I have 3 years of PF experience, but it has been a few years. Going fast is fine, do not spread.

I will be flowing most rounds, but if there are specific cards you want me to write down, please mention it.

Framework is important. I will be judging based off framework in almost all circumstances.

I do not judge based off of nor do I flow crossfire, bring it up again in a speech if you wish me to consider it.

Weigh!!

All of your weighing points should be in your final focus (not to say they can't be elsewhere). Tell me why you are winning here, but do not bring up points that have been dropped. It is a final focus not a second rebuttal.

Signposting and explaining the type of argument you are about to read is EXTREMELY important. Of course your arguments are the meat but if it's not packaged properly it all falls apart.

I'm happy to give personal feedback if time allows, let me know after verbal RFD and I'll try to type something up for you in the team slots :)

Feel free to ask any other questions before the round, I only emphasized a few key points here.

important -

i wrote this when i was mostly judging pf, but i'm open to any types of arguments in policy. i pretty much exclusively read Ks when i debated, but i've voted on t-fw, politics disads, and all kinds of other boring arguments in the past too. more policy stuff is at the bottom, but ask questions before the round starts if you have any.

email me docs: griffinamos2@gmail.com

i debated for 4 years at cosby high school from 2016-2020 and did policy, ld, and pf. i also did apda a bit at william & mary.

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn too

don't misgender someone, your speaks will get tanked and you'll pretty much auto lose if they make an argument about it

**ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR LOCALS - I'm only going to vote on the arguments in your last speech. Don't expect to win on a contention from your constructive if you just say "Oh and extend contention 1" - tell me the whole story and do comparative weighing.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are sus

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability)

what types of arguments do i like?

i will vote on anything that isn't problematic and i don't hack for any particular type of argument - i'm comfortable evaluating theory, kritiks, or any type of progressive argument because that is what my background is in.

the substance based debates i find myself enjoying the most generally incorporate some form of structural violence framing, i won't hack for or against it, that's just what the most interesting rounds to me look like. i find myself enjoying rounds where teams collapse on turns in the latter half too, this seems to happen pretty rarely in pf

the kritikal arguments i'm most familiar with are queer-pess, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, and afro-pess but i think you should always explain every kritikal argument as if i'm a lay judge because i think kritiks in pf are too often run against teams that don't understand the arguments.

the theory arguments i find myself agreeing with the most are disclosure, any type of gendered language bad, paraphrasing bad, and trigger warning theory - again i won't hack for or against any of these, i'm just as willing to vote on disclosure bad as i am disclosure good - the exception for this is trigger warning theory, if you trigger someone and they make it clear they don't feel safe, i will drop you, end the round early, and give you the lowest speaks i can w/o having to justify it to tab.

i'll also begrudgingly vote on frivolous theory or trix if they're won - i'm super open to impact turns based on this type of argumentation though and feel like most of them tend to be true

technical stuff?

defense is sticky - i've been asked to include that turns are not defense

frontline in second rebuttal

don't read offensive overviews or disads in second rebuttal

i won't vote on a piece of offense unless it is in summary, and final focus - that includes the warranting for it, not just a blippy extension

theory?

read disclosure theory its just a true argument

i don't care if you read theory in shell format or more simply - all that's important is that all the crucial parts of the argument are there in some capacity - that means i want some interpretation on how you think debate should look, how the other team violates this, the reasons that debate should look this way, and why i should drop the other team for it

if you're going to read theory that is just like i should drop someone because they break x rule (maybe like "this tournament says u can't read counterplans so drop them for reading one"), you need to justify why the rule is good or following rules in general is good. just the fact that it is a rule is not persuasive to me, i don't care

defaults:

no rvis

competing interps

drop the arg

policy

mostly read Ks on aff and my 1ncs tended to be like a K, some dumb argument like the sorites paradox, some form of theory, and just dumping impact and link turns on case

open cross is chill, flex prep and using cross as prep are cool too

i hate the trend of just reading a string of cards on case in 1ncs. i love uncarded, but warranted arguments on case. solid warranting that comes from you is just as persuasive, if not more so, than warranting from some random card you stole from the wiki or camp files.

please stop going for every argument in your 2NR. respond to offense on arguments you're going to kick and then just give me a really persuasive story for why whatever you're collapsing on wins.

My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a rising junior at George Washington University in D.C. and I competed in Congressional Debate for four years as a student at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit, obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and I was lucky enough to place/final at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Sunvite, Blue Key, Barkley Forum (Emory), Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.

Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;

Congress:

stick to 2 points

don't speak too fast

try to get to 2:50-3 minutes

arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact (human beings should be your impact)

use refutation after 1st cycle

I like well 2 well developed arguments over 3 poorly constructed ones

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources

present links clearly

PF:

Don’t spread (speak so quickly I can’t understand you)

use good sources (try not to use news articles, stick to research)

arguments flow in linear fashion (I should be able to see where you go from point A to point B to point C)

give me a human reason to vote for your side (this means establish the human impact why the issue directly impacts a human person)

no theory please (stick to arguing the facts, data, and information of the issues at hand in the motion)

Please sign post arguments (tell me that you are about to make a big point before you do)! I need this for flowing purposes

I am an experienced judge that actively flows arguments. I look for well articulated and clearly supported contentions. It is to your advantage to logically organize and label the points of your contentions and refutations. I am comfortable with speed, but prefer a more measured pace where your arguments are easy to understand. The quality of your evidence is more important to me than the quantity. If you attempt a lateral approach, be prepared to have a clear link to the resolution and substantiated arguments. I do not allow off-time roadmaps. I expect crossfire exchanges to be respectful.

Background

I am a parent judge with four years experience judging WACFL PF. I competed in PF and Impromptu in high school. I have a degree in Foreign Service with an international Economics major, a Masters of Business Administration, and decades of experience in the telecommunications industry across multiple continents. I actively follow current events and you can reasonably assume that I will have some knowledge on the topic of the resolution.

I am a judge who values clear and concise arguments that are well-supported by evidence. I believe that debaters should focus on the quality of their arguments rather than the quantity. I prefer debaters to speak at a moderate pace, allowing me to follow their arguments and evaluate them effectively. I expect debaters to be respectful and courteous towards each other and avoid using any offensive language or tone. I will evaluate the round based on the strength of the arguments presented, their relevance to the topic, and how well they are supported by evidence. I will also consider how effectively debaters respond to their opponent’s arguments and how well they can refute them. Finally, I will evaluate how well debaters can summarize their arguments in their final speeches.

I am a trained newcomer to this event. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Kiarra (Key-Era) Pronouns They/Them.

