Please do not spread.

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

For TFA 2024: please add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com to the chain and make sure your documents are able to be viewed after the round (ideally a PDF or Word document). Please arrive to rounds early and be preflowed, especially for flight 2.

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

did PF '18-'20 at Plano West ('16-'18 at Jasper but we won't talk about that)

general stuff:

uncarded warrants > unwarranted cards.

im super super warrant heavy - just reading 20 card tags and calling it rebuttal isn't a strategy. Going for truth is not as incompatible with the tech as you'd like to think.

The first time you warrant an argument, I will take that as your warrant. This doesn't mean that I will vote for an argument with poor warrant extension, but if the first time you provide/explain the warrant is not in the first speech you read the argument, I will not consider the argument.

if you read anything racist/ableist/sexist/etc. its an L20

im fine with speed - if you're unclear i'll ask you to slow down; if you're clear but I can't flow i'll just call for a speech doc. The faster you go, the more important it is to signpost. Please don't spread out novices.

evidence ethics are super important - please use cut cards in case. I'd rather you read an uncarded warrant than misconstrue evidence to fit your warrant. theres a good chance I drop you if an important card is misconstrued.

that being said, I don't super care about evidence. I will care if you misconstrue, but if a team reads a actual logical response to a carded arg and its never responded to (or poorly responded to) I'll p much always buy the logical response.

I don't really care about cross - if something important happens, mention it in a speech. That said, I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk in cross.

I'm going to be really reluctant to vote on new weighing in ff, please start it earlier.

First summary does not need to extend defense that isn’t frontlined in the first rebuttal. Defense is sticky.

Extensions need to have a clear citation, and short crystallization of the warrant AND impact before I can vote on it. I'll give you marginal offense with a poorly extended impact, but no offense from a poorly extended warrant.

The second rebuttal has to respond to all of 1st rebuttal or it's considered dropped.

no das in rebuttal

I vote prob > mag unless given a reason not to

other stuff:

im fine with theory and well explained, limited jargon Ks. no tricks or topicality tho.

if you read progressive stuff on a clearly novice team, I'll either tank your speaks or just down you.

I would strongly prefer if carded framing (like GPP extinction framing or whatever) was in case - it makes for actual fw debate.

I believe very strongly in durable fiat. I'm not going to intervene on args, but my threshold for work needed to win a durable fiat arg is very low.

If you want to debate plans/cps for whatever reason, I'm fine with it on the conditions of: a) both sides agree before the round and b) the other side gets their plan/cp too.

I also agree with everything from these people's paradigms:

Chris Sheerer

Matt Feng

Daniel Liang

There might be stuff I missed: just ask me before round

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

Hi.

I debated all 4 years at Bx Science (1976-1980). In my junior year, I won TOC, and in my senior year, made it to the final round at TOC. After HS, I attended Princeton, and taught debate at the summer institute at Georgetown for a few summers. I am currently a lawyer/law professor in NYC.

I can flow, but you have to remain comprehensible. If an argument is dropped by the other team, it will not matter unless you tell me so, and also explain why/if it matters. Please no jargon or acronyms unless you first define it. You can assume that I am familiar with most words in the dictionary.

If any questions, my email is: andrew@andrewbermanlaw.com

I am a lay parent judge. It would be in your best interest to run a traditional case and not spread. I value strong analytical analysis and rhetorical speaking skills.

I generally disclose my decision and speaks (averaging around a 28). However, I believe it is important for debaters to take note of holistic feedback rather than just wins or losses.

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

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

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

Background: Former LD, CX and PF debater

I’m tabula rasa on most things, just don’t advocate for positions that are evil or trollish.

I will attempt to respect the norms of the circuit and tournament I am judging at; I do not want to impose on any particular debate style but I am also open to hearing theoretical arguments during the round.

While evidence is good, I believe too often many rely on ‘evidence dumping’ and focus too little on analytics. Basically, spend a fair amount of time framing, contextualizing, weighing, clash, etc.

For speaker points, I base it off everything but your physical speaking ability. How well did I think you navigated the round, how did you choose to order arguments, and overall strategy contribute a lot here.

Respect each other and please signpost!

If you have questions please let me know.

bennettjamesbrown@gmail.com

I debated for four years. I do debate in college. He/him.

The quick rundown:

I like narratives and am not a fan of blippy arguments or unwarranted impacts. A warrant > claim + card.

I'll intervene if I know you're lying; misrepresenting evidence; or are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc..; otherwise, read whatever you want.

I'm probably more willing to assign zero risk to an impact than most judges, especially if the rebuttal is warranted well and is presented as terminal defense

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

I am the parent of a debater. Although I make my living crafting persuasive arguments, I am a lay judge, with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will try and give you the best judging experience I can. You can help me, and yourself, by clearly and concisely stating your position, explaining why sources support your argument, and politely pointing out the flaws in your opponent's claims.

I prefer truth over tech. Evidence ethics are paramount. If the cards I see do not say what you say they do, I will drop the argument from the round— and depending how egregious the ethics violation, I may drop you. I do not want to see your cut card, I want to see the article or source, with the portion you used highlighted. I have no tolerance for sexism, racism, and rudeness. Be civil, be kind. And try not to talk too fast- I can't give you credit for an argument I cannot understand.

For me it all comes down to Final Focus. Please make sure you include everything you want me to consider in those 2 minutes. Your job is to persuade me, through your research and arguments, that your position is right and I should vote for you. I am not well-versed on tech and the specific rules for extending arguments, however I will not credit any argument not in final focus. Signposts and numbering of arguments will be very helpful to me.

Last season, I thought debaters Anoosh Kumar, Nathaniel Yoon, Kevin Zeng, Maggie Mills, Sasha Haines (last year's Nats winners) and the Abbasi twins were excellent debaters.

Congrats to all you debaters. Your ability to articulate complex arguments and make them clear and simple is amazing. I am in awe of your ability to research, think on your feet, respond to some off the wall claims that are thrown at you without warning, and speak clearly and calmly with a skill well beyond your years.

Debate:

I vote based on organization. Your arguments need to get me from A to D, have good impacts that make sense and if you are claiming abuse you must be clear what was abusive. If shoes lead to death give me step to step as to why. I won’t do the work for you, I will know your speaks after the first two speeches but I look at the flow after the round to see how the over all round went. If your case doesn’t make sense on my flow then you may be dropped. Persuasion is how the other processes what they hear you say, not what you think you said.

IE:

Limited Prep:

Origination, clear follow through of how each point ties to the topic and attention getter is how I weigh the speech it’s self. Knowing your walk, time management, eye contact and good projection is what I expect the speaker to show.

Everything Else

If you do not have cards then be memorized. If you are not then be on cards, you can be a great speaker on cards but not on a minute long of a 9 minute speech. At least practice your walk, eye contact, projection and body control. You might be ranked lower for being on cards but I cannot give you the 4 or 5 if I hear a minute.
If your character is supposed to make me cry, then make every cry, make me angry make me what ever emotion your character is expressing so I can feel your message through your performance.

speak clear, speak loud and be bold. I purposely sit in the back because you need to own the room and have everyone be involved in the work you put into your piece.

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

I will not bring any preconceived notions with me into the room.

Please be clear, respectful and don't nod your head up and down, belittle or bully.

Don't make things up and be sure to back up your claims with reliable sources.

If you would like me to vote on certain arguments please bring them up in both in your summary and final focus.

I will give speaker points based on persuasiveness and clear communication and not technicalities.

I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over fast talking so please speak at a speed I can follow.

Be sure to weigh your impacts and know that as a judge I value the big picture (with supporting evidence) over line-by-line analysis in summary comments.

Have fun and good luck!

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

Short Version

American Heritage School ‘19

Georgia Tech ‘22

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

Tech > truth

Long Version

Presumption:

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

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

Extensions:

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

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

Weighing:

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

1. Weighing that is not comparative

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

Speed:

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

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

Progressive Argumentation:

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

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

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

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

Other things:

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

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

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

email chain - please start one and use it: darren.ch12@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com. reach out for questions/anything to make the debate more accessible. I respond to emails.

in my 3rd season as an assistant coach at the Blake School (MN) but I spend most of my time working a non-debate job meaning I do a lot less topic research than I used to

cornell '21 - ndt qual

carmel '17 - local circuit pf/policy

excited to watch you debate!

tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. No racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and transphobic language or arguments. Do what you would like. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.

That said, preferences are below. I hardly ever judge anything that's not PF these days, so paradigms for other events are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RK_g6krFLxB1sblzfjMlo8OsnV5ip4GLnpRgnKlgKdM/edit?usp=sharing

top level:

---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.

---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others

---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances

---very facially expressive; don't mind me

---slow down for theory

---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.

---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.

---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that ev won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.

---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)

---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)

---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.

---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I woiuldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.

---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.

public forum:

---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase because it's usually incomprehensible.

---care a lot about impact calc (no really like I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/prereq arguments!

---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.

---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.

---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.

---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to ev quality only. If you strike a card from the flow, that's not reversible even if you find the evidence later.

---amenable to arguments that the AFF doesn't have to defend the entirety of the rez in every instance.

---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.

---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.

---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.

---theory thoughs:

I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences.

1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where there is no expectation to know the terminology. CX is a great time to ask (the other team, not me). Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.

2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won and lost) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.

3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.

4) start theory ASAP, e.g. as soon as the violation happens

5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.

6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then I would vote that there was no impact to theory.

7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold

9/13/21 - minor updates post-grad + striking cards irreversible + whole rez

Background:

I am a parent judge who has been judging for around 3 years and consider myself a flay judge. I'm trained as a scientist so logical argument supported by evidence is what I am looking for. I usually read up about the topic beforehand, so I have some knowledge about it.

Preferences:

I am more tech over truth but the argument needs to be believable for an easier win (I am a little more tech than you might imagine)

Please collapse and weigh your arguments against your opponents' arguments (Quality > Quantity)

I flow but I won’t flow if you’re too fast or hard to understand

I vote of the flow but good speaking always helps

I will call for cards usually if they are important for your case in the round. I take evidence very seriously and will drop you if I find it misconstrued.

Theory: I know nothing about theory or how to evaluate it. If you run it there is a high probability that I won't evaluate it.

Don’t be rude or offensive and don’t interrupt during cross or you’ll get dropped

I'm a senior at Brown studying economics who debated 4 years of Public Forum for Acton-Boxborough. I'll flow to the best of my ability, but I've definitely become more flay as time goes on. In particular, I believe that the debate round can serve as a space for meaningful discourse around important issues, and as a result, I'm not afraid to admit a preference for arguments based in truth as opposed to squirrelly ones meant to catch your opponents off-guard without any basis in the real world. That being said, I have no qualms voting against my own beliefs or for untrue arguments that are insufficiently rebutted. If teams make claims that directly contradict one another, I'm often compelled by evidence comparison that specifically explains why one argument should be preferred. However, please still extend the warranting underlying the research throughout the round.

2nd Rebuttal: Must frontline turns, everything else is optional.

1st Summary: Please extend defense! If it wasn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, you can be very quick about it—just be clear and concise.

Theory/Ks: I'll evaluate any argument you make in the round, but I'm not very receptive to these types of arguments and have never voted for a team that's read one. I don't believe theory/Ks belong in PF and strongly prefer a substance debate.

Trigger Warnings: Please provide them if you're going to discuss any sensitive topic. If you're unsure, read one.

Topic-Specific Jargon: Although I'll try to have some level of understanding of the topic, please define any topic-specific acronyms or jargon for me (or avoid using them completely).

I will always analyze the round to the best of my ability, so please don't post-round me—the burden is on you as the debater to win my ballot. Asking me questions is totally fine though, of course.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Please be kind to your opponents. If I think you're disrespectful or making the round an unsafe space, I'll tank your speaks with no hesitation and potentially drop you. Good luck everyone!

email: seungjohcho@gmail.com

PF paradigm:

I did PF for 4 years, and I did Big Questions for a few weeks at L C Anderson High School. I won both NSDA Nats and TFA State.

Just do whatever you planned on doing. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear. If you aren't good at spreading, first of all, you really shouldn't be doing it in PF, but if you really need to and you know you are bad at it, save yourself the L and flash me the doc you are reading. I value "tech over truth", in the sense that I will vote purely based on the ink on the flow, and I am willing to buy arguments that may not be true at all in the real world, as long as they were well articulated on the flow.

I don't flow cross fires at all, so unless you have an audience to please, I'd say just chill out a bit on cross fires. They won't really affect my decision. Also yes, I realize I was an aggressive debater myself, but if you're straight up being rude, I will dock speaks, which you really don't want from me because I generally give good speaks, so getting bad speaks from me will make you look even worse.

Make sure you weigh and you explain to me why you think you won the round by Final Focus, as I do not want to have to do that for you, especially on topics where I probably don't have any prior topic knowledge.

I will call for cards that you have asked me to call for, or cards that seem sketchy that are central to the round. In most cases, however, I will default to whatever the debaters tell me their cards say, so make sure you stay on top of that.

You do not have to extend defense if it is dropped. If it is addressed, however, I will obviously expect you to address it in speech if you are going for it.

Make sure you are sign posting.

Also please let me know where on the flow you will be starting your speech so that I can start flowing it well.

If you read frivolous theory, keep in mind that I probably will not weigh it unless it is completely dropped/inadequately responded to. I am also not a fan of disclosure theory in PF. That is not to say I won't evaluate it by default, but also run at your own risk.

And finally, everything you want me to vote on should be extended all the way to final focus. Even if it was dropped, if you do not extend it in final focus, I will not default you the win on an argument.

If you have any other questions for me, feel free to ask before the round!

LD Paradigm:

Read PF paradigm, should give you a sense of my debate background maybe how you should adapt.

Plans, CPs are all totally fine

Theory, Ks, more tech arguments are all good with me. Just do whatever you planned on doing.

Spreading is totally fine.

I made it to UIL LD State once, so post-round me as hard as you want, as long as it is educational.

I did pf all 4 years of highschool and went to nats and the TOC, so I’m pretty familiar with most arguments. I will weigh anything if you give me a reason. If you wanna do theory or K that’s cool as long you give me voters at the end. Voters are really the most important thing for me, so collapse on what you’re winning.

I’m fine with speed.

If you get a concession during cross-ex, make sure to bring it up in a speech as I don't judge cross for anything but speaks.

Make sure to extend. If you talk about it in the 1ar then drop it till FF I’m not gonna weigh it.

Framework debates in pf can get confusing and are usually a wash so proceed with caution

if you have the first rebuttal please don't go over your own case after you rebut your opponents. You have nothing to refute, there has been no ink on your side yet. Use your time rebutting your opponents.

My BIGGEST pet peeve is bringing up new arguments in 2nd summary or FF. I won’t weigh it and I’ll dock you speaks. Please don’t do it :(

I’ll disclose if I can and give verbal critiques if you want and time allows

If you make a formal Evidence Violation where I have to decide the round early based on 1 card it had better be a very flagrant violation ie them altering cards, saying the opposite of what the card says, something severe and manipulative. If it's just paraphrasing that you dont like bring it up in a speech. I have dropped most of the people who have made the evidence violation so far, I don't like to do judge intervention and I prefer the debaters just solve the issue on their own. It had better be a serious and intentionally deceptive violation for me to drop a team based off it.

Speaks breakdown

30- you should final

29- almost no mistakes

28- still good but some fumbles

27- average

26- lots of mistakes, unclear

25- hard to flow

<24- you said something offensive

If you have any other questions feel free to ask in round.

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

General Ideas

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

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

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

Technical Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did PF debate throughout middle school, some Congress but mainly Lincoln Douglass throughout high school. I evaluate all debates pretty fairly. Although I favor more critical race based and “progressive” arguments, I’m open to anything. Faith warning, overt disrespect or discrimination of any sort will result in a tanking of speaker scores.

Other than that, be yourself, debate as you please. Make sure every word is intentional and meaningful.

Good Luck,

Bintou

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

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

A few items to share with you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello.

I debated at Bronx Science from 1978-1982. After high school, I debated briefly in college, joined the Navy after graduation, and served for 20 years including a tour on the USS ENTERPRISE. Yes, I was Scotty on the ENTERPRISE. I retired from the Navy in 2007 while I was serving with NATO in Iraq and stayed for another 3 years. I am still with NATO though living and working in the more bucolic environs of Luxembourg.

My paradigm:

Arguments

1. I will accept any argument provided you provide the evidence to support it.

2. Where there are conflicting arguments, I expect the debaters to address what criteria should be used in making a decision.

3. I will listen to arguments concerning theory but have not found them to be persuasive generally in deciding a round.

Comport

1. I expect debaters to treat each other (includes both the opponent and one's partner) with courtesy and respect.

2. Number 1 extends to judges as well. Please signpost and pay attention to the judge. Sometimes this will lead you to slowing down or perhaps do a better job signposting.

3. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, we have a problem.

Et cetera

If there is time, I don't object to providing comments.

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

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

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER POINTS:

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

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

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

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

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

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

I am a consultant based in Washington, DC to organizations that are involved in politics, organizing and policy advocacy. Over the past 25 years, I have worked at a national labor union overseeing their government relations work, as well as on campaigns, in government and with other organizations.

I was an LD debater at Bronx Science from 1984-1988 and team captain for the final 2 years. I will not be able keep up with full-on spreading and will be most receptive to clear, coherent big picture arguments that make their way through the whole round. I'm far less interested in scoring technical points, although you should not drop major threads of argument.

No spreading.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain)

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

Experience:

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

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

General:

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

Evidence Issues:

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

Speech Preferences:

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

Theory:

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

Pet Peeves:

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

Congress:

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

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

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

PF:

My background as a debater is in parli, and that tells you a lot about my philosophy: evidence matters, but logic/reasoning/narrative is what I'll remember.

WEIGH. Weigh and meta-weigh. If you only take one thing away from my paradigm, let if be this!

Collapse your arguments in summary/FF. Give me voters that bring out major themes. I love FFs snd summaries that begin with, "Here are the three most important reasons you should return an aff ballot," instead of "I'll do their case and then our case."

I don't love jargon-heavy arguments in PF. I do sincerely believe that PF rounds should be intelligible to an educated lay judge. I *love* a good progressive argument, though, as long as it's explained clearly.*

*(more information if you're curious: my standard for 'clearly' is, your opponents could make a reasonable refutation of your argument by thinking on their feet based on a reasonable HS-level amount of background knowledge about capitalism/racism/whatever, without having spent a ton of time studying theory/Ks in particular. I won't buy the response in rebuttal that progressive arguments are intrinsically unfair to competitors from small programs; I would buy the response that your opponents have not explained their arguments clearly and were tech-y enough that you can't reasonably respond without specialized knowledge.)

Speed is fine if you signpost well and your arguments are clear. (If you're making a complicated or subtle argument, slow down for that argument.) I won't read your speech doc, though. If I didn't hear it, you didn't say it.

If you're consistently interrupting your opponents in cross, I will ignore what you're saying when you interrupt them. Be courteous! Win on the strength of your arguments, not your aggressiveness.

Generally tech-y. Exceptions: I won't count it if you throw out an obviously objectively terrible response to an argument in rebuttal so that the argument's not officially conceded (that counts as "basically conceded" to me). I also can't bring myself to vote for arguments that are intrinsically and obviously offensive ("racism good").

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

World Schools:

Don't give me a PF/Policy/LD round! I really sincerely will base 40% of my decision on speaking style. Tech ≤ truth.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions: nacurry23@gmail.com

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

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

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

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

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

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

Speaking and Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

I did PF.

Don't read off-time roadmaps. Odds are, you won't follow them anyway. Just tell me where you're starting and signpost.

I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework.

PLEASE COLLAPSE.

I will likely only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending BOTH the warrant and the impacts of the argument. “Extend the Smith evidence” by itself with no analysis as to what the evidence is actually about isn’t an extension. And saying "we save X amount of people" without the warranting as to how/why isn't extending an argument either. I won’t vote on blippy extensions.

Please do not spread, at all ever, especially not in the morning and if you do, bring me coffee and maybe by summary I will understand what you are saying.

Second rebuttal has to frontline.

Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important which you might not necessarily agree with in the end.

I will vote on theory or Ks if they are thoroughly explained and warranted. However, I believe that both of these should be used as a check back on either an egregious abuse instance in the round or within the resolution itself. Senseless use of theory or a K just to waste time or to limit your opponent's ability to debate will result in less speaker points and depending on how I see it in the round might even cost you the win. I won't buy disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory or any other foolish new theory.

If someone calls for a piece of evidence, please give it to them quickly.

Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate. 20 L.

If you have any questions, ask before the round.

Experience

Current Affiliation = Campbell Hall (Studio City, CA) & Notre Dame HS (Sherman Oaks, CA)

Prior Experience: Debated policy in HS at Notre Dame HS in Sherman Oaks, CA (1979-1983); Debated NDT in college at USC (1983-1987) competed in the NDT 1984,1985,1986,1987. Served as Director of Forensics at Notre Dame High School from 1991-1994; Served as the Director of Forensics at The University of Southern California Trojan Debate Squad from 1994-2007; Qualified teams to the NDT, CEDA National Championships; Teams participated in International Debates, and Individual Events. Qualified 27 teams to the National Debate Tournament with numerous "At Large" teams and top speakers.

General Note

I am an "old school" debate coach. Your arguments need to be at a reasonable speed with logic and evidence. I default to a policy-making paradigm if left to my own devices. I will follow whatever debaters paradigm they advocate so long as it has a logical connection to the topic in some way. I will follow my flow and your lead as best I can. I expect critical reasoning, real evidence and the goal of a debate is to find good clash and learn as much as possible. If you go to far I will not buy undreaonable positions. If you advocate that the world is "flat" I am out. My defaults go into effect when left to my own devices.

Major Notes

Topic familiarity

I am very familiar with the topic public forum topic M4A. I coached and debated similar topics in years past. I am well read in the literature as I have a personal interest in the topic. As a lawyer I have dealt with legal issues around this topic and have a deep background in the economics of the topic area. It is a great topic especially during this worldwide pandemic.

Positions: (more for policy / LD Debates I imagine) I like a good topicality argument when it is thoughtful and well developed. Topicality is an a-priori issue and a voting issue if you tell me it should be. One line topicality argument rarely wins...unless completely dropped I guess. Disadvantages with good links and impacts that outweigh the case or cut against it are great. Counter plans are fine and a kritic linked somehow to the topic area are interesting and fine too. I love good and reasonable theory that enhances the educational value of debate too. I love a great strategy. Try and be strategic and lets save lives or avoid a nuclear holocaust or save the environment together!

Delivery, Persuasion & Organization

You should have a strong, persuasive delivery and advocate for your positions in the debate. There is reasonable speed and bad speed. Bad speed is where you drop your head and read as fast as you can. I am pretty easy to "read" as a judge. I just stop flowing when you are incoherent. Be clear. If you are not a clear advocate, you are not debating. Delivery rate should be governed by your clarity; WARRANTS in the evidence should be clear, not just the tagline.

Organization is a place were many debates are won and lost. If you are not clear and organized, I will be lost. I like clear simple road maps. Unorganized debates get messy and the messages which are important are lost. That is the debaters job to watch the judge, make sure your arguments clash and explain those fine line distinctions why your positions/evidence are better.

Cross Examination: Cross examination is a great part of the debate where you can do so much good. Unfortunately, many cross examination periods are poor when debaters are rude, lack logic and become a series of constant interruptions. Poor behavior will be illustrated in poor speaker points. Be thoughtful and aware of triggers and other issues which may cloud a debate for all the wrong reasons. Respect all debates, their coaches and their school. Do not make personal and irresponsible comments about your opponents or society. You will be judged by your choices and behavior. Try to be smart and thoughtful and all participants will enjoy the cross examination periods.

Evidence: Evidence should enhance your positions and reflect what you say it reflects. Stretches and false inferences lead to bad evidence references. Be Clear with your author and the evidence, and why it is important. Logic at times can trump evidence. Just because some author said something in an article does not mean that assertion will always be better than good logic. This is where persuasion in debate can go a long way.

Rebuttals: This is where debates are won or lost. Help me write the ballot the way you see the world. Tell my why I should vote for your positions. Tell me if morals are more important than "lives" and why. If you leave it up to me, you have not really been a fierce advocate for your position. Persuade me based upon the arguments in the debate and your critical thinking skills. Be logical and organized.act comparison.

FINAL THOUGHTS: Offense wins debates, defensive positions come in second place. I do not want to have to call for all the evidence and positions of a team in a debate. This is an activity of oral persuasion. I do not want to have to piece together a debate from my flow and all your evidence. You need to weave the debate and your positions together to help we write a decision which reflects the total sum of your advocacy. Teams that do this well usually win my ballot. They have great logic, great evidence and advocate well.

Favorite Debaters: (All much older than you!)

I have seen some of the finest debater for decades. Some of my favorites (for fun and yes many/all Trojans) are Kate Schuster, Paul Skiermont, Lenny Gale (amazing) Armond Revelins, George Kuros, Greg Bevan, Roger Stetson, Adam and Jordan Hurder (of GBN fame), Lindsey Harrison, Christina Tallungan (Phillips), Jeff Leon, Matt Whipple, Andy Silverman, Corey Turoff, Chris MacFarlane, Alex Iftimy, Michael Smith, Aron Berger, Michael Klinger, Dan Shalmon, OMG...I could go on for pages...so many greats!

Favorite Coaches: Ted Belch, Linda Oddo, Matt Whipple, Jason Peterson, Paul Derby, Anne Marie Todd, Tom Hollihan, Gordon Stables, Jon Sharp, John Day, OK ALL Trojan Debate Coaches, Dallas Perkins, Jeff Parcher, Sam Nelson, David Smith, Jack Roper, Bill Southworth, Jay Bussee, Matt Frasier, Richard Sodako, Matt Conrad, Susan Foley, Mike Beatz, way too many friends to mention here too...but a dear friend whom I really miss Charles "Chuck" Ballingal...rest in peace pal.

Speaks: based on organization and time allocation

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

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

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

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

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

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

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

******EXTEND FULL ARGUMENTS******DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING******HAVE FUN******

^the holy trinity

Hey! My name is Seb and I love debate.

.

My pf debate judging preferences

• I flow, but above all else I want to be persuaded
• I like when speeches are filled with jokes, analogies, and metaphors
• I dislike roadmaps, you can just tell me where you are starting and signpost the rest
• I like when rounds move quickly and debaters speak slowly
• I think the simplest strategy is usually the best strategy
• I dislike card dumping strategies, and more broadly prefer depth to breadth

.

My pf debate philosophies

I think that:

• Paraphrasing is good
• Disclosure is a bad norm
• Theory should only be used when necessary
• Non topical k’s are unfair
• I should only flow what I hear

.

My pf debate advice

1. Collapse on your most important argument. If you are winning your entire case, you have no reason to go for all of your offense in Final Focus- extend the best offense you have, because it'll outweigh the rest of your case anyways. If you're getting up in FF and telling me that there are four voters in the round, you are doing it wrong.

2. Have a consistent narrative throughout the round. Everything that you go for in your Final Focus needs to have been in your Summary, and you cannot introduce new arguments after Rebuttal. I should be able to flow your arguments from Constructive all the way to FF.

3. Treat your opponents with respect. Debate has a tendency to get heated, which is perfectly fine. However, being in the zone is not an excuse to be rude in CX or any other part of the round. Please be courteous and chill when speaking to one another, even if it means that you wont have time to get to that one GaMe ChAnGiNg crossfire question you have.

4. Debate in the style that you are the most comfortable with. I am familiar with everything from very traditional to very technical pf. While my judging philosophy is on the technical side, every round can be won with smart debating, no matter what style that is. Don't feel the need to go fast or use more debate jargon just to win my ballot.

5. Signpost Signpost Signpost. I should be told exactly where the arguments you are making need to be flowed. If there was an argument that you thought won you the round but I don't have it on my flow, you probably didn't signpost it well and I had no idea where to put it. Bad signposting is the #1 cause of debate judge migraines.

6. Do comparative and meta-weighing. Claiming that you "win on magnitude because your impact is 3 million lives" or that you "win on probability because it's gonna happen" is bad weighing. Comparative weighing is making a weighing analysis directly between your impact and your opponents' impact. Meta weighing is comparing two different weighing mechanisms against each other (like saying why probability is more important than scope, etc.). Using these methods to weigh your impacts properly will go a long way.

7. Be Personable! At its core, debate is a game of persuasion. To me, the best debaters are always smiling, engaged, friendly, and working to simplify the round the best they can. Charisma and critical thinking are the most portable skills that you develop in this activity, and they are the fundamental to both your performance in round and interactions outside of debate.

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

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

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

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

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

Argumentation:

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

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

How to win:

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

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

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

3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round

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

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

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

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar@wisc.edu. Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. I'm also an Econ/Poli Sci major so I have a pretty solid BS meter.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round, 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

I hold a college degree in electrical engineer and a master's in computer science. Although I started as a lay parent judge in 2019 to support my child’s growth and participation in local tournaments, since that time, I have acquired expertise in evaluating Public Forum debate by adjudicating several national and local debate competitions. I have judged top-ranked debaters in the past thus I have enough experience in understanding complex arguments.

In my career as a business owner and engineer, I also have experience evaluating professional presentations, contracts, and negotiations. I speak three (3) languages and have traveled to seven (7) countries, but I am fluent in English and value the democratic ideals of freedom of expression and the rule of law found in the United States. When evaluating students, I treat each individual as unique and worthy of respect, maturity, and intellectual growth to achieve his/her highest potential in school and in future professional endeavors. Then proceed to the paradigm, and expand on what you look for in definitions, value frameworks, contentions, rebuttals, cross-fire, final focus, and speaker points. It would also be good to create an email chain so we can create a fast evidence exchange.

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

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

Updated: 12/2021

I debated PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and in Wisconsin for 4 years. I would say to treat me like any other ex-nat circuit PF-er.

Conflicts: Lakeville North/South, Whitefish Bay

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

General stuff about speeches:

Speed

--Shouldn't be a problem, but send a case doc/speech doc if you have it.

Extensions

--please extend arguments, not just authors (both is preferable)

--anything not extended in both back half speeches won't factor in my decision at the end of the round; no sticky defense

Second Rebuttal

--Second rebuttal has to frontline comprehensively, i.e. answer all turns and answer defense on the arg you intend to extend

Overviews

--I'm wary of offensive "overviews" (a.k.a. new contentions) in rebuttal; I think these are pretty unfair, especially if you're speaking second; I will presumptively not vote for them, so you need to make an argument for why I should evaluate them

--Overviews that are broader responses to your opponents' case, some way of contextualizing the round (like establishing uniqueness), or weighing, are all good

Weighing

--Weighing is good.

--Weighing can't start later than 2nd summary

--I don't default purely to probability*magnitude. Unless directed otherwise, I am much more likely to vote for a strong link with a smaller impact than a weak link with a larger impact.

--Lives = default highest mag

--Scope means nothing without mag

--If you and your opponent have competing weighing mechanisms, PLEASE tell me, with warrants, why yours is more applicable to the topic/more important/fits your argument better/any other reason to prefer your weighing. I'd much rather have you do the meta-weighing instead of me.

--I.e., Tell me why your weighing means you should win this particular round vis a vis your opponents' weighing, not just why your weighing is true. Why is "intervening actors" > root cause, or vice versa?

--I've never really found root cause weighing to be very compelling; a large alleviation of the effect, or an intermediate cause, outweighs a marginal impact to the root cause

Theory

--I really, really dislike judging theory debates, so initiate them at your own risk. Nonetheless, I feel comfortable judging them.

--For all theory paradigm issues, I have defaults/biases, but I'll vote on the flow. If you make a convincing argument against my bias, I'll vote for it.

--I will default to competing interps; most theory in PF is either disclosure or paraphrasing, and if you are going to not disclose/not read cut cards, I think you need to be able to defend a coherent position as to why that practice is a good practice.

--With that being said, reasonability makes much more sense to me when applied to frivolous theory, e.g. hyperspecific disclosure interpretations

--I am very unlikely to vote on an RVI

--I am biased in favor of disclosure and against paraphrasing

Other stuff:

--Cross is binding

--Ks will confuse me; progressive frameworks will not

--I'll keep flowing 5 seconds past the speech time; anything past that is "over time"

Stuff that will help your speaker points:

--For first speakers, good use of cross to set up the rebuttal

--Clear signposting

--Collapsing in the later speeches; e.g. only going for one contention instead of two

Stuff that will not help your speaker points:

--Rudeness (especially in cross)

--Changing how you explain a card throughout a round

--Taking jabs at your opponents’ intellect during your speeches

--Pretending something was in summ when it wasn't; pretending your opponents didn't respond when they did

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

Feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round. Overall, I love PF as an activity, and I love well-done PF even more. If you are respectful to each other, focus on the analysis, and play fair, I will be happy :)

Email: mgellinas@uchicago.edu

I debated for 4 years (PF and LD) in Alabama. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's not unethical, but here are a few specific things I like:

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to appear in the summary and the Final Focus (PF)

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.

• Make sure to bring up concessions made during cross in speeches
• Theory is a tool used to ensure fairness in debate so please don't try to use it in the forms of abusive argumentation to win debates.

Hi I'm Gracie! (she/her)

Experience: 3 years of PF at Boca High and 3 years of experience in different debate events at Florida State (NPDA, BP, Civic/Social Justice, NFA LD literally once).

For Online Tournaments:

- Yes, add me to the email chain: gracea.findley@gmail.com

For PF:

TL;DR: Tech > Truth. Turns/DAs need to be responded to in second rebuttal. Final focus should mirror the summary. Default to cost/benefit analysis, but easily persuaded to filter the round through whatever framework you see fit. Speed is ok, but please don't spread. And please do not drop warrants (especially in the back half of the round!)

If anything is unclear in my paradigm, just ask me before the round!

Specific Thoughts on Debate

1) I default to tech > truth. Additionally, if you're winning a claim on the flow (technically), I'm more likely to evaluate it as true. But don't just assert things as random truths and expect me to vote on them. With this being said, I am a sucker for a good narrative. In the back-half of the round I love when teams re-explain their arguments, especially on the warrant level and use this as a basis to explain how they're winning. If you do this it helps make my decision much easier as I am not just voting on the flow but also on clear argumentation.

2) If you drop warrants, I drop you. Please don't make this mistake. I think warrants are the most important argument in the round, so I will evaluate this first. Lack of warrants assume I am all knowing and sometimes arguments that are clear to you are not clear to me, so ensuring I understand the premise of your argument extends from your ability to provide clear warrants. This means I expect analysis not only on the impact level but also on the link level. Assuming you are winning a warrant and going straight to impact weighing will make me unlikely to vote for you.

3) Second rebuttal is required to frontline all offensive arguments made against their case. This includes turns and DAs. It will make my flow a lot cleaner if you also begin to frontline defensive arguments in this speech, but it's not something that I require.

4) Anything you want me to vote off of NEEDS to be in the summary. Now that the summary is three minutes long, I expect first speaking teams to extend defense in summary. Please don't try to bring up things in final focus that were missing in summary.

5) Absent any framing in the round, I default to a cost/benefit analysis. In debates that don't touch heavily on framing, I tend to lean aff on risk of solvency. This also means I lean aff/non-squo went presented with "risk of offense" or "try-or-die" framing.

6) I don't have much experience competing in or evaluating theory rounds. I will try my best to evaluate it, but proceed with caution at your risk. For reference, here's what I think about some of the more popular theory arguments being read in PF.

a.) "Give us 30s" - Nope. Please, please, please don't read this in front of me. If you want a 30, follow my paradigm.

b.) Disclosure - Disclosure is good for debate, regardless of big or small school and especially for online tournaments.

7) I will not time you. Please keep track of your own time for both speeches and prep.

8) K's without policy alternatives are ok as the negative (b/c negative fiat isn't really a thing in PF), but I'm not a huge fan of non-topical affirmatives. My background is not in critical literature, so please make sure your arguments are very well explained in the back-half of the round.

9) If you are going to read an overview, there needs to be some sort of "turns case" explanation clearly flagged on the flow. I am not a fan of disads with new impacts out of the rebuttal.

10) I will call for evidence if I think it's misconstrued or if a team tells me to. I have no preference whether you give me a PDF/webpage or a cut card.

11) Don't spread, even if you offer to send a doc. I competed on the national circuit in PF though, so I can follow if you speak more quickly than conversational rate but please at least slow down for author names and dates.

For Speaker Points:

1) If author names are either dropped or not read, I will lower speaker points. Author names are the bare minimum - you should also be reading dates.

2) Weighing and really any sort of contextualization is the easiest way to boost your speaks. This is more than just claims like "we win on scope." As stated above, warrants are crucial to all argumentation; in addition to giving me a reason to prefer your analysis over anything your opponents bring up.

Hello! My name is Andrew Fostiropoulos and I was a former PF debater for 4 years @ Delbarton.

I'm a pretty standard judge. I'm a bit lazy, so I'll probably look for the most clear offense left on the flow at the end of the round, and then vote off of which of this offense is best weighed. A couple of specific things. When you're giving the rebuttal, I'd prefer you give some sort of an analysis on why what ever card you just read is significant to the round if its not really self evident. Second rebuttal really really should frontline, but I won't require anything besides turns to have to be responded to. Similarly, first summary really should be extending defense, especially with the longer summary, but if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline its not absolutely required. An effective summary and final focus should mirror each other, and they both should be doing weighing. Speaking of weighing, weigh, and I mean actually weigh, don't just say we outweigh on [jargon term] and then move on. If neither side weighs, then I have to weigh, and I'll be sad.

Other Notes:

- Be nice to each other, crosses really shouldn't be screaming matches

- I'm a pretty open book, you can tell if I'm receptive to arguments or not.

- I'll be nice with speaker points, 28.5 as an average. I don't really know what to tell you on how I'll determine who gets what score besides good argumentation and good speaking == high speakers.

- I'm not particularly familiar with progressive argumentation

I'm a parent judge for Acton Boxborough.

Please talk slow. It is hard to make a decision if I don't know your arguments.

I listen to crossfire in order to scope the strength of your arguments.

Evaluate me as a lay judge.

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

I competed for four years in speech and debate at James Logan High School. I am pretty familiar with all types of debate although I only seriously competed in public forum.

When judging rounds I focus most on impact. If your impacts aren't extended through the second half of the debate I won't pay much attention to them. It is also especially important to tie the impact calculus back to the framework that you want me to judge the round on.

If arguments are left without a response I carry them through to the end.

If you're not competing in policy then I see absolutely no reason to spread. I can keep up with relatively fast speaking but if it gets too fast I will just stop flowing.

Lastly, don't be rude or obnoxious. I will drop you if your arguments are preposterous or blatantly ignorant.

I did Public Forum debate at St. John’s in Houston, TX for four years. If you have any questions about anything written here, please feel free to ask before the round!

Email chain: rgarza@brandeis.edu

In any debate, the most important thing is weighing. Particularly in close rounds, explaining why your impacts should be prioritized over others is critical to helping me determine who won. If you do not weigh, I will be forced to intervene and you may not like how that intervention plays out.

In order to have an argument, you must extend at minimum a warrant and an impact.

Tech>Truth

(i.e. if you tell me the sky is green and the other team does not respond to it, the sky is green) Having said that, outlandish arguments will have a very low threshold for a good response. In that example, simply mentioning the sky is not green would be a sufficient response to win the argument. You do have to interact with every argument, no matter how outlandish, however.

PF Specific

1. An argument you go for (i.e. want me to vote for) should have a warrant and impact extended in both summary and final focus.

2. I did not run progressive arguments (Ks, Theory, CPs) during my debate career. Generally, I do not think progressive argumentation belongs in PF as it increases the barrier to entry of the event. I may not know how to interpret such arguments in the context of a PF round. If you choose to run them, you do so at your own peril. I am not very receptive to theory unless there is actual in-round abuse.

3. Second rebuttal must frontline.

4.Offense not responded to after second rebuttal is conceded and must be weighed against (excepting turns/other offense read in second rebuttal).

5. With a 3-minute summary, defense should ideally be extended in summary where possible.

Background: I was an LD debater in high school, and I now coach PF.

Pet Peeves: Please don't ask for an "off-time roadmap", either do it or don't. I would prefer you just say what side you are starting on and start the round than a winded explanation.

Time is very precious, it should not take 10 minutes between each speech to transfer evidence in a google doc and get your timer ready - just try to be punctual.

PF Specific: No sticky defense. That means everything you want to be extended or carried through a speech should be explicitly mentioned. Otherwise, I will not extend it.

Paradigm:

I am a tabula rasa judge. This means I will buy any argument as long as you do a good job of convincing me. I love watching how debaters can utilize the resolution to their advantage and create a truly nuanced argument they can call their own. Watching stock cases becomes extremely boring after a while.

Theory: If you can run it well, do it when applicable. You need to tell me why theory is a voting issue, otherwise, there is no reason to run it. I do not mind you reading while speaking, but if your theory is just a pre-cut block of text that you spread and don't explain, I'm probably not going to flow it. I also would prefer you to drop the case if you are going for theory. Having a theory spike can be abusive on the grounds of time skew. It also just muddles the debate.

Kritik: I think the critical debate is very valuable. I will accept aff and neg K's.

Speed: I can handle up to about 250 wpm, but I really don't enjoy it being that fast. My flow gets messy and so unless you plan on giving me a copy of your case, you might want to slow it down a bit. Also, I will only allow speaking as fast as both debaters are comfortable. If your opponent cannot flow your arguments, there is no clash, and that is no fun. Also, I would just prefer a more conversational pace as learning outcomes are much greater when you talk at a speed normal for conversation.

Flowing: PLEASE SIGN POST. When you want me to extend an argument, you need to tell me. Not just that you want it extended, but why. I will only cross apply arguments if you are very organized, and tell me specifically why you are cross applying. It is pretty rare that I do this, so I would just recommend taking the extra step to tell me why your point interacts with multiple parts of their case.

If you have ANY further questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. I also don't mind giving critiques after the round finishes. Good luck and have fun!

I am parent judge. I have only judged a few rounds before.

I prefer when debaters are clear and avoid speaking super fast.

If you speak too fast i will not consider all your arguments in my final decision.

I value the logic behind an argument and not just the quantitative component.

I am a parent judge. As an engineer by profession & I value facts, logic & supporting evidence. I am usually neutral and try to be balanced as much as possible. Please speak clearly and don't go too fast. I value quality content over quantity. All the best in the debate.

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

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

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

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

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

----

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

Please read my full paradigm below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will work hard to give you a fair judging experience. In the number of years that I have judged, I have always valued truth over tech. I favor thorough research and clear arguments. Help me and yourself by: speaking clearly and optimizing for clarity over speed; providing signposts and numbering of arguments; avoiding jargon; and, ensuring your final focus includes all arguments you want to be credited for. Always be courteous to your fellow competitors.

Quality of evidence is important for me. On occasion, I may call for a card. If requested, provide me with the original source highlighting the section you used.

About me

I competed in mainly PF for four years for Paradise Valley High School. I dabbled in Impromptu, Congress, and Lincoln Douglas with varying degrees of success (I did DI once, but we don't talk about that). I'm a freshman at the University of Arizona now. If you have any specific questions or want more information about my experience level/background just ask and I'll explain some more.

Public Forum

In general:

I typically like tech over truth, but don’t abuse that. Overall I’m pretty much a standard flow judge. Don’t be a jerk, your speaks won’t thank you. (Rounds get heated sometimes and I get that, but don't let it cross a line). Don't go too fast, and if I tell you you are going too fast and you don't slow down, that's on you.

I saw this on someone else's paradigm and I'm stealing it: please please don't make me think. If you do your job right I won't have to.

More details:

Structure: Frontlining is a must in first summary (y’all have three minutes now, that’s light work) and second rebuttal. First summary should extend turns and key defense even if it isn’t frontlined, other defense can be sticky (but tell me in like five seconds where it’s sticking).

Argumentation: Don’t bring up new arguments after first summary unless they’re extensions of some kind, I won’t flow it. I also won’t flow through ink (if that has to be said). Provide comparative analysis instead of just throwing cards at each other (please) -- this will matter if it comes down to an evidence battle. Please extend warranting throughout the round. Also, WEIGH.

Evidence: If you tell me to call a card I will; otherwise I probably won’t call cards unless something stands out to me. Evidence ethics matter and if you lie about evidence I won’t be a happy camper. You can call to look at evidence off prep but if you’re excessive then I’ll start using your prep. Basically, don’t try to scam it and you’ll be fine.

Progressive: Please no.

Disclosure theory: No.

Organization: I don't care how you organize your speeches (straight down the flow, key voters, whatever), but make sure you are organized, and tell me what you're doing. Messy speech = messy flow = messy verdict. also, signpost please.

If you have any questions about these, or any other questions, please please feel free to ask before the round, I'd rather everyone understand up front. If you do something that’s actually funny — not rude— in round I will appreciate it. You can be as goofy as you want (and I’ll probably enjoy watching), but it’s your problem if that gets in the way of actual content.

Congress

I did mainly PF in high school, but I occasionally competed in other events, including Congress, so I know what's going on. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. The standard considerations for Congress apply: be clear, be organized, don't be too fast, cite good evidence, be unique, make sure the judges are ready/know who you are before you start your speech, and ask questions.

IE

As far as IE goes, I mostly competed in impromptu, but I'm familiar with most of the other formats. (I don't think there's anything else I really need to say, if you have specific questions you can ask).

I AM A LAY PARENT JUDGE. Treat me as such in the round. I can understand complex arguments, but make sure it makes sense. Clarity is super important. I do not understand/evaluate Kritiks, Tricks, Spreading, Theory (I won’t understand theory unless it is something really abusive. Run at your own risk). Please weigh, extend, defend your case, and signpost. While generally cross examination doesn't effect my decision, key concessions are important to bring up in speeches.

Random stuff:

• I flow
• Everything said in Final Focus must be mentioned in summary.
• For framework you can read it but don’t spend time on it unless it is very different from your opponent’s.
• You can give me an off time roadmap
• I WILL NOT EVALUATE DISCLOSURE THEORY
• Be cool about evidence. Don’t misrepresent it.
• Have your evidence organized and find it quickly if someone calls for it.

Note about outrounds: I get that I am lay and if I am on a panel with two tech judges I might just get dropped/ignored, try not to do this though, PF is designed for the general public to understand (ie lay judges) so try to keep it that way.

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

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

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

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

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

4 year varsity debater from College Prep. Graduated in 2020.

I evaluate the flow first, tech over truth.

I can handle speed - would much rather prefer a slower, clear speech to a faster, garbled speech (esp with the online format)

Terminalize your impacts!

Weigh the debate for me so I don't have to and you don't get mad when I "do it wrong".

Everything that's in Final Focus should have been in summary (unless it's responding to something new from second summary (which also shouldn't happen)

You'll get good speaks from me unless you really mess up.

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

I welcome any questions about my decision after the round.

email: gupta.abhimanyu@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who has experience judging the Public Forum debate. I prefer clear argumentation that directly relates to the topic and for students to provide voter issues for me in the final rebuttal speeches. I don't like it when debaters dodge questions in cross-ex.

I am a parent judge who values common sense and clear logic in argumentation. The following are my preferences:

1. Always organize and collapse on your arguments.

2. If your evidence contradicts your opponent's, convince me with logic. More recent evidence may not be better.

3. Slow down if you do not articulate your words.

4. Be respectful and let your opponents answer the questions you asked during crossfire.

I am a parent judge and usually judge PF. I do “flow” the rounds to track the speaks. If you have convincing and logical arguments (with or without evidence), and are able to effectively counter and prove your stand, it will help me vote for you. I would stop you for the type of discussion that is totally irrelevant to the debate topic. Speed is no problem, yet it’s not a contest to cram words in seconds.

Hello! I'm Jonathan (he/they) and I did four years of PF in high school and currently debate policy for USC. I have my preferences listed below -- but they're just preferences. I'd rather see you debate what you know well than debate something you don't know. Debate how you debate and I'll be happy to accommodate.

- Put me on the email chain: jhayden1127@gmail.com

- Be respectful. Don't run arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Be accommodating to your opponents.

Policy

- Counterplans. I prefer counterplans with solvency advocates, but are not necessary. Specific enough solvency advocates make most counterplans legitimate, but how specific is specific enough is up for debate. I generally think conditionality is good and am pretty unlikely to vote off it as a hail-mary. I'm far more likely to vote aff on condo in the event of in-round abuse (mutually exclusive advocacies, cross applying arguments from different flows abusively, etc). Won't kick the counterplan for the negative unless told to, and will listen to arguments in the 2ar for no judge-kick.

- Theory. I default to drop the argument (except conditionality). Not the biggest fan of theory debates -- I think that a lot of times they tend to be messy. Make sure to do the comparative impact calc and why the model of debate that your interpretation promotes is better. Default competing interps.

- DA. I enjoy good DA debates. Make sure the links are specific to the aff. Not the biggest fan of ptx, but some weekends are better for politics than others. I'm particularly persuaded by DA turns case arguments or case turns the DA, and they should probably be somewhere in your 2ar/2nr overview.

- T. If you're going for T, make sure to explain why your interpretation results in a better world than your opponents' interpretation.

- Ks. Familiar with most kritiks, but most familiar with biopolitics, cap, security. Make sure to have good explanations of your theory, and the more specific to the aff, the better.

- Critical Affs. There should be a well-thought-out counterinterpretation to framework and should be a significant change from the status quo as well as a clear articulation of what voting affirmative does. If the 1ac does something untraditional, it should be brought up in later speeches. I generally think that affs should be in the direction of the topic.

- Case. Smart case debating is great. Affirmatives should remember to utilize their case in later speeches and negative teams shouldn't be afraid of using the 1ac's cards against them.

Public Forum

- How I evaluate rounds. I'll do my best to be as tabula rasa as possible. I also will do my best to vote in the least interventionary way possible. To do that, I'll either look to who accesses the most important impact in the round as argued through weighing (impact weighing), or who best accesses the impact if both teams are linking in to the same impact (link weighing).

- CX. It's binding, but has to be brought up in a speech for me to evaluate it. I really appreciate smart and strategic crossfires - especially if they can pidgeon-hole your opponents into a specific position or tricking them into conceding something.

- 2nd Rebuttal. 2nd rebuttal has to respond to all offense in the round, including opponents' case and turns. I don't require that teams answer all defense in 2nd rebuttal, but do believe it's strategic and makes the round clearer.

- Weighing. Good weighing is the biggest thing you can do to win my ballot. The earlier weighing starts the better. Make sure that weighing is comparative (comparing your opponents' argument to yours instead of just stating that yours is very important). Go beyond just buzzwords - your weighing analysis itself is more important than whatever buzzword you use to tag it. I believe that probability weighing exists. Even if you win 100% of your link, that means I buy that you solve 100% of your impact scenario, not that your impact is 100% guaranteed to happen (e.g. many impact cards talk about a chance of something happening, rather than asserting that they 100% will). Weighing turns in rebuttal is great and will get you higher speaker points. Link weigh and impact weigh.

- Evidence. If you tell me to read a piece of evidence I'll read it. Lying about evidence will severely hurt your speaker points and if the violation is egregious I'll drop the team. I might call for a card if it's crucial to my decision. I appreciate reading cut cards, but I won't punish you for paraphrasing as I get that that's the norm.

- Presumption. If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll default to the first speaking team as I believe that the second speaking team has a strong advantage that isn't as present in other debate formats. But if one team makes a default neg argument, I'll listen to it.

- Speed. I'm fine with speed. Just remember that clarity is always going to be more important. Also consider that with online debate it's even more important to be clear and that might mean going slower. If you're going to speak fast, make sure you're not excluding your opponents and send a speech doc.

- Theory/Ks. I'll vote on either if debated well, but I think it's incredibly hard to do so in PF and generally makes the round messier than it needs to be. My threshold for explaining these arguments is probably substantially higher than most judges. Don't run these arguments against an obviously inexperienced team for a cheap win.

- Speaker Points/Things I Like. I'll give speaks mostly based on strategy. Good warranting, weighing, good evidence ethics, interesting strategies (going all in on a turn), smart cx, signposting, good and unique cases are all examples of things that will boost your speaker points.

- Post-round. Please ask me questions after round. I don't want you to walk away from a round not understanding why you won/lost or how you could do better. I won't (and can't) change my decision, but I want to make sure I fully explain my decision if you don't understand. Debate is an educational activity and I believe that engaging with the judge and the decision is a part of that.

Lincoln Douglas

- If debating traditional LD, all of the PF stuff above about weighing/evidence/how I evaluate rounds applies. Collapsing down to the most important issues in the round in the 2ar/nr, listing voters, and connecting them to the value/value criterion all make it more likely to win my ballot.

- If debating circuit LD, the closer to policy the better. Not very good for evaluating tricks, skep, nebel t, or other LD-specific phenomenon. However, if this is your go-to strategy I will do my best to fairly evaluate them the best I can.

Background:

I debated 4 years of PF at Walt Whitman from 2015-2019.

Speaking:

1. Speak at a reasonable pace that I can flow and signpost before summary and final focus. Please don't spread.

2. Don't be rude in crossfire. I will drop your speaker points if you seem condescending to your opponents.

Argumentation:

1. I DO NOT usually find counterplans, disads, and theory convincing. If you try to run alternative arguments with me, you need to argue them really well to win. I don't think they usually have a place in PF.

2. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I probably will understand it.

3. IMPORTANT: If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or etc, I will significantly drop your speaker points and call you out for it at the end. If you notice your opponent doing this, you can definitely point this out and make it an argument to drop them.

Evidence:

1. I am a strong believer in quality > quantity. Please don't card dump without explaining warrants or actually refuting the argument.

2. DON'T miscut evidence. If it is severely miscut, tell me to call it and I will discount it from the round and consider dropping speaker points.

How to win:

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

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

2. WEIGH comparatively to your opponents' arguments

3. EXTEND arguments throughout summary and FF

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

5. GIVE a narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

I debated for four years at Lexington High School, and am currently not debating in college. I have little to no topic knowledge.

Please add me to the email chain: justinh4033@gmail.com

PF:

- Disclosure is extremely important.

- Debate whatever style you are comfortable with. I'm experienced with speed but do what you are comfortable with. Seriously. I just want a good debate.

Top Level

I'm a firm believer in the strategic aspect of debate. My favorite part of judging a debate is watching what kinds of unique strategies you can have come up with, the research you have done to support it, and how you execute it. I'm pretty open-minded and enjoy pretty much any type of debate, so run whatever you want. I would much rather you run what you're comfortable with, rather than trying to over-adapt to me.

I will not accept any discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). I generally believe that you are good human beings and will be respectful to each other, so don't prove me wrong.

Tech over truth. How well something is debated determines how much truth I assign to it. While the truth level can lower or higher the threshold of tech required to persuade me, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. That means it must have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Draw comparisons. Explain why your impacts are important outweigh those of your opponent. This also goes for every part of an argument, like uniqueness, the link, etc. Compare evidence and warrants. Draw a distinction between the alt and the perm. Explain how each argument implicates your opponent's arguments and the rest of the debate. The best rebuttals will break down the core issues of the debate and write my ballot for me. Debates that lack comparison make it difficult for me to write a decision, which will probably make one side unhappy every time.

Evidence quality. Evidence is incredibly important, but it can also be trumped by sound, logical arguments. I value good spin of your evidence. That being said, I strongly dislike when people highlight words out of context or jumble together random words to form an argument. So many teams get away with reading bad evidence, but if you don't mention it, it will continue.

T

I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but this is totally up for debate. Reasonability can definitely be persuasive in the right circumstances. