is a 27 for the losing team and a 28 for the winning team. A 30 to me means that both good argumentation and also persuasive speaking. Somethings that can help you with getting a higher score:

A) I like clever lines of questioning. In PF this is a little bit more difficult to do, since crossfire is double-sided but I think it can still be done. You're never going to get a good opponent to concede some major point by just blatantly asking if they're wrong. Rather, asking small questions that build up and setting a trap is not just strategic, but makes me impressed as a judge

Things that will not help your points:

A) Rudeness. Cutting off your opponent repeatedly without letting them answer isn't helpful and I don't want to see it.

B) Sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise hateful language. I'll drop your points to whatever the tournament forces me to stop at. If it continues in round, it'll cost you the round too.

Theory

TL;DR: As someone who did make theory arguments here and there in Public Forum in high school, I'm receptive to them in PF. Make sure they make sense.

I think as debate evolves, it's sometimes right to introduce a discussion on theory into a round or two. For it to be a voting issue for me I need to hear first an interpretation argument, how your opponent violates that, how that impacts the debate, and what I'm supposed to do as the judge.

Kritiks/Critical Arguments/Ks

While I am willing to hear these arguments and ran them myself on occasion in high school, I would not say that I have the same technical depth of knowledge as someone who might have done policy for four years. So, if you are going to try to run something especially complex that is not commonly seen inside circuit-y Public Forum circles, then make sure to explain it so I understand how the argument works. However, if the topic or your opponent's argument lends itself to critical arguments, then I will gladly hear them and encourage you to run them.

I spent thirteen seasons solely working in policy. I have spent the last five seasons working in public forum. In addition to coaching and judging, I served as the Tournament Director for the NYCUDL, the Vice President for Policy Debate for the BQCFL, part of tab staff for NYSFLs, NYSDCAs, the New York City Invitational, and the Westchester Invitational, and in the residence halls for DDI.

What this means for PF debaters is that I am very flow-centric and expect good sign posts. If you give me a road map, I expect you to follow it. While I understand that you will not read evidence in-round, I do expect you to clearly cite your evidence and will listen to (and reward) good analysis of evidence throughout the round.

What this means for policy debaters is that I typically spend more time running tournaments than judging in them. My flowing skills are not what they used to be. You need to SLOW DOWN for your tags and authors or else they will not make my flow. You should also SLOW DOWN for the actual claims on any theory or analytic arguments (Treat them like cards!). My flow is sacred to me, if you want me to vote for you, your flow should look like mine. Lay it out for me like I am a three year-old.

As for arguments, I consider myself a stock-issues judge. Those are what I coach my novices, and I still feel they are the best arguments in policy debate. That said, I have voted on all types of arguments and performance styles in debate. If you want me to vote on something that is not a stock issue, you better explain it to me like I am a three year-old. Even if you want me to vote on a stock issue, you should explain it to me like I am a three year-old.

I do not typically ask for (or want to) examine evidence after the round. It is your job to explain it to me. There is no need to add me to an email chain. That said, if there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says, you should make a point of that in your speeches.

As for paperless debate in general, I like my rounds to start on time and end on time. If your technical issues are hindering that, I will start running prep. I will do my best to accommodate debaters, but you need to know your tech at least as well as you know your arguments.

just ask me specific questions you have in round, but general stuff: weigh please, defense is sticky in first summary, talking fast is fine but spreading is a great way to lose the round, and i won't vote off theory/T/Ks unless there's a blatant reason to

Don't spread & have fun! Thanks!

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

For email chains/evidence exchange: chancey.asher@gmail.com

I am a lay parent judge. I am looking at Contentions, Rebuttals, Extend, Impact, Weighing. Also, I am looking at your links - if you are trying to link to an impact of 8 billion lives lost because whatever this debate is about will lead to global thermonuclear war and the end of humanity, I PROBABLY won't buy it.

What is your impact, and why is it greater than your opponent's impact?

I also love clean rounds. I start to lose focus when a round gets bogged down in technical disputes.

Currently a senior at Penn. My email is djchoi@wharton.upenn.edu

Debated PF all 4 years of high school. Competed on the national circuit. Flow judge but haven't debated in a couple of years so don't spread.

Typical lay judge, make sure you go slowly and explain your arguments. Do not use debate jargon. Don't take a long time to find evidence, will probably find it annoying / lose interest. However, I am very receptive to theory argument and kritiks, so please feel free to run them around me!

(P.S. The theory and kritik thing is just a joke, please do not run it in front of me, I probably won't buy it.)

Hello! I am a parent judge who has not judged at a tournament before. Please go slowly and explain everything. I will try to do my best to understand everything in the round. I will be taking notes.

Have Fun!

I competed in Policy for three years in high school, and Parliamentary debate in college for three years. I've been judging PF since then.

Columbia University 2018

New York University School of Law 2022

Speed

It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I am generally fine with spreading.

I never time debates. That's not my job. Therefor, it is your job. Police yourselves and eachother. There is an art to this. Opposing teams can hold up their iPhones to indicate their opponent has run out of time.

I generally allow for a 15 seconds grace period to finish sentences.

Posture

Circumstances permitting, you must stand up, in a centralized spot, and face me during constructive arguments. This is preferred but not necessary during cross.

Evidence

If you fail to call out bad evidence, it will be accepted as true for the round.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be impact analysis and weighing. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them. If you don't compare them for me, I will do it on my own and no one wants that.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof.

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

---

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

Speaks: based on organization and time allocation

Summary: 1. if it's not said in this speech i wont flow it to the FF.

2. Collapse down to fewer contentions, and explain why they drop off the flow (wash, block, etc.), but still go line by line as much as possible.

FF- 1. Give me big picture themes that the round has collapsed to. Not just your voters and their voters, collapse on the round as a whole, big picture.

*I dont flow CX so say it again in speech if its important

** I'm ok with speed, but go easy on me its been a few years

*** I HATE EVIDENCE DEBATES. If there is even in the slightest a voter issue/arg in the round relying on the properly cut evidence, then i will call to see the card. I will treat it as a reverse voting issue if the accusing side is wrong to disincentivize wild accusations.

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

k.m.erickso@gmail.com
Current Head Coach at The Hill School (Penn.)

I'm an experienced competitor in HS Model UN/Model Congress and have experience coaching general public speaking (have taught Rhetoric at an undergraduate level), but am relatively new to the world of debate. I now coach PF events mainly, though have familiarity with trad LD as well. I have judged at local and national tournaments.

I value clear and logical argumentation, will judge flow carefully, and prefer arguments with ample evidentiary support. Please give me enough information that my job can be to weigh on the logic and persuasiveness of your speeches, not the factual accuracy (or lack thereof). Progressive arguments are fine, but highly theoretical routes will be out of my wheelhouse.

Judicious use of signposting is greatly appreciated.

Spreading is not preferred. It is your responsibility to be clear enough in your enunciation and delivery for me to understand. If I cannot audibly understand an argument, it will not be judged. Multiple requests to clarify (by saying 'CLEAR') will result in docked speaks.

In general, be courteous and respectful of one another. Yelling at/over one another in Cx/Crossfire will not be appreciated, especially in cases that disrespect or seek to minimize women/POC competitors.

Good luck, and remember to have fun :-)

I am a licensed attorney and parent of a debater. I ask debaters to present the most professional and polished version of themselves. Remember to initially identify who you are, what side you are on, and what relief you seek from the judge. If time runs out at any time during the debate, please ask for a moment to finish your thought/sentence (be very VERY BRIEF as you are already out of time) and also state what you are asking of the judge. Never let yourself be cut off and just let that go. Make sure every chance you have to present your case is used to the very fullest and that includes finishing your thoughts and asking for what you are there to ask for--that is getting the judge to rule in your favor.

I see a debate as my court room and you as current and future community leaders and I expect you to behave as such. To that end, please treat debate communication as though it were a persuasive, calm, thoughtful and rational conversation with a judge. Kindly keep your tone and pace conversational. If I cannot understand you because you are talking too quickly, too urgently or too loudly, I will not be able to follow along with your arguments and that could lead to a reduction in points for you. Also, please do not use any swear words whatsoever. Any foul language, no matter how insignificant you believe it to be, could count against you. For example, words like, "crap" will be considered foul. If you are not sure if a word falls into this category, I suggest you do not use it. Please do not use slang, either. Some examples of slang are: "My bad," or "You guys." Please use formal phrasing and proper English whenever possible. This is a formal setting which requires the utmost respect in your word choices, much like a court room. Kindly treat it as such.

In addition to the above, I expect clear, well organized and well supported arguments to be made with solid, verifiable, significant, and current sources as support. Good luck!

I am a lay judge, and I will vote based off of who can support their argument with stats, facts, evidence, and reasoning. I would prefer if you talked at a reasonable pace so I can understand the points being made and can write everything down. I love competition, but I want mutual respect between opponents and I do not approve of being rude during the round. Most importantly, have fun and learn from your own experiences.

I did PF for 3 years at Pembroke Pines Charter High School in Florida, and I am currently a student at Penn.

Speed: Talk as quickly as you want but make sure you speak clearly. Make sure you slow down at the most important parts of your arguments so I don't miss it.

Crossfire: I will not flow whatever is brought up in crossfire, so if it is important, include it in the speeches.

I don't recommend using a roadmap. Try to stay away from gimmicky arguments, and make sure you can support them with good evidence. Respect your opponents and have fun.

I consider myself a traditional judge. I judge based on good argumentation, clash, composition, articulation, and poise. I prefer speed at a moderate rate and volume within a reasonable range.

About Me:

did pf while i was in high school (class of '17). i'm pretty tech for my time, but progressive argumentation is not my thing, so don't read it.

The Basics:

- i can handle speed, but i am rusty so don't go crazy
- intelligent warranting/impacting/weighing > card dumping for extensions and voters
- signpost wherever you can, just makes my life easier

update (3/10): for evidence sharing, use a google doc to save us all some time. my email: rajang456@gmail.com

2019-2020 Season

Richard Haber, Chagrin Falls High School.

rhaber@haberllp.com For any e-mail chains during round (specifically for Virtual Tournaments)

I am a practicing Trial Attorney and have practiced law for nearly 30 years. I also coach of Public Forum and have done so for 8 years. With respect to LD, I assist LD debaters as needed and judge when required though I am admittedly more experienced with Public Forum.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

I can handle a fair amount of speed, but please exercise some common sense with pace. Do not spread. If I am judging (Whether PF or LD) you may assume I am familiar with the topic which will certainly help me follow your argumentation. Nevertheless, I believe the judge should judge as if he/she has no prior knowledge about the topic. Thus, you will win or lose the round based upon what happens in the round. If you advocate a position that I know is not correct based upon my own review of the topic I may note it as an NVI, but it will only impact the round if your opponent calls you on it. I will not intervene in rendering a decision.

As a practicing attorney, I value professionalism. I expect debaters to be professional, respect your opponents and facilitate the exchange of ideas.

PF COMMENTS:

Generally, I decide the round on who persuades me. It is not a question of how many argument you win, but which arguments you win, the impacts of those arguments and how you weigh them. I am a flow judge and will track the round. If you do not respond to a contention of your opponent, you risk losing the argument, and if important in the weight of the round it could result in a loss. However, just because your opponent fails to respond to a contention or sub-contention, does not mean you win the issue. You must still persuade me why it matters.

As a trial lawyer, I think evidence is important, but it is equally important to me to logically extend your evidence. Please explain why your evidence is more important or impactful than the evidence that your opponent inevitably will argue in response. I view Summary as the opportunity to reset the round. Structure the round for me as the judge and tell me what I should be looking for through the rest of the round. It may require you rebut additional points, but in the end, start to focus and weigh the round on the 2 to 3 key issues that I will be voting on.

You should extend your case and arguments throughout the round. If you don't extend, I will assume you are dropping a contention (assuming opponent rebutted). Do not lay in wait until second speaker final focus to extend the argument - though I understand the strategy, I prefer teams debate the issues that matter, rather than prevail on a failure to debate.

To this end, cross-fire is not an opportunity to filibuster. It is intended as an exchange of ideas. Your opponent's response to a well framed question can be far more impactful to me, than refusing to allow them to answer. If they are evasive, I will get it.

You should be careful running theory or kritiks. Though I will not "drop" you for running theory or kritik, I am not a fan of avoiding the clash on the topic.

I will consider arguments raised in grand crossfire if reasonable in the flow of the round because your opponent can respond in grand cross and final focus. I will not consider new evidence or arguments raised in either final focus.

The best speakers may not always win. The team with the best reasoned arguments, offering the greatest reasonably extended impacts will prevail on my ballot.

LD COMMENTS:

Generally, speaking I am not as familiar with (or fond) of progressive debate). I will not automatically vote you down if you offer progressive arguments, but it will require you offer greater explanation why I should accept your arguments/position if it is not embracing the actual subject of the debate.

Because I am a trial lawyer, and because of my PF background, use of evidence, and explanation of evidence, a logical extension of this evidence and warranting about why it connects with your position is always well received. I don't like listing of evidence in PF without explanation, simply citing to evidence without some explanation of its importance does little to advance the ball for me in LD as well. I value strong logical links as much as evidentiary links.

I will flow the round. I will vote off of my flow. I will flow your CX to the extent that you make/establish point in furtherance of your case. Ultimately, I will decide the round on the debater that overall convinces me of their position. Please note, I view debate as an exchange of ideas. Engage your opponent's warrants, while furthering your own. Impacts matter when weighing warrants which may both be true.

I decide based on the most important arguments in the round, so I will not penalize a debater for failing to cover every sketchy claim put out by an opponent. I strongly prefer crystallization and voting issues in NR and 2AR.

GOOD LUCK

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.**

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

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

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

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

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

About Me

I'm a lay judge and the parent of a debater.

I generally can handle a good rate of speech but cannot follow you if you speak too fast.

General

I may or may not disclose right away.

I’m fine with people watching the round.

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself.

Signpost and road-map help.

Off-time road maps are fine but please keep them short.

I will follow your points and sub-points (as much as I can) and keep track of whether they are refuted, and the effectiveness of their rebuttals.

Bad/nasty behaviors and hateful comments will not be tolerated.

What I vote for:

• Ability to reason and convince

• Ability to articulate

• Clarity and consistency of speeches

• Soundness in logic

• Weighing in rebuttal

• Credibility/quality of sources/evidences

• Good extension and linking (of your arguments) from summary to final focus

• Team cohesion and manner

I'll try my best to judge fairly. Good luck and have fun.

Please don't talk too fast - I'd like to hear and process everything you're saying. To win the debate in my eyes, you have to convince me why your side saves more lives, provides better economic opportunities, better ensures the safety of citizens, etc. If your weighing mechanism is different than your opponents' (you argue that your side provides better economic opportunity, while your opponents argue that their side saves more lifes) argue to me why your weighing mechanism matters more (or even better, how your side satisfies your opponents' weighing mechanism more than their own argument e.g. wider economic opportunities will save more lives in the long run). Just because you say your point negates one of your opponents' contentions doesn't mean I will believe you. You've got to convince me.

I'm Mackenzie and I debated in PF for West Orange for three years both on the national and local circuit. I don't know what's happened to the evidence standard in PF but it is rampant with falsified and/or misrepresented evidence. Winning my ballot is pretty easy, just be truthful, persuasive, and extend the arguments you want me to vote off of in every speech. I believe it is the opponents job to call out evidence if it isn't substantial and I am NOT an intervening judge, however if I call for evidence, I will not vote on it if you have misrepresented it. Be savage and have fun!

(Updated for UPenn 2020)

I did PF debate for four years at Ridge High School in NJ, and I'm currently a senior at Penn studying public health and statistics. I'm admittedly a little rusty, and I follow the news and social issues in general but I'm probably not an expert on the debate topic by any means. If there's one thing to know about me, you honestly can't go wrong with treating me like a lay judge, but of course I'll be flowing and considering your arguments.

Some specific points to keep in mind:

- I can handle a moderate amount of speed as long as you speak clearly, but don't spread. If I can't understand you, I'll stop flowing.

- I like roadmaps, weighing, signposting, and boiling down the round to voter issues by the summary speech. I also enjoy frameworks and narratives that shape your whole argument.

- Please give warrants or logic for your arguments. If you just drop a big number or dump 10 pieces of evidence and leave it at that, I'm not going to give it much weight. Similarly, I won't be happy if you have an excessive number of contentions or responses, since they probably won't be well warranted and it's honestly a little cheap.

- I am not equally receptive to all arguments; if you run something really obscure or gimmicky you'll probably have to do more work to convince me (but unique arguments are cool as long as they're done well). I'm also not really comfortable judging K's or theory or things that aren't "traditional PF," so run those at your own risk. If you say something offensive (racist, classist, sexist, etc.) I'll tank your speaks and/or drop you and tell you why.

- I won't be flowing your crossfire, so if anything big happens that you want me to note (e.g. a concession), point it out in your next speech.

- I most likely won't orally disclose for prelim rounds, just due to tournament timing and my personal preference for seeing the ballot written down. (EDIT: if you want my decision and feedback, email me after the round at ajen8448@gmail.com and I'll send you my ballot)

- Feel free to ask me questions before the round, and I'm also happy to talk about my debate experience, student life, good food around Penn, etc.

Above all, remember that debate is about developing communication skills, learning about the world, and having fun!

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

I am a parent judge that has a decent amount of experience in judging PF. That being said, I prefer that all debaters speak slowly and clearly. At the end of the day, I will vote for the team that is best able to support and defend their arguments with logic and reason. I am also not comfortable with evaluating technical arguments

My name is WK (they/them).

I have 10 years of competitive and coaching experience. I have coached pretty much all events since graduating HS in 2016, and have been teaching full time since finishing undergrad in 2020. Currently, I teach debate to grades 5-12. I am also pursuing an MA in political science.

I mostly judge PF and Congress if I am not tabbing, so extensive paradigms follow for those two events, respectively. If anything below, for either event, doesn't make sense, ask me before the round! We are all here to learn and grow together.

PUBLIC FORUM

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Yes, please put me on the email chain (wkay@berkeleycarroll.org)

Speed: speed is mostly fine (I'm pretty comfy up to like 300 wpm) but if I signal to slow down (either a hand wave or a verbal “clear”) then slow down (usually your enunciation is the problem and not the speed). 2 signals and then I stop flowing. Share speech docs if you’re worried about how speedy you are (again, wkay@berkeleycarroll.org).

Evidence: I know what cards are really garbage and/or dishonest since I am coaching every topic and judging most of the time. That said, it's your job to indict ev if it's bad or else I'm not gonna count it against the person who reads it (though I'll probably note it in RFD/comments and reflect it in speaker points). Author or Publication and Date is sufficient in speeches (and is the bare minimum by NSDA rules), and just author and/or publication after the first mention (and year if the author/publication is a repeat). If your evidence sounds suspicious/questionable, I will make note of that in comments/RFD/speaks, but won't drop you unless it's indicted. I expect honesty and integrity in rounds. Obviously, if you think evidence is clipped or totally bogus, that's a different story by the rules. Evidence ethics in PF is really really messy right now, so I'll appreciate well-cited cases (but cards are not the same as warrants. You should know that, but still).

Framework debate: Framework first, it's gonna decide how I evaluate the flow. If both teams present framework, you have to tell me why I should prefer yours; if you do and they don't extend it, that can help me clarify voters later. If both sides read FW but then no one extends/interacts, I'm just not gonna consider it in my RFD and will just off of whatever weighing mechanisms are given in-round. If you read framework, I better hear how your impacts specifically link to it; that should happen in case, but if you need to clean up your mess later that's possible. If you can win your case and link into your opponent's FW and then weigh, you've got a pretty good shot of picking up my ballot. If nobody reads framework, give me clear weighing mechanisms in rebuttal and summary, don't make me intervene.

Rebuttals: Frontlining needs to happen in second rebuttal. IMO Second Rebuttal is the hardest speech in a PF round, and so I need you to leave yourself time to frontline or else they're gonna kill you in Summary (or at least they should, and I probably won't look favorably upon lots of unresponded to ink on the flow coming out of Rebuttals). Any defense in rebuttal isn't sticky. I'm also a fan of concessions/self-kick-outs when done well, but use the extra time to start weighing early on top of dumping responses/frontlines on whatever you are covering. That said, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do all the things on all the points.

Summary: 1st Summary needs to frontline just like second rebuttal. Any defense in rebuttal isn't sticky, extend it if you want me to adjudicate based on it. I like it when summaries give me a good notion of the voting issues in the round, ideally with a clear collapse on one or two key points. If you can sufficiently tell me what the voting issues are and how you won them, you have a real strong chance of winning the round. In so doing, you should be weighing against your opponent’s voting issues/best case (see above) and extending frontlining if you can (hence why it has to happen). Suppose I have to figure out what the voting issues are and, in cases where teams present different voting issues, weigh each side's against the other's: in that case, I may have to intervene more in interpreting what the round was about rather than you defining what the round was about, which I don't want to do. Weigh for me, my intervening is bad. Comparative weighing, please. In both backhalf speeches, I want really good and clear analytics on top of techy structure and cards.

Final Focus: a reminder that defense isn't sticky so extend as much as you can when you need to. The Final Focus should then respond to anything new in summary (hopefully not too much) and then write my ballot for me based on the voters/collapses in Summary. I am going to ignore any new arguments in your Final Focus. You know what you should be doing in that speech: a solid crystallization of the round with deference to clearing up my ballot. Final Focuses have won rounds before, don't look at it like a throwaway.

Signposting/Flow: I can flow 300 WPM if you want me to, but for the love of all things holy, sign post, like slow down for the tag even. I write as much as I can hear and am adept at flowing, and I'll even look at the speech doc if you send it (and you probably should as a principle if you're speaking this quickly), but you should make my life as easy as possible so I can spend more time thinking about your arguments. Always make your judges' lives as easy as you can.

Speaker points: unless tab gives me a specific set of criteria to follow, I generally go by this: “30 means I think you’re the platonic ideal of the debater, 29 means you are one of the best debaters I have seen, etc…” In novice/JV rounds, this is a bit less true: I generally give speaks based on the round’s quality in the context of the level at which you’re competing. If you are an insolent jerk, I will drop your speaks no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your opponent(s) to outright bigotry. If I am ever allowed to do so again, I have no issue with low point wins. Sus-sounding evidence will also drop your speaks.

T/Theory/K/Prog: I’m super open to it (BESIDES TRICKS)! I’m relatively new to coaching this sort of material, but feel confident evaluating it. Topical link would be sick on a K but if not, make sure your link/violation is suuuuuper clear or else you’re in hot water. Make sure you’re extending ROB and the alt(s) in every speech after you read the K, or else it’s a non-starter for my ballot. I’m most excited about (and most confident evaluating) identity-based Ks and those that critique debate as an institution (e.g. as an extension/branch of the colonial project). On theory, I think paraphrasing is bad for debate and almost certainly breaking rules tbh, and so am very open to paraphrasing theory, but be specific when reading the violation: if you don't prove there was a violation (or worse, there isn't really one at all and the other side gets up and tells me that, as happened in a disclosure round I judged in 2023), then I can't vote for you on theory no matter how good of a shell you read. Relatedly: I don't necessarily need theory to be in shell format, but it does making flowing easier. Moving on: I don’t love disclosure theory only because I’ve gotten real bored of it and don’t think it makes for good rounds. That said, if you’re all about disclo and that’s your best stuff, I’ll evaluate it. On a different but related note, if you read any theory that has anything to do with discourse, my threshold for voting against you drops a lot at the point at which your opponent says anything close to "running theory isn't good for discourse." If you're not sure about what I might think about the Prog you wanna run, feel free to ask me before the round. In short, as long as it is executed well, meaning you actually link in and your violations are real and/or impacts are very very well warranted, you should be fine. Prog is not an excuse to be blippy. And, to be clear, DON’T READ TRICKS IN FRONT OF ME.

If you have any questions that haven't been answered here, feel free to ask them before the start of the round.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

CONGRESS

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

A PRIORI: I WILL BUMP YOU UP AT LEAST ONE FULL RANK IF YOU DO NOT READ OFF OF A FULLY PRE-WRITTEN SPEECH

I am a bit old school when judging this event insofar as I believe Congress is very much a hybrid between speech and debate events: of course I want the good arguments, but you should sound and act like a member of Congress. The performative element of the event matters very much to me. Be respectful of everyone in the room and be sure that your arguments are not predicated on the derogation or belittlement of others (see the last paragraph of this paradigm for more on respect and its impact on my judging).

Your speeches are obviously most important, assuming you're not POing. I'm looking for solid and logical warranting (cards are important but not a replacement for warranting, especially in a more rhetorically oriented event like Congress), unique impacts (especially to specific constituencies) and strong rhetoric. Your argumentation should leave no big gaps in the link chains, and should follow a clear structure. Arguments that are interdependent obviously need that linkage to be strong. Obviously, avoid rehash. Good extensions, meaning those that introduce meaningully new evidence/context or novel impacts, are some of my favorite speeches to hear. I also value a real strong crystal more than a lot of judges, so if you're good at it, do it.

I also give great weight to your legislative engagement. Ask questions, make motions, call points of order when appropriate. If you're good at this, I will remember it in your ranking. The same goes if you're not good at it. I have no bright-line for the right/wrong amount of this: engage appropriately and correctly and it will serve you well. Sitting there with your hands folded the entire session when you're not giving a speech will hurt you.

I highly value the role of the PO, which is to say that a great PO can and will get my 1. A great PO makes no procedural errors, provides coherent and correct explanations when wrongly challenged, runs a quick-moving and efficient chamber, and displays a command of decorum and proper etiquette. Short of greatness, any PO who falls anywhere on the spectrum of good to adequate will get a rank from me, commensurate with the quality of their performance. Like any other Congressperson, you will receive a detailed explanation for why you were ranked where you were based on your performance. While you may not get the 1 if you are perfect but also frequently turning to the Parli to confirm your decisions, I would rather you check in than get it wrong and be corrected; you'll still get ranked, but perhaps not as highly. The only way I do not rank a PO is if they make repeated, frequent mistakes in procedure: calling on the wrong speaker when recency is established, demonstrating a lack of procedural knowledge and/or lack of decorum, et cetera.

My standards are the same when I Parli as when I judge, the only difference being I will be comparing POs and speakers across the day, so POing one session does not guarantee a rank on my Parli sheet, since it is an evaluation of your performance across all sessions of the tournament. When I am Parli, I keep the tournament guidelines on me at all times, in case there are any regional/league-based disparities in our expectations of procedure/rules.

Above all else, everyone should respect one another. If you are an insolent jerk, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your fellow Congressmembers to outright bigotry. See the Equity statement at the top.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

Background

I'm a business management professor at Kean University. I judged public forum at the national circuit for a couple of years a while back, but I haven't been judging recently. Overall, I'm a parent judge.

In General

*Please go slow. My notetaking isn't fast, so I might not catch a lot of the things you say if you go fast.

*Please explain arguments well. I value arguments that are defended and used well.

LD

*I haven't judged a lot of LD, so I cannot really judge progressive arguments.

10 years judging and coaching PF—6 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions), 7 times at Nationals

I coach only Public Forum.

I am a high school English teacher full time.

Speed is fine with me.

I prefer big picture summaries

Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.

Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.

I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.

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? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.

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? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.

Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.

Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.

Off time roadmaps: Don't care.

My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.

PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019-2020 Season

Christine Lee, Chagrin Falls High School

I have judged for local debate tournaments for the last 4 years.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

I can handle a good amount of speed, but do not spread and speak clearly.

My personal knowledge, beliefs, and opinions will not intervene in rendering a decision. Instead, I make decisions on the arguments, facts, and evidence presented during the round.

I value professionalism and accuracy. I expect debaters to be professional, respectful of their opponents, and have strong, well-researched, and accurate arguments.

I value evidence and how well it is applied to your argument. It is not a question of how dramatic, passionate, or well-spoken you are. This is not speech. In PF, I believe the win goes to the debater team that had the strongest evidence presented in the most logical application through strong argumentation.

However, my decision is not merely based on how many arguments you win; I will vote for teams who show me which arguments have the strongest weight through effective weighing analysis. Additionally, arguments need to be cleanly extended throughout the round in order for me to vote off of them. Any part of your case that I should cross apply to your opponents' or extend as offense must be frontline in second rebuttal or first summary.

Exercise caution in running theory or kritiks. I am admittedly inexperienced in judging these more progressive forms of debate and also am not a fan of avoiding clash on the topic.

I appreciate a clear speech structure; it allows for better flow and stronger focus on the contentions and evidence presented.

Crossfire is an opportunity to inflict doubt or questions in your opponents' strongest contentions. It is not an opportunity for you to barrage your opponent with rhetorical questions or filibuster. I genuinely like to hear the response, so please if you ask a question, give the opposing team an opportunity to answer.

Overall, have fun! Ultimately, debate is an educational experience that provides a unique opportunity for you to demonstrate your knowledge of each topic that will leave you a better-informed and better-spoken for your future.

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

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

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

Parent to Northern Virginia Debater.

1. Strongly prefer a debater make their significant points clearly. Rather than everything delivered at the same pace and tone.

2. High speed talking just make it more difficult for me to take notes - high speed talking should be limited to evidence (IMHO).

3. Believe debater should very clearly point out why they believe they won - rather than blasting through points in machine gun style.

4. Your framework is important - explain why yours is better.

5. If a contention was dropped and it's key to your win, tel me 5 times. Don't assume your opponents silence on the subject is enough for me to realize the contention was in fact dropped.

6. If I'm not taking notes, it's often the case that I don't find what your saying key to winning/losing the debate else I'd write it down.

note For 2020 NSDA:

1) let's all check we can hear each other well before we start

2) please allow me to verify your names and 1st or 2nd speaker,

3) please do not turn off your video during round; I'd like to be able to see you

4) please speak clearly and in a speed that your internet can handle.

thank you and good luck!

I am a lay judge. I have judged at every tournament possible, and have been called on elimination panels. My daughter does VPF and never stops nagging me about being a good judge, so here it goes ~~

Speaking:
1. Don’t be excessively rude w/o reason. Being assertive is totally fine, but I'll drop speakers for being abusive towards me or your opponents.
2. Speak clearly; I can only flow what I can keep up with, so please consider that when deciding the quantity vs. quality of the responses you give me in rebuttal, and what you decide to extend through summary.
3. I usually give pretty high speaker points
4. Please say your contentions and taglines clearly
5. Remember that I am a parent judge, so I might not understand a lot of niche debate jargon

Tips:
1. I will call for cards at the end of round if you tell me to in your speeches/cross. I care a lot about relevant card indicts.
2. If you want to be picked up by me, try to focus on the warranting. Don’t bother going on and on about your impacts if the link isn’t there. If it’s not clearly warranted, then I see no reason to consider your impacts.
3. I will only judge by the flow.
4. Fresh and unique arguments are cool if the link is there.

Likes:
1. A good probability analysis
2. A consistent narrative
3. Relevant and cleanly extended overviews when necessary
4. Weighing in summary and final focus

Dislikes:
1. Lying; saying that your opponents didn’t respond to something when they clearly have and it's on my flow.
2. Talking down to your opponents
3. Misusing evidence
4. Spreading

I am friendly; I am never harsh to any kid (I don't write fantastic ballots - sorry!); I like debate kids and I think you all are smart. Help me to enjoy your round and I'll pick you up. Good luck!

The main factor in my decision will be how convincing your arguments are. That being said, I am open to all arguments as long as they are not too extreme, well-explained and articulated, make sure that your arguments are fleshed out. Think twice if you want to run dedev, theory or kritiks.

Speaking:

- Please speak clearly and at an understandable pace.

- Always be courteous to your opponents (I will not tolerate rude behavior).

Content:

- Be clear about what argument you are talking about.

- All of your evidence needs to have a warrant - don't just say a piece of evidence - explain what it means and its implications in the round.

- If you have a problem with your opponent's evidence, call it and indict it in your speech.

- Weighing - tell me why your argument is more important.

- Impact - please don't exaggerate :)

Good luck and have fun!

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

I did pf an worlds in high school. Talk fast if you want, but I feel like most rounds are won from quality over quantity. Be respectful. Weigh.

~~written by abhiram from edgemont mm~~

hello!

my dad is a lay judge

so a fun story is that i sat my dad down to watch a round on yt for some experience b4 this tournament and he like kinda gets how to evaluate a round and here are some things he likes/wants to see:

+ pls be clear

+ speak on the slower side (do not spread lol not a smart move)

+ if he cannot understand you, it's only gonna hurt you

+ truth > tech: if your argument is not that believable, chances are he won't buy it

+ pls keep ur own time

+ my dad has some super limited knowledge from like the news

+ his rfds will be comprised of what args he believed and who won them

--

here are my dad's system of evaluating speaks:

+ 30: u could win the tournament or go very far. congrats luv ur absolutely killin it

+ 29: ur rlly good and u were clear. shoutout to u on doin really great!

+ 28: ur good, but i was confused by u/ur speeches a bit. ur doin pretty good

+ 27: thanks for being here!

+ 26 or lower: u/ ur arg is problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, and that sort of thing). pls reconsider ur choices

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

guaranteed 30 speaks if u run theory/Ks

-

-

that is a joke pls never do that like srsly don't do it

-

-

-

any questions? ur best bet is to find me on fb messenger (abhiram masam)

have fun and good luck <3

I was a Lincoln-Douglas debater for four years. I prefer a round in which the debaters engage substantively with the issues and critically analyze evidence and arguments. I will flow all speeches and like to see effective crystallization as the round progresses. I am happy to answer any specific questions before the start of the round.

I am a PF-only judge. I prefer PF debate to be PF debate - in other words, it should be accessible and persuasive to a lay judge. Speed or unexplained jargon that would befuddle a well-educated but inexperienced judge will result in low speaks and possibly won't be flowed at all. That said, I do not attempt to be a pure "tabula rasa." Instead, I will judge from the perspective of a well-informed (i.e. someone who keeps up with national/international news) and well-educated (i.e. someone who remembers what they were taught in their high school and core college classes) layperson.

Beyond that, I expect teams to clearly layout a framework for the round and impact to that framework. I am fine with a "framework debate" if the central point of contention between teams is their framework. I flow, but primarily as a memory aid.

I will call for evidence, but only if one of the teams in round challenges their opponents' use of that evidence. Unnecessary or frivolous evidentiary challenges are not appreciated and will be penalized.

I am a Bronx Science parent (lay) judge and a battle-hardened father of three very argumentative teenagers.

I am keen on debaters who speak with clarity (so spread at your own risk) and react appropriately in-the-moment during cross-examination which means aggressively pursuing opponent’s weaknesses while defending with acuity when being attacked (don’t be sloppy).

I look for a strong precise logical flow that is well-stitched together and well-referenced.

I like to be surprised and much prefer “off-center” arguments than going down the middle arguments with worn-out cards.

Hi, I’m a parent judge. This paradigm was written by my daughter.

My background is in Software Engineering. I follow the news but don't have extensive knowledge on the topic.

I understand the basis of collapse and conceded arguments, and will be taking some notes throughout the round.Things I will like:

Extended narratives: Don't just extend card names. The best practice is to give warranting and piece evidence together to make your argument crystal clear in the back half.

Comparative Weighing: Don't just give me buzzwords that you outweigh on magnitude, severity, etc but actually give the comparative of the two impacts and then warrant why the mechanism is important. Good weighing is a great way to my ballot.

Humor: Try to make the round enjoyable for me. I can take a joke or two.

Signposting: Just tell me what arguments you’re talking about when you’re on them.Things I won’t like:
Ks, Theory, Tricks, Speed, and being mean

I also probably won’t be a big fan of super low-probability arguments. Especially if your opponent calls you out for it.

Background: I did PF debate in high school and know the current topic and what the keywords mean

Things to know-

I will flow: while I've never been particularly good at it, I will do my best

Evidence: I will not call evidence unless an opponent makes it explicitly clear I should. Now this is important. I will assume what you say is absolutely true and without fault. EVEN IF I PERSONALLY FEEL SOME EVIDENCE IS FISHY OR MISLEADING, I will accept it fully UNLESS an opponent exposes flaws or presses me to look at it.

Preferences: sign posting, being clear, references to key facts from previous speeches are all good

Speed: If I can understand "Godzilla" I can probably understand you, but that being said I might not write down the key fact you want me to know and so will forget that information, so try to avoid going extremely fast.

Crossfire: I will pay attention but not write anything down; if you reference something that was said in crossfire I will make a note of it

Things I don't like: being rude, introducing new arguments in final focus, extending arguments through ink, extremely sketchy debater math, things like that

Points: Do a backflip in the middle of the speech and you get a 30. Do nothing and you probably won't get below 27. Interpret that as you will.

I'm a parent of a third year varsity debater. I was a debater myself in high school.

Pacing: Speak slowly and clearing. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Delivery: Make eye contact with the judge from time to time; don't just read straight from your notes but look up and deliver a convincing argument.

Evidence: You must site the source and the year so I know it's relevant and credible.

Tips: I value warranting. Explain your evidence.

Impact is important. Tell me why this matters.

Be respectful.

Hi,

I have judged PF for a few years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory? Please don't!

Lastly, have fun!

Update 10/8/22:

First, don't worry too much about this paradigm - just debate!

Experience/background: I'm a teacher who did policy debate a long time ago, co-coached PF for several years, judged many (> 100) national circuit PF rounds over past decade, a little experience judging CDA & parli styles.

Some notes/comments in no particular order:

In all styles, it comes down to the same thing: it's your job as a debater to convince me to vote for you. It's not my burden to make sense of arguments that are muddled, incomplete, poorly organized etc.

(PF): I'm not currently coaching PF, and you'll risk losing my ballot if you use tons of jargon, esp. with arguments/acronyms etc.

I'm not lay but also not super technical (re PF/policy); I vote off the flow. For CDA/parli, presentation is higher priority, but well-crafted, persuasive arguments are what win my ballot. (Of course these things are related.)

I love good analysis; not impressed by blippy arguments. Ideally you have a coherent narrative by the end of the round.

Evidence: quality over quantity. Understand your evidence. Ideally you should be able to:

- explain any expert opinion you cite (rather than just stating it),

- understand where a statistic comes from & context (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc),

- defend the relevance of any empirical evidence you present, and

- be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence!!! In PF I will call for cards.

Weighing is critical (not just weighing impacts, not just "we win on magnitude" etc.). Tell me why I should vote for you!

Some/moderate speed is ok as long as you're clear. If you can't speak both quickly and clearly, slow down.

No new args in rebuttal, I will not vote on them. (However you can respond in rebuttal to new args made in your opponent's 2nd constructive.)

Extending an argument in rebuttal means more than one or two words ("pull x"); you have to fully articulate it in rebuttal for me to consider it.

cx (for PF): I listen, but I'm not voting off cx. Bring it into a speech.

fw: I have voted off framework in some PF rounds, but only when convincing and directly relevant to args in the round. If you agree on fw, there's no need to talk about it in the round - time is better spent on other things.

k's: I'm generally not a fan in PF, but I'll do my best to be fair and consider whatever you're running. I have voted on them on occasion.

I sometimes avoid disclosing at larger tournaments in order to get things moving.

In the best rounds I've judged, debaters listen well to one another. Good clash is not just "they said this, but we say that." The best debaters can incorporate their opponents' arguments into a coherent narrative of the round.

Good luck!

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.

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Please take your time and make eye contact when presenting your cases. (I want you to speak slow enough so that I can understand and flow what you say, evidence, etc)I do not flow crossfires, so whatever is important must be brought up in the next speech.

I have debated for four years in the World Schools/ BP formats during my high school years. I have competed on the international level as a member of Lithuania's national debate team. Currently, I debate parli for the University of Pennsylvania.

I have very little experience with judging PF. Hence, I would like debater to clearly signpost their arguments and responses, this way making it easier for me to flow the round. Regarding speed, I prefer debaters speaking not too fast and articulating well. I'm not good with spreading so, please avoid it as much as possible.

I don't have much experience with theory/T and I won't be convinced by it unless it's place in the round is well warranted. Do not run theory/T frivolously.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck and have fun!

Hello! I competed in public forum for 4 years at Kennedy High School (2015-2019).

While I do find debate to be strategy based, I prefer arguments that follow a logical well thought out narrative. I keep a flow, but I prefer truthful and reasoned arguments.

There are a couple of things to do to win my ballot:

1. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing.

2. Extend claim+warrant+impact

3. Extend the cleanest piece of offense

4. Weigh. It is important that you weigh because if you don't I am forced to choose what I think is important and you lose control over my ballot

Flowing

- Signpost! At the end of the round I evaluate what is on my flow so it is important to be clear where you are making arguments.

- I prefer teams to not just say "extend Smith 19"- you need to explain the evidence and what that is directly responding to

- I can handle fast PF speed, but be aware of how fast I can write- speed is not always an advantage if I am unable to write it on my flow in time (also if you do choose to speak faster than normal do not exclude the other team)

Rebuttal

- I prefer well thought out articulated responses over a bunch of blippy responses (quality>quantity)

- I like carded responses, but don't card drop excessively

- For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet

- For 2nd rebuttal it is your choice what you do strategically. It would be smart to do some frontlining, but I have no personal preference

Summary

- For first and second summary I would like you to extend responses on your opponent's case in order to extend it to final focus

- within this speech it is important to collapse and make grouped responses

Evidence

- I will call for a card if the other team calls for it and it becomes a point of discussion within the round or it you bring up a specific card that is very important to winning your point

- If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card we will have to move on and I will cross that card off the flow

K's/Theory

- I have no experience in LD or Policy so if you choose to run this type of argument you need to dumb it down for me. Personally, I would prefer a traditional contention over this type of argument. I am not a fan of disads read in rebuttal.

Other Things

- pre flow before the round! please don't delay

- I am open for discussion after the round, but please be respectful

- I understand rounds can get heated and I like respectful humor and sassiness, but do not be condescending or rude to your opponents

- Have fun!

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

PF

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

LD

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

I don't care much about the argument whether pro/con, rather I would like to see good speaking characteristics (i.e. eyes not on speech, loud and clear, etc.) As well, the points do need to make coherent sense and please don't yell or do any weird hand gestures thinking your opponent is wrong, that will be deducted for rudeness.

Please add me to the email chain - kellykellyjj@gmail.com

Hello! I did LD for 4 years at Harker and am now a sophomore at UPenn. I coach for Harker.

I am most familiar with policy-style arguments and love LARP debates. That said, I'm willing to listen to whatever argument you present so long as it's warranted and explained. If you're reading dense philosophy or a non-stock K, please explain it well.

Your 2NR/2AR should explain why you're winning the debate. Collapsing, in-depth weighing, and clear overviews are super important! Also, be sure to extend your arguments!

- tech > truth

- I'm not a huge fan of tricks or frivolous theory.

- Slow down on tags and analytics.

- I default reasonability, no RVIs, and drop the argument.

- I only read topical affs while I debated and am very persuaded by T-framework against non-topical affs. However, I will vote on pretty much anything as long as it's well-explained and not blatantly offensive.

- I assume a comparative worlds paradigm.

- Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

- Please be kind and respectful!

I enjoy judging and I admire the hard work and dedication that it takes for you to prepare for these tournaments. I really want to follow your arguments and appreciate your prepared positions.

Speak slowly and clearly, finish your sentences and complete your thoughts. If I cannot understand what you say because you are speed reading through your notes or galloping along with pressured speech, I will not give you the win.

Please help me be a good judge by allowing me the opportunity to understand your words when you speak.

I prefer a balance of fully developed and efficient reasoning over voluminous recitation of facts and a litany of citations that are presented without a clearly woven argument. Do not paraphrase cards - quote directly from sources when using them to support your claims.

Don't raise your voice or shout - decibels do not win debates. Nor do eye rolls or scowls.

I appreciate off time road maps.

Hello! I'm Bibi, and I recently graduate from the University of Pennsylvania in biology. I love running, art, and debate!

I'm currently a debate teacher/coach at Success Academy Middle School in Ozone Park!

My email: bibi.singh@saschools.org

I've debated three years of Varsity Public Forum in high school. I was a mentor on my team and judged debate for around six years on both the high school and collegiate level in Philly!

I prefer clear well-spoken speakers that can get their content across effectively. In terms of content, I want to see the impact of your position on a much broader scale. Specifically, make sure you answer this question, why should I care?

In terms of speeches, I prefer that people stand when they speak. During cross, I prefer to keep our environment respectful, with no rudeness and no overpowering others. I prefer no oral prompting.

I accept frameworks and off-time road-maps but make sure they're relevant and don't overuse them (don't roadmap every single one of your speeches to me, it should be organized) In terms of card-reading, please don't call for cards excessively in the round. Feel free to establish an email chain beforehand if that works well for you.

In terms of judging, I look for clear and cohesive arguments as well as impactful closing statements. I based on who created the most valid points versus who was most aggressive and "hard-hitting. (overall, be passionate but please do not start yelling at your opponents. Have fun. ) I'll give extensive feedback on your specific speeches if you ask for it.

I've debated in varsity public forum for two years and have been judging competitions for 1.5 years. I am familiar with the rules of debate, so, if your opponents break a rule, you don't have to worry about pointing it out to me. Often, I will give a warning regarding a broken rule, and points will always be deducted.

Decorum-It is very important to me that you are cordial to your opponents. Yes, the stakes are high, but nothing is tantamount to ensuring both team have a fun, fair debate. I really dislike when competitors are yelling over each other; it causes unnecessary tension, not to mention that it makes it difficult for me to keep up.

Crossfire-As per the rules, I do not write down anything that goes on during crossfire. Crossfire is intended to help the debaters clarify certain parts of the case. If there is something that comes out during crossfire that you would like me to consider, state it in either the final focus or the summary speeches.

Timing-I allow competitors to keep their own time, but I will be watching the clock as well. Sometimes, the timer goes off mid sentence, in which case I almost always allow the speaker to finish his/her sentence. Do not take advantage of this; if you attempt to speak for a significant amount of time after time is called, points will be deducted.

Speed-Because I have debated and judged in the varsity level, I can keep up with faster-than-average speech. However, there can be no case if you are too fast to be intelligible. Take a moment to gauge your speed.

Decision Making-Typically, I decide who has won the debate based on the cases presented (quality and quantity of evidence), as well as consistency of theme throughout the debate. What that means is, if you have a framework, that framework should be referenced not only in the opening speech, but also in the rebuttal and the final speeches.

Not a flow judge. No spreading. Be respectful.

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

I have been a coach for over 10 years , but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not address your opponents contentions and extend and show the impacts of your own.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents, I will dock your speaks and drop you if you act like a bully. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

Hello! My name is Mackenzie and I am a sophomore at Penn. I've been debating for six years, coaching and judging for four years, and currently compete for Penn's parliamentary debate team. Here is a short list of things that you should know about me as a judge.

1) I'm a flow judge.

2) I'm fine with any type of argument, but I'm not the best at evaluating theory. If you're going to run theory, I'm fine with it as long as you're super clear. Also, feel free to run progressive arguments.

3) Please weigh! It's super important and something that I expect in a good debate.

4) I find it difficult to flow speed, and I'll yell "clear" if you need to adjust. If you're going over an important point, I recommend slowing down a bit so that I don't miss it.

5) Please don't be rude or overly aggressive. If you are being an asshole, I will take it into account when deciding speaker points.

6) Warrant your arguments please! Good debates have good argument and good arguments have good warranting.

7) Signpost please. It helps me flow.

I am a parent judge with three years of judging experience.

Some preferences:

- Cases should be well structured; evidence and arguments should be laid out cohesively

- Students should be firm and polite without being rude

- Both sides should track their own time

- I will not evaluate new arguments made in final focus

- Cross should focus on the important arguments in the debate round

- I prefer reasoning backed by evidence over analysis without evidence

- Please don't speak too fast

I am a lay parent judge.

Hello! I’m Michelle and I did four years of Public Forum debate at Princeton High School. I currently go to the University of Pennsylvania.

Debate things~

I'm flow, but also a little rusty so I won't remember every detail or know a ton about the topic beforehand.

I can follow speed, but don't spread otherwise I can't write down what you say. I generally give high speaks (28+) unless your rude, I can't hear/understand you, etc. If you ask me to call for a card then I will. I'll disclose if both teams want me to.

Keep off-time roadmaps short if you're going to use them. Other than that, I'm not too picky about what you do in round stylistically. Just remember to warrant your evidence, frontline when necessary, signpost, extend, collapse into voters (!!) and WEIGH. If you want to win off of something, really emphasize it. Don't just turn the round into a response battle of who gets the last word.

I really like creative/unique taglines and arguments as long as they make sense.

If you ask to see one of your opponent's cards, don't prep while they're looking for it.

Absolutely horrible:

1. extending through ink (ie. saying that they didn't respond when they did)
2. miscutting/misconstruing/making up cards
3. rudeness, arrogance, speaking over your opponents, shaking your head while they're speaking, making faces, etc.

Pet peeves:

1. not asking questions in cross (or making a statement and just adding “right?” or “wouldn’t you agree?”)
2. rhetorical questions in rebuttal
3. using metaphors/analogies as warrants
4. talking to your partner while not running prep

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Qualifications

• 3 years of high school debate in British Parli/World Schools
• 3 years so far of APDA debate (College Parli), with a pretty good amount of success. I'm significantly more tech than your typical Worlds/BP debater, but significantly less tech than a Policy debater.

For World Schools

• I can judge a wide range of speeches, so be yourself - the WSDC format does not lend itself to spreading etc. so don't worry about that.
• I don't like giving speaker scores based on Style because I think that the criteria is subject to exclusionary biases that harm ESL debaters, and other minorities in debate. I will likely be granting speaker scores more holistically than that.
• Always happy to answer questions or be challenged on my decision after the round. Just appreciate politeness from everyone!

Misc Preferences (for PF)

• Second rebuttal does not need to frontline any defense. Respond to offensive turns in second rebuttal. Do what you think is most strategic to win the round.
• Extensions in summary are not the same as repetition. Implicate and weigh. Weaponize your arguments.
• I am tech over truth to a significant extent. I come into rounds tabula rasa. But that does not mean I'm stupid or gullible. I will vote on well-warranted arguments, and will not let random blips become the voter in the round (unless it's an extremely messy round, I might have to).
• I am willing to vote on principled or non-consequentialist arguments if they are compared to and weighed against consequentialist arguments.
• Please read dates.
• If you're reading 0.000001% probability x infinite harm = infinite impact, there's probably also a 0.00000001% chance of any random infinite harm on your side and the clash will wash out and I will not vote on stupid nuclear war apocalyptic arguments.
• I won't use CX to evaluate the round; bring up important stuff in your speeches.

Theory

• I will not vote on pre-fiat K's* or any drop the debater theory. Win the round like a champ.
• *The only pre-fiat K/drop the debater theory I will pick up is if the opposing team reads triggering arguments without trigger warning their case beforehand and giving the other debaters a chance to anonymously opt-out. I don't care about shell format as long as you read important parts of the argument.
• The best way to trigger warn is to let debaters opt out. Write your phone number on the board and tell everyone what the content/trigger warning is. Wait for every competitor in the room to give you affirmative consent (this is important!). Usually waiting 2 minutes is sufficient!
• If you are not sure whether you should trigger warn, trigger warn.
• If you're racist, sexist or any other other kind of-ist, I will independently intervene to drop you. Oh yeah, and I'll tell your parents.

Speed

• I am used to flowing pretty fast (not policy fast, that's incoherent). Think about a podcast on 2x speed - I can do that fast.

Evidence

• Pretending like your evidence is decisively important just because you found it with the sole purpose of fulfilling your confirmation bias does not matter. Evidence can be useful if it's implicating or characterizing a well warranted, substantiated argument (preferably from first principles). I will not auto-drop any evidence, but just know that I will weigh it less than well warranted analytical arguments/responses.
• I will call for evidence mentioned while evaluating the round. Don't lie about what was in your cards, because I will call your bluff.
• Card dumps are not warrants.

Other Misc Things (don't read this if you need to go to rounds)

• I'm currently a junior at Penn. Feel free to ask me any questions about college/college apps!
• Feel free to ask me about APDA as well (I know Ellie Singer!!!)
• If you go to a school without many resources or prep, feel free to hit me up any time to help with research/cases, as I am more than happy to offer my services (after your round, of course). My email is anishw@sas.upenn.edu (don't add me to any email chains please).

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

I am a parent judge, which means a few things:

1. Slow down, please! If you focus on the narratives of the arguments, you'll win the round.

2. If there's something important in the constructive or rebuttal, make sure it's talked about in the summary and final focus.

3. Voters are a great way to win the round in the 2nd half of the debate.

4. Be nice and not rude.

** If you clearly weigh your arguments against your opponent and stimulate a consistent narrative, you'll win the round. **