You can add me to the email chain {Kdbroadnax@gmail.com} To help me keep track of email chains. Put your team code and Round number in the subject section please and thank you.

Debated at Samford University (Policy) Currently a Coach with SpeakFirst (PF and LD)

Things to do. (Policy)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. If you're unclear, I will look at you very confused because I will not know what to flow.

3. Kicking {Arguments, not other debaters} You should be kicking out of things. I will give .3 on speaks if it's creative. I LOVE a good mic drop moment.

Things to do. (PF)

1. Use analytics. they are super useful and make the debate more interesting

2. Speed. Go as fast as you want. I did do policy but If you're unclear, it will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Collapse down. You are not winning everything and we both know that.

Things to do. (LD)

1. Signpost, do line-by-line, and use analytics.

2. Speed is fine. Just be clear.

3. Put me on the email chain if you make one. If I call for cards at the end of the round and then have to wait for you to set up a chain I will doc speaker points. Please just set it up before the round starts.

4. The affirmative should defend the resolution. Yes, every time.

5. Make me think. Challenge the status quo. Run wacky K's. I won't always vote on it but I will enjoy it.

6. About number 5. If you are going to run a K or something similar. Please put a trigger warning if there is mention of sensitive topics and mention them before the round starts. It's uncommon in this climate but it would greatly be appreciated.

Please, do not do these (Policy):

1. Yelling, Being passionate about your case is super cool, but yelling at me will make me not want to vote for you.

2. Introducing Harmful Partnerships into the Debate space. I get that debate is a stress-inducing activity but your partner is there with you for a reason. You should use them. I am fine with partners interacting during a speech. Ex: Your partner handing you a card or their technology to use to read a card off of, or handing you their flow. But if your partner is spoon-feeding you, your speech.

3. Demanding a Judge Kick. Nope. No. No, thank you. if you want to kick out of something then do so.

Please, do not do these (PF):

1. Excessively call for cards. I get it. Sometimes you need to see cards but calling for 5 cards per speech is a bit much.

2. Being rude during CX. I get sassy sometimes but screaming, not letting debaters answer or name-calling is unnecessary.

3. If you send a link (only a link) when an opponent calls for evidence. I'll doc speaks. If you send ME a link. ill vote you down. There are rules to this activity. You need to have CUT cards.

Please, do not do this ( LD):

1. Don't be a jerk. Not every debater is going to get your K. Chill.

DO NOT at any point compare ANYTHING to slavery, the holocaust, genocide, rape, etc.

I will vote you down.

Yay debate!

I am a parent of a PF debater and have judged a number of PF rounds at both local and national tournaments.

Please speak clearly at a normal speed, identify your main arguments at the beginning (roadmap) and make clear transitions between your arguments. I will flow the arguments, so it will benefit you if what I flow makes sense when I look back over it before filling out the ballot.

Clear rebuttal of points is appreciated. Also, be clear in your FF and explicitly identify the main reasons I should accept your argument and, (if appropriate for the particular debate) why I should not accept your opponent's argument.

Clash is good and much appreciated in CF rounds but keep it civil, respectful and, substantive. Be clear in CF rounds about what you are asking and what you are disputing. Let your opponent have their chance to ask/respond.

Fewer, well-developed contentions and rebuttals will always win over numerous, hurried, or difficult to comprehend contentions and rebuttals.

Debate jargon is fine in limited quantities, but please don't get carried away with it. The arguments you pick, the effectiveness of your rebuttals, and the development of both will win or lose the debate, not so much your characterizations of your weighing or impact. Similarly, avoid disputing your opponents' arguments based primarily on procedural technicalities rather than their substance.

Call for evidence selectively and strategically when you think or know it will benefit your argument or rebut your opponents'. Use evidence carefully and be prepared to produce it quickly if asked. Make sure the time in the debate is (mostly) spent debating, not exchanging cards.

Be professional and prepared, but please have fun.

I have judged local tournaments for the past four years for Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School and have also judged several national circuit tournaments. Please speak clearly, at a normal speed, and without debate jargon. In summary and final focus, please identify each of the arguments that you are asking me to vote on and why your team's position is stronger or better supported than your opponents' position.

I'm a member of the Columbia Debate Society and a current Junior. I used to do PF for Anderson High School.

Please sign post and logically warrant you arguments, in most cases it’s not enough to merely cite someone's opinion. I'm most likely to vote on an argument if the weighing is comparative, tell me why it matters relative to your opponent's impacts. I won't flow cross, if you want an argument to go on the flow you have to mention it in speech.

I won't time you, you all have phones, time yourself and time your opponents. good luck:)

1. While I am relatively new to the world of Speech and Debate, I have coached Mock Trial/Moot Court for nearly fifteen years. My teams have won numerous state championships, placing in the top ten at nationals on more than one occasion.

2. Given my background, I tend to prefer substance over form. I also believe that how you say something matters. While the content of your argument is paramount (in my opinion), you should consider framing your argument in a way that is organized and easy to follow.

3. I will attempt to flow the round (on my computer), but I am a lay judge. I understand that time is limited, but I am not impressed by fast-talkers. Spreading may be commonplace nowadays, but it’s counterproductive if the judge can’t follow your argument.

4. I also believe that debate should be an exercise in good sportsmanship. As a longtime Mock Trial coach, I support an aggressive cross examination. That being said, I expect both parties to be respectful throughout the round, especially during cross.

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.

Make an email chain: justinjchen8 @ gmail (dot) com

I'm going to copy Jeff Buntin's paradigm format (although I'm unsure if he's the first), because I like paradigms that are quick and easy to read.

Policy------------------X---------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------X----------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL---------------X------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Delgado 92

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die----------X-------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption------------------------------X--------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face (I have a bad poker face though) ---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X I only read what you read

Fiat solves circumvention-----X-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff

2017 speaker points----X-------------------------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts--------------------------X------CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive--------------------X-----D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech-----------------X----plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

For LD: I only debate policy debate, so my judging is inherently going to lean towards policy debate esqe arguments (including both policy and kritikal arguments). But novices should just focus on being clear, articulating their stories well, and engaging with their opponent's arguments.

I will almost never vote on an RVI. Either the team loses to theory or theory doesn't become a voter

For PF:

Anything you do will be fine for me, although don't make community norm arguments because I almost certainly don't know any pf community norms.

If you set up an email chain and send all pieces of evidence that you'll read in a speech before the speech I will automatically give you +0.5 speaks. The lack of evidence accountability and transparency is one of the worst things about pf and I think it makes the activity as a whole worse.

If you want to ask questions or even post-round after round, please do so. I usually have a lot of comments about specific arguments in a round but I usually keep my rfd's short and only about the stuff necessary for the ballot

Policy:

Arg specific notes:

I love DAs and CPs, but since I'm from the northeast I encounter kritikal arguments like 80% of the time. So while I love policy args, but I won't hack for it.

I enjoy framework debates the most, but I really dislike judging policy T.

Specific Args:

Ks:

Either it directly concludes that some mechanism of the aff is bad, or it needs to prove that the scholarship or assumptions of the aff are bad too. (That requires winning the FW debate at least holding the Aff towards their scholarship). I'll judge a KvPolicy debate in order FW/Thesis claims->Impact calc->Links->alt solvency. I know K's have a tendency towards being generic especially in the 1NC, but the 2AC still needs to have specific cards and answers, otherwises that puts the aff in a bad position.

K Affs:

Never ran it, and most neg teams should just go for FW in front of me. I'm can be convinced that fairness is an impact, but I would default to it being an I/L. I have not seen a really good K aff counter interpretation, that's grounded in the res/lit and access I/L's better than the neg, so you're honestly better off going for the impact turn debate.

Theory:

I lean neg even though I was a 2A. If the neg is not being ridiculously abusive, I'll let it slide. And I will not evaluate theory like font size or missing period in the plan text.

CPs:
I won't judge kick unless you win that theory debate. I lean towards functional competition rather than textual competition, but, again, that's really a debate to be had. If you want to try to go for positional competition go for it I guess. When I'm deciding the perm debate, it's usually down towards competition.

DAs:

I like all kinds of policy DAs. I will prefer the link over the uq. Case turns are usually necessary unless you spend alot of time on impact calculus.

Case Debate:

I love specific case debate. Cards are great, however I love seeing debaters just tear apart aff's with smart analytics and re-cut cards, because no aff is 100% perfect. As long as you engage the case in some way I'll be happy.

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. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

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. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

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.

--

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I debated PF in high school. I'll flow everything except cross, but please don't spread because I'll definitely miss stuff. Extend your arguments if you want me to count them, please weigh (very important and makes my job a lot easier), and don't bring up arguments in FF.

Also, be respectful of your opponents and what they say. Dismissing something as "stupid" or rolling your eyes is not the way to go.

tl:dr: flay

-

pls email me cases with ur cards, this makes life easy for all of us: sylviaelizabethduarte@gmail.com. if you have any questions about my paradigm, message me on fb

i debated on the pf nat'l circuit in high school and am now a college sophomore.

quick bio:

i would say i'm tech>truth but that is a lie. i like args within the realm of topical possibility. not necessarily probability since most debate args do not work irl anyway lmao. more like, i give less credence to args like nuke war or existentialism and will be looking for any excuse of a response to turn it down (obvs this depends on the topic like yk what i mean). obvs if there is no ink on ur arg or your frontlines are fire and ur debating is of a high caliber, that is different. but idk if ur that guy + why risk it?

i give more credence to your args 1) the earlier they are introduced in round, 2) the more warranted they are, 3) the more likely/severe/quickly/generally more important your link chain or impacts are vs your opponents'.

-

best ways to win my ballot (in order of importance):

- effective, consistent, *extended*, good ol warranting. absent good weighing/impact calc, i will likely prefer one well-warranted arg over multiple unwarranted args (yes it will be strategic to collapse in front of me). **this will be to your benefit if you want to go progressive and run something funky like theory and can articulate amazing reasons why it's good to do so.**

- complete claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) extensions in the second half for args you want me to vote for. anything i vote off of in your final focus must be in the summary btw

- GOOD weighing. weighing is inherently comparative. ik you think your arg is important, but why is it more important than your opponents'? why does this mean you win the round?

-

things i dislike but am forced to ignore because i don't want to intervene but also will still rly negatively bias my decision to vote for you because i am human:

- speaking at a million words per min. a wise man once said, "why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" and you're on a computer and wifi can cut out and your super-speed-speaking legit won't matter.

- doing the above but thinking you're in the clear because you sent a speech doc with your tags afterwords. NO pls stop

- heavyyy paraphrasing of your ev. i don't expect you to read card-text in all of your speeches (though that would be nice in constructive... sigh). but like... rly not a fan of debaters taking a quote from their evidence and putting their "spin" on what it says/arguing in the "spirit of the ev"/doing the most with the ev because "it technicallyyy says that"/anything that bastardizes the integrity of your representation of evidence.

- do not take that to mean that i dislike analytics. on the contrary, i reward thoughtful, well-warranted analytics. but i punish analytics passed off as evidence.

- defending any potential social prejudice that comes up in your args, attitude, treatment of opponents, etc. i don't just dislike this, i will tank your speaks and speak to your coach if necessary.

-

i am familiar with theory. lmk if you're unsure if you should run something in front of me. i will not BS you, if i cannot evaluate an arg / don't think it's likely i'd vote for it, i will 100% lyk.

good rule of thumb is that you can run theory if you can effectively explain (i.e. warrant) your arg's necessity in the space, my role as a judge, your arg's role in education/accessibility/etc, and more. if your theory warranting is not up to par with substance warranting, you should probably stick to substance in front of me.

I’m a parent judge since 2020, with no debating experience of my own. I'm looking forward to seeing you debate.

The clarity of your arguments will be the most important thing. Make sure that I can understand the structure you're following. The terms of art that you use in discussing debate among yourselves are probably less familiar to me, so plain language at a reasonable speed is best. I’m not likely to vote on something that doesn’t make any sense to me.

Impacts are what matter, and not the amount of arguments. Make sure everything you want me to vote for is extended, and important moments in crossfire are explained in speeches.

I will try to keep track of time including prep, but please make sure to do so as well.

Please keep in mind that in a virtual debate, true crosstalk in a crossfire usually means that I can't hear either speaker, so do your best to allow your opponent to finish before responding.

Have fun, try to come out of the round smiling.

PF:

TLDR:

Weigh

Please do not give me a line-by-line in Final Focus. If possible, I don't want it in summary. Write my RFD for me in summary and FF.

Signpost.

Please collapse. Good extensions and weighing requires this.

If you don't read warrant names in summary and FF, you probably will not win the round. The team that makes the best and most strategic extensions almost always wins, and dropping warrants irretrievably weakens your offense.

Don't extend offense that your opponent kicked unless you're extending a turn on it.

Cross-applications and grouped responses in rebuttal, when used sparingly and handily, can be useful.

I don't need a roadmap for expected strategies (ex. no need for "it's gonna be their case, then my case")

You are free to collapse grand cross if you'd like.

If it takes longer than one minute to find a (singular) card that is called for, prep starts.

#

(heavily drawing from the brilliant Mollie Clark throughout)

The Rebuttal
For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping, when necessary, and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts, with weighing at these levels when possible. Frontlining defense seems to be the new standard, and I think that that's a good strategy. Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I love a good overview. I loathe a bad overview.

Extensions
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the claim, warrant, and impact. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. WARRANT AND IMPACT EXTENSIONS ARE WHAT MOST LIKELY WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. You will not have time to extend everything, and attempting to do so shows a major deficit in your ability to discern the central and successful arguments in the debate. Part of the challenge of this activity is making smart decisions about what to extend and what to drop on the the fly.

Speed and Speaking
I tend not to penalize speed with speaker points. I do penalize for incomprehensibility. Make sure you enunciate and are clear so that your opponent can understand you. Efficiency, eloquence, extensions, and strategy in later speeches will define your speaks. Basically, go as fast as you want so long as you're clear. Lack of clarity welcomes penalty.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. CX is not binding, but speakers may use concessions in CX as offense in subsequent speeches. I say CX is not binding to encourage an earnest conversation in CX, rather than constantly defensive, abrasive, or self-conscious exchanges. I will, however, nonetheless take a good response to offense brought in from cross by the opposing speakers seriously if they contextualize that concession and produce sound analysis that supports them.
Organization through all speeches is essential, and is especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible.

I tend to give high speaks in general. 28.3-28.5 is a pretty common/average score from me at tournaments that utilize one tenth decimals. I find myself usually giving 28.8-29.1 in strong circuit rounds, though I did come across an array of really remarkable speakers at Yale, Bronx, and Blue Key who scored higher. I will, however, strictly adhere to a points rubric offered by any tournament when provided. This may elevate or deflate my speaker points to an extent. At tournaments that utilized a tradition scale with .5 increments (i.e. Glenbrooks), strong circuit debaters tended to score at 28.5-29.5, with generically good speakers at around 28 and average speakers at 27.

The extra stuff: I studied English @ Columbia, where I spent a lot of reading/writing about poetry and other things, critical theory, and the history of esotericism. I competed in many circuit PF tournaments in high school and judged many in college. I now write about curation, museology, and the poetics of the museum as a Henry Evans Fellow "at" the British Museum, and work in the Capital Markets group at a corporate law firm in New York. This is to say that I may not be extraordinarily studied in the things most directly related to what we're doing in round. But! I have consciousness and subjectivity and am, therefore, more than qualified to be in round. Be thorough in your analysis and don't make assumptions. I'm excited to learn with you + I'm excited to watch you have fun. I want to take every measure to resist elitism/inaccessibility in debate, so let's mitigate it! Please be courteous to your opponents, especially when it seems evident that there is an imbalance in resources/access in and out of round. A normal circuit round is accessible to me, but it may not be for your opponents. Please accommodate + make the round as accessible for your opponents as possible. If it is clear that you are being accommodating and kind, your speaker points will benefit!

LD:

I have a mostly basic knowledge of how this form works, yet I've nonetheless found myself in the position of having to judge 20+ rounds of it. Essentially, my decisions will be better when debaters read their tags somewhat slowly, try to explain things as early and coherently as possible, and order/analyze my decision for me. If you make assumptions about what you think I already know, my decision will likely be worse. Also, shouldn't really need to say this, but you need to impact your arguments and signpost clearly on the flow -- no shockers here. I really like the kinds of conversations that tend to emerge specifically from LD rounds, but you may have to be generous and accommodating about some of the more idiosyncratic qualities of the style.

Specifics:

Speed: If speed is important to your style or strategy, roll with what is necessary for you, but I'd prefer you give me about a 3/10 if you put your speed potential on a spectrum, if that makes sense. Most importantly, I'd really like you to slow down on the following: tag lines, spikes, blips, theory interps, and advocacy texts. Note: I don't want to have to yell clear...like ever, but I might throw it in the chat if I need to (I also might not and then miss a lot on the flow). In general, I'm probably a judge that you need to send a case doc to.

Theory: Honestly, I've always been okay with theory. If it's ridiculous, I'm obviously not going to vote for it. Just be smart.

Framework: Framework debate is critical, usually. If it's important, spend time on this. This debate should also heavily determine how I evaluate the round. Make this clear for me.

Ks: These can end up being pretty neat, but like I said before, don't assume I know anything. Lean toward overexplanation. You are going to have to do substantial work situating the K into the discourse posited by the topic, and superseding your opponent's arguments with the K. I suppose saying something like this would also imply that I think topicality is a somewhat important arena to address if you are a K debater.

But don't get the wrong idea: I am amenable to K debate; probably more than most other judges! I just really want to understand what's being said, which I do think that I have the capacity to do (see above about my study of critical theory).

A note: Be ethical in your practice of K debate. It is going to be hard for me to vote for you if it seems glaring that you are employing K debate as an opportunistic strategy to win rounds. For example, there is no reason for a white debater to be running an afropessimism K.

Value and criterion: What even are these? Why are these? These are probably vestigial to LD, yeah?? Or if they aren't, convince me otherwise?

You will want to pref me if you are reading: Max Weber, Jack Halberstam, Judith Butler, Saidiya Hartman, Fred Moten, Hortense Spillers, Frank Wilderson, or Sylvia Winter.

If I didn't cover something in this paradigm, just ask me in round. I want to be as transparent as possible.

Speaks:

This isn't the important part. Generally, when not given a speaks matrix by the tournament that dictates how I give these, I'm gonna treat every round like it's a bubble round + give speaks based on who should break and who shouldn't. 29-29.5 is a good typical breaking score.

Please be respectful. Respect lends itself to better speaks.

Another note: If you are unhappy with my decision, know that I, unfailingly, vote for whichever debater was most persuasive. Even if you are totally convinced that you have made transcendent, pristine argumentation, clearly some disconnect or error occurred in round that prevent me from, well, achieving transcendence alongside you. This means it is absolutely essential, even if you are the smartest high school debater in the world, to communicate clearly to me. I can't vote on what I don't understand, and it isn't my fault as a judge for being unable to comprehend 20 arguments/minute or some extraordinarily clunky analytic on techno-capitalism etc.

I want to be included on all email chains de2365@columbia.edu

Hey, my name is Sam! I debated on the GA circuit for 3 years and nationally for 2 (2014-2017), breaking even my senior year at ToC and Nationals. Since then, I have judged and coached for several programs. Weigh your arguments and their terminal impacts against your opponent's arguments and impacts in summary/final focus. Second-half cohesion is important, make sure the summary and final focus work well together. I will not vote off of anything that fails to be extended from speech-to-speech. I can follow most speeds you're used to, but please do your best to speak clearly. Be polite to each other and enjoy the learning experience: D.B.A.A!

I wont waste your time with this

he/they

if your comfortable with it id ask that everyone shares pronouns before the round starts or that we refrain from using gendered language and just use my opponent/opponents.

Im not sure exactly what ill be judging but i did every event besides policy in high school and im a debater at the collegiate level with UCSD. Speed is fine, Ks are fine, theory is fine, squirrely arguments like nuclear war are ok but your link chain better be flawless as im not inclined to vote for the magnitude outweighs probability argument for the 6 millionth time. Please signpost, please weigh at the end, be kind, be courteous, respect me and your opponents and just have a good debate overall. I dont give speaker points below 28 unless someone has been racist, sexist, xenophobic, ect...

Hi, I'm Casey (she/her/hers)! I’m currently a student at the University of Florida. I thoroughly enjoyed debate in high school and was an active participant. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum throughout my four years in high school. I was a traditional debater, so I prefer traditional-level debate.

Email: caseyglymph@ufl.edu

Conflicts: West Broward HS (Pembroke Pines, FL); Accokeek Academy; DCUDL

Personal Notes

1. Respect your opponents at all times. Regardless of their race, gender, or skill level, show them the same level of respect you wish to receive from any one. Any form of disrespect will be noted on the ballot.

2. Going along with TWs, if you are running a controversial or sensitive topic as an argument, please be respectful. That being said, I don’t like blatantly, offensive arguments at all, especially if they only exist in the world you have created in the round.
3. Please keep track of your own timing and hold your opponents accountable for timing as well.

*Notes specific for virtual debate tournaments*

1. Please keep evidence exchanging brief. I know there are unique challenges with debating online, but please try to minimize time spent sharing evidence. Stopping the flow of the round messes everyone up. A few suggestions would be; to start an email chain before round or share a google doc with everyone and copy and paste cards there.

2. If possible, please keep your cameras on. If there are wifi/connection challenges that is completely understandable. I just like putting a name to a face :)

Summary of my judging style

I am ok with progressive debate, but I am not a pro at it so please take this into account (Ks, theory, etc.). I'm chill with counterplans.

Summaries should focus on FW, warrants, and why you’ve won. Final focus should weigh impacts, don’t try to revive arguments that weren't even touched/mentioned in the summary.

Other notes

Speed: It is your burden to make sure your speeches are clear and understandable. The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I do prefer slow-medium pace speed, but I can handle faster speed.

Speaker Points: Speaker points decrease based upon professionalism in the round. If the round is well debated, regardless of who wins, speaker points will reflect. I’m not in the business of screwing people over through speaker points, trust me I know the pain.

Please ask any questions you may have pre-round. Hope you have a great tournament!

I am a lay judge and have judged numerous state (MA) and national tournaments, both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas.

I favor clear structure, comprehensibility, and the quality/integrity of arguments/data over quantity and complexity. I am not a subject matter expert on the topics you are debating or on the fine points of Lincoln Douglas debate technique. That said, I will listen to you very intently, take a lot of notes, and do my very best to render a fair and balanced decision.

I am not a fan of meme cases and not experienced enough to fairly judge tech cases. I may ask you to slow down if you speak too quickly. I expect you to keep your own time.

I will share critical comments if I have any, which may not be always. I will take careful notes throughout, disclose and provide an RFD after submitting the ballot.

Above all else - have fun and good luck!

I am a grandmother of a 10th grade student at JR Masterman. I was a high school and college debater. I like clear logical arguments backed by easily understood evidence. Building a case and responding to opposing arguments are important.

I am open to any argument as long as it is logical, topical, well-warranted, and well argued.

I may not be familiar with your jargon and abbreviations. I would like you explain your argument in a coherent fashion.

I don’t like spreading! I want to hear signposts clearly. Off-time roadmaps are preferred. Slow down your speaking whenever possible.

Do not rely too much on cards, your precise and concise analysis is more important.

I generally give 25 - 30 points, with 30s reserved for the outstanding speakers. Points will be taken off for rudeness and unethical evidence.

FYI - I work for a pharmaceutical company.

I am a LAY judge with 6 years of judging experience and I have judged many tournaments, state and national

Speak slowly and clearly

Be respectful

I am truth > tech

I will evaluate theory and RVI's as long as you explain it to me clearly

I don't vote off of crossfire

I don't require you to extend everything through your speeches

You need to tell me why you are going for one contention over another, otherwise, I will dock you

It's your job to convince me

Don't tell me what to do, convince me how I should weigh

In terms of speaker points, I give between 26-29 speaker points, to get a 30 you have to be exceptionally good.

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my 6th year, and I'm so impressed by the time and effort students put into Speech and Debate. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

I am a parent judge. I have judged a few debates, but am somewhat inexperienced. I used to be a practicing attorney and was a reluctant recipient of the Socratic method for many years in law school.

As best you can, I would appreciate a verbal outline of your argument to help with my flow as the arguments proceed. Remember that I am new to the issue and without the proper foundation or background-it will be more difficult to follow the remainder of your remarks. Speak as slowly as you can. I know you have a lot to say and not enough time to say it, but if I don't catch your salient arguments because you're going too fast or I'm playing catch up the whole time, it may be the difference between a win and a loss.

Overview

My name is Jacob Lantzman (he/him). I competed in Public Forum for all four years of high school while also dabbling in Policy Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and World Schools Debate. I competed in PF, Policy, and World Schools debate at a national level as well as Parliamentary debate on a state level. I am a relatively open judge, I will go for anything that you ask for me to go for, but you need to be able to defend it well both logically and statistically if your form of debate dictates such. If you look below, I give specific paradigms for each form of debate, but I'll highlight a couple of general key paradigms for me:

- I am not afraid to drop you on civility, or lack thereof. Debate is a great place for civil discourse on some of the most topical resolutions in current events. It is paramount that you are civil and polite to everybody involved in the round (your partner, your opponents, your judges). Throughout my time debating, I faced a fair share of debaters that were bullies in round and were incredibly uncivil. There is a difference between passion and lack of civility, it's very easy from a judge's perspective to see the difference. I don't care if you have the best constructive, best cards, best rebuttals in the history of debate, if you're uncivil in round, I will not hesitate to drop you.

- I am not going to keep track of your time for you. Keep track of your own prep time and speech time. During the round, I want to play the least role as possible so that I can focus on judging you all on the content of the debate to my full ability. If I am judging you for a larger tournament either on the circuit or national events (NSDAs, NCFLs, etc.) then I'll keep track of your time for my own purpose so that I can stop flowing after your time has expired, but I'm not going to stop you from speaking, that is your responsibility. If you are at time and you're in the middle of a sentence, I have no problem with you finishing your thought.

- Most important of all, have fun. This is an incredible extracurricular activity and has helped me throughout my educational and personal careers immensely. Enjoy the time you spend researching and debating because it can be a lot of fun.

Public Forum

- Framework: I am happy to go for any sort of framework that you throw at me. I was a big framework debater and I think it's the most underutilized aspect of Public Forum debate. Use the framework as a way for the judge to evaluate the round. However, this is not Policy or LD debate and I do not support a progressive approach to Public Forum debate, if you don't know what that means then it most likely does not affect you.

- Constructives: Structure your constructives so I know when you move from one contention to the next and can clearly flow that. Structure is a great tool to keep the debate organized and keep it from getting too sloppy.

- Cross Fires: Be respectful, let your opponents answer your questions. I've seen it all too often that a team will ask their opposition a question and then never give them the chance to answer the question without interrupting. I will dock you speaker points and potentially drop you if you continually interrupt your opponents in a rude and disruptive way. The same goes for not letting your opponents speak, the crossfire is not an opportunity for you to grandstand and have another speech in the round, it's so you can find the clash in your arguments. There's no clash if one team talks the whole time.

- Impromptu Speeches (Rebuttal, Summary, FF): Give me an off-time roadmap. I want to know the order of your talking points in your speeches so that I can follow along on the flow. Structure is so important for judges to flow the round.

- I'm not going to drop an opponent's argument just because you tell me to or because they didn't bring it up in a speech. This can be one of the most frustrating things to deal with as a debater, but as long as you don't just bring it up in constructive and not bring it up again until final focus, I'm still going to flow it.

Hello!

I am currently a junior at UMD, I did about two years of pf debate in high school, and I have about three years worth of judging experience. I love to debate, and often I'm very relaxed so don't be nervous!

I don't have any preferences as to how to make an argument, nor do I have a specific style that wins every time. Rather, do your best to present your case and refute the opponents. Focus on convincing me from scratch. Assume I do not know anything related to the topic. With that in mind, I choose a winner based on which side has done better with both supporting arguments for their own case and rebuttals against the other side.

Some logistical things:

1. be polite and respectful. I have no tolerance for rudeness.

2. try to use all your time wisely including prep time :)

3. roadmapping is during your own time

4. I will be timing you, and if you have your own timer, I will still go by my own timer. This means don't cut yourself off early. If you are out of time, I will let you know (in which case, you can at least finish your sentence). I also keep track of prep times

5. Spread at your own risk. I do not prefer it, but from experience, even if I tell someone not to, they will. If I can't understand you then it's your loss, not mine. Also I do flow and if you just throw things at me very quickly then oh well

6. don't talk during someone else's speech.

7. in cross, try not yell at/over people. although, I know by experience things can get heated...

I wish you luck!

Warning: I tend to give a lot of feedback and my RFDs can be long sometimes, but I'm only trying to help, I promise

Hi! I'm currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I did a little bit of PF debate in middle school, so I'm relatively inexperienced with it. I’m a flow judge and follow speed, but please be sure to be clear and stay organized. Statistics/facts can only help you if they are backed up with reasoning and good explanations. Overall, I believe PF should be understandable to a general audience and you should be able to explain in a easily understandable manner why your side should win the debate.

I have been a coach for about 12 years, working with students in all forms of speech and debate. As an educator, I see my role as a judge in helping you grow.

I usually inform competitors that I can handle just about anything that they wish to try in a round. I have an open mind and have seen just about everything as a coach and a judge. I don't have strong opinions on what debate should be, other than the guidelines provided by the rules for each event. I want you to explain why you should win the round based on the approach to arguing your position that you have chosen.

That being said, I do prefer certain stylistic techniques. Maintain a moderate speed when speaking. If I can't process your argument, it likely won't have much of an impact in my decision. This is especially important in this virtual world, when certain computer microphones struggle to keep up with you. Demonstrate camaraderie with your partner in PF and Parli and politeness toward your opponents, especially during cross. Emphasize the connections within your argument and show how your framework links to your contentions. Provide abundant examples and evidence. As you are wrapping up the round, show clear reasons to vote for your side. Please focus more on the arguments than on why your opponent violated some fundamental rule of debate.

I will not punish you through speaker points. Extremely low scores are only reserved for rude or inappropriate behavior.

Good luck in your round!

Hi, I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly and clearly! I have judged many pf rounds before, but I am still definitely not a flow judge. In round, make sure that you're using logic to explain your arguments thoroughly as well. If you see me writing, don't take it seriously, I am just taking notes. Don't be rude and have fun!

---

Hi this is his daughter that does PF and from what he's told me abt judging here are some tips if he's judging you:

-he doesnt flow everything u say :((( so make sure you're emphasizing the most important things he should be flowing

-he won't feel comfortable voting off your argument if he doesn't understand the logic (if he doesn't understand either side he randomly chooses lol so TALK SLOW and MAKE SENSE)

-he likes it when you have arguments that directly clash (pro and con both run the same arg i.e. innovation) but he also likes clean extensions of args that go conceded

-he adores clean signposting

-also he works in like biology/physics/medical related stuff and knows a lot abt pharma so be accurate lol or he'll know

Hi! This is Andrew Zhao, Ms. Liu's son. I have been doing PF for over a year now.

My mom is new at judging. She knows how to flow, but don't expect her to be a tech judge. Make sure you signpost clearly especially during sum and FF.

Keep cross cool. Don't be rude because that inevitably leads to yelling and she won't like it.

This goes without saying at this point but just don't spread. Your side of the flow will likely be completely empty if you do so.

Well, I myself didn't have any debate experience at all. I've been judging public forum debates in the past several years, but I still consider myself a lay judge.

With that being said, my final decision usually heavily depends on your own summary and final focus. You help me to understand why you are winning, including why your team's contentions still hold while your opponent's do not.

I prefer you talking in a relatively slow pace but it's totally up to you to make yourself comfortable.

Enjoy!

I am a lay judge. Please speaker slower and clearly.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't spread or read theory. Thank you. I know a little bit about public forum and this debate topic.

hi (:

remi (she/ her) I'm a sophomore at gw studying IA and environmental studies. I did pf in hs but consider me flay

also tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!

EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus

basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy

I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes but not names sources or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it ill be confused

I don't evaluate cross fire, if something happens, tell me in a speech

time yourselves

read content warnings

if you wanna wear sweats or a hoodie that's fine, come in a hat for all I care!

I dont know how to evaluate theory and K's but if you wanna try you can lol

dont be rude and have fun!

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to opponents.

Please be logical, factual. Structure and articulate your arguments and responses well to persuade.

I am a parent judge with very little judging experience. However, I have spent countless hours watching my daughters debate and prep. I do not flow, but will be taking notes on your contentions, evidence and arguments. "Jargon" only confuses me, so please stick to the facts! State your arguments respectfully, I do not enjoy rudeness. You have all worked hard to get here. Looking forward to a good debate.

Experience:

I debated 4 years of Public Forum at Pennsbury High School and 4 years of NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate for Wheaton College up through 2017 nationals. Since college, I have coached and judged college parliamentary debate for several schools, and currently coach University of Minnesota. I majored in economics and political science for my undergraduate degrees.

Overview:

I evaluate the debate the debaters have. I am open to policy, kritiks, performance, theory, etc. just tell me why I should prefer it. If you want to mix policy and critical arguments, go for it. That is almost exclusively how I debated and I love critical impacts. Just make sure not to contradict yourself, or go for too much. Weigh. Please. Everyone is happier at the end of the round if there is clear weighing. If you are discussing any kind of physical violence, sexual assault, or anything graphic, it is essential that you read a content warning. These topics are important and should be discussed, but for the safety and well-being of other competitors AND judges, it is essential that you at least give a warning that such a topic will be discussed. If you do not and your opponents call you out on it, I will consider that an independent voter.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I will vote on post-fiat impact stories if you win the policy debate and win the importance of those impacts. Make sure you have clear links. If your opponent points out massive holes in your link story, I am inclined to listen. The burden is on you to keep your link story in tact, especially if you have high magnitude impacts. I generally default to probability and prefer systemic impacts, but ultimately, I will weigh however I am told to weigh, with the most compelling reasons.

Kritiks:

I will vote on the K if you win the K, and that the K has the most important sheets in the round. Make sure you have a clear alternative and alt solvency. Be prepared to provide an alternative text to your opponents if they ask for it. If your alternative is especially long and complicated, providing a text to me would probably be in your favor. I just got out of high level debate last year, so I am following most of the lingo and will understand most literature references, but please don’t assume I know your author, or that your opponents do. If you are new to debate and don’t understand what your opponents are talking about, ask questions. If you feel your opponents are excluding you from the round by failing to answer your questions clearly, invoking terms and authors you don’t know, etc, point it out.

Theory:

I will vote on theory if you win the theory debate. I ran a wide variety of theory arguments -- common ones and occasionally ventured into new territory. Make sure you have a clear interpretation that you meet.

Performance:

I will vote for a performance debate if the performing team wins the role of the ballot and/or the role of the judge and/or wins arguments about why the performance comes first. I appreciate the way performance debates bring real world issues to the forefront of debate rounds and confront them head on. I have gained appreciation for performance debates over the years, and believe them to be extremely valuable to our community and beyond. I do not need to be made comfortable or included or added to your movement to vote for you, but I do appreciate clarity, especially in performance debates, about how you want me to evaluate the round. If you are opposing a performance, I would highly encourage you to engage the arguments as best you can. I will vote on framework, if framework arguments are made and properly explained to be the most important.

Inclusion:

I expect all debaters to be cordial and respectful of one another. If you are asked to make accommodations for a disability, I expect you to comply to the best of your ability. I will vote on theory arguments or kritiks that demonstrate exclusion if they are well warranted, and am more lenient about structure in these instances if there is demonstrated abuse. Debate is a game, but it is also the real world. Don’t forget that you are talking to and about real people, and that I am a real person in the back of the room.

Speaker Points:

27-30, unless you do something incredibly rude or exclusionary.

If you have questions after the round, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. If you would like to talk in person, you are free to come find me, and if you would like to contact me to talk later, ask me to put my email on the ballot.

Experience: Debated LD when I was in high school. I have judged many PF rounds judged

I love good analysis; not so impressed by blippy arguments. Having a coherent narrative by the end of the round is a good thing.

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 (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc),

- defend the relevance of any evidence you present, and

- be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence.

Weighing is important (not just impacts). Tell me why I should vote for you.

Some speed is ok with me as long as you're clear .

If something isn’t in summary, don’t bring it up in FF.

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

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!

Speak clearly at a moderate pace; keep it civil.

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.

I will be judging you primarily on your clarity, logic and rhetorical finesse. In addition, I will expect that you engage respectfully with fellow debaters and with your audience, including that you speak at a reasonable speed and provide clear transitions to mark the turnings of your argument and identify contentions accordingly. I will note especially how well you support your points with your research and specific examples and evidence. I am not a big fan of circular reasoning, broad generalizations and/or absolute statements or stereotypes that distort or discredit other cultures.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in high school, and have coached for the past two years with novice debaters. Most of my experience was in western Pennsylvania on a local level, but I did compete occasionally on the national circuit.

My judge paradigm is limited only by what I can understand, because I don't really have any preferences concerning how students should debate or how the round should play out. If you take sufficient time explain your arguments then you can do whatever your want. I'm fine with theory or k's or any other off args, but am not used to evaluating them based on the level of debate I usually judge nowadays. Speed is fine as long as I can flow (can follow the slower end of what is considered "spreading" but not ridiculous speeds). Still debaters should preference clarity over speed. If a point is especially important, slow down. 

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate!

Weigh, weigh, weigh. I need to see you compare both you and your opponents arguments and prove to me that the argument, that you have clearly defended, is more important than your opponents argument.

I am a lay judge so refrain from excessive debate terminology usage and also try to speak a bit slower. I'm not very experienced with judging so do forgive me if I make any mistakes. Thanks!

-I am not a tech judge. I see PF as an activity grounded in helping students to develop and deliver arguments that could persuade the average citizen on important issues. I prefer to focus on solid reasoning, supported by sound evidence, rather than an emphasis on process in deciding a winner. I also appreciate when teams can find that difficult balance between supporting their own evidence and offering valid critiques of the other team's evidence, while not slowing down the round too much.

Pronouns: she/her

My email is taylorshippling@gmail.com, I'd like to be included on any email chain. Don't hesitate to ask me before we begin if you have any questions I didn't address here.

I'll vote on anything in the flow as long as there's a warrant, impact, and solid weighing against your opponent's arguments. It'll make my job much easier if you are well organized, using signposts and using numbers/letters to to denote where you are in your arguments (and where I should be in the flow) and referencing these when you recall them later. I don't mind an off-time roadmap but make it quick.

For evidence, I would strongly prefer if you quote it rather than paraphrasing. When you extend your evidence, please give me more than just "extend NAME/DATE from our case," explain the impact.

No tolerance for discriminatory arguments or behaviors in round.

If anything really important comes out of CX make sure to tell it to me later in the round, I cant promise I will flow in CX but I will listen--it won't decide a round but it can impact your speaker points.

I can't handle spreading, it's too likely that I'll miss something on the flow. The ideal is the pace of a spirited conversation that's still accessible to the participants. I'd like access to your speech doc ***before you begin speaking*** to fill in any gaps I may have (and to account for lagging/glitching if that becomes an issue) but I mostly want to listen.

I don't have a ton of experience with progressive PF, so while I'm open to it if you're running Ks or theory you'll have to take more time to explain it to me clearly. I have a cursory knowledge but neither of us want me to misinterpret you.

I'll be as generous as I can with speaker points if you make my job easy by: being organized, weighing your arguments well, being respectful to your opponents and teammates.

Hi! I’m an experienced lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and send speech docs.

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 am a fairly new judge but have judged four tournaments before.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Pretend I'm a 97 year old great grandma. If you're talking so fast that I can't understand you, I won't be able to comprehend your positions.

Please be respectful to one another. I will remove fractions of points for perceived rudeness or lack of good manners.

I am a Business Systems Analyst by profession. I worked at Capital One for 17 years. I appreciate clarity, logical reasoning, impact, and emphasis over a flood of data.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

I am a lay judge. I have been a litigation attorney and was involved in Speech and Debate in high school.

I am pretty easy-going and don’t have many “must dos.”

Speak clearly and concisely.

If you are speaking too fast I may miss your salient points-especially in a virtual format.

With me, quality will win over quantity.

Cite your evidence. I appreciate any statement you make if you can back it up with a reliable source. There is no match for sound reasoning and organization supported by credible evidence and clear delivery.

This is a public speaking event. If you want high speaks, wow me! Don’t read from a piece of paper. Make eye contact.

** if you run a contention about dropping out of college i'll give you +2 extra speaks.

Background:

I debated PF for 4 years at Rock Ridge & competed on the CFL circuit nationally and locally. I'm now a law student at UNC Chapel Hill.

General:

- Make sure to signpost in rebuttal

- 2nd rebuttal should respond to points in 1st rebuttal and the aff speech

- I am a flow judge, make sure to keep track of the flow very carefully & extend your own arguments

- When you do extend arguments, explain the extension instead of simply saying "extend XYZ"

- Please perform a clear weighing analysis in summary, establishing voting issues and then bring home the weighing analysis in final focus

- Be civil in crossfire & trust me, I know a dead, stalling-heavy crossfire when I see one

- I prefer rebuttals with analysis linked to your opponents' case points rather than just spewing general cards that somewhat touch on their contentions. Attack their warrants and logic, don't make this purely an evidence war.

- I prefer off-time roadmaps for clarity's sake

Speaking & Speed:

Speak as fast as you want, it won't ruin your speaks as long as I can understand you. However, I will say that you're more likely to wow me from a stylistic perspective at a "lay" speed.

Tech Debate:

Feel free to run theory/Ks, but do know that I'm not necessarily too experienced in that field. And if it's something ridiculous it probably won't help you.

My Personal Voting Criteria:

I really like comparative world analysis in the summary and final focus speeches; it really boils things down and makes it easy for you to write my ballot for me. Try to weigh in rebuttal too if possible. Frameworks are pretty cool too if done correctly. I believe that the summary is the most important part and turning point of the debate, so please do a really good job here. The final focus should wrap up the flow; try to convince me to vote for you to the point that I'd feel miserable for not doing so. I like seeing arguments consistently extended throughout the debate and I like to reminded as to why particular warrants/impacts are crucial to your side winning. I probably won't vote on crossfire, but don't use this as an excuse to let some shenanigans loose.

**As always, calling for cards will eat up your prep & if you want me to look at a card, please let me know in Final Focus**

Try to have fun as much as you try to win :-)

don’t be mean :(

i did pf at bronx. i now go to uchicago

general round wise:

- i'm flow, but not super techy. i will know your jargon, but give you an exasperated look if you use too much of it.

- i have the fine motor skills of an elementary schooler. This means i cannot write or type super fast, so I do not flow things like card names. If you extend just a card name I will be confused (so please avoid saying stuff like "extend Johnson '15" with no clarification of what Johnson says).

- if you try to run some progressive tomfoolery, i will be hesitant to vote for you. By no means does this guarantee a loss, but you are putting yourself at a disadvantage cause I am from the northeast and my eyes will probably glaze over if you say the word theory.

- on evidence: tech> truth. by using sketchy cards you are running a risk. if you indict evidence, you gotta warrant your indictment. if evidence is indicted in the round and a team extends it into ff, i will wanna see it before my rfd (if i forget this feel free to remind me). but never fear! if you are using sketchy evidence ill only evaluate it with the warrant provided, so run it with the hope they dont call ya out too good.

- if you wanna email me stuff send it to zerof@uchicago.edu. I am not big on recreational literacy, so unless you ask me to read something in round I will not read it.

Rapid speaking and excessive technical language may hinder your performance. It's acceptable to speak quickly as long as you remain clear. But if speed affects your clarity, it's better to slow down.

I won't share my decision post-round to ensure the tournament progresses smoothly and to uphold fairness in all debates. The decision will solely be reflected in the ballot.

This will be my second event as a judge, who is a parent of one of your debaters.

I have been a Public Forum judge for over 1 year.

When giving speeches, I expect each team to present arguments in a logical and clear manner. Always support arguments with evidence and correct citations.

During the cross-examination, I expect each team to ask relevant questions to expose the opponents' weakness, as result to strengthen its own view/points.

Each team should speak clearly and professionally, and should be respectful to the opponents and the judge.

No excessive speed unless u want me to miss something. No prog idk how to evaluate.

Don't talk too fast and don't be rude. Please respect each other and me. Plz don't be too technical.

If you say a line from Polo G's "rapstar" I will give you a bump in speaks depending how well it was integrated to your speech/cross/etc.

Worldstar rule applies though: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel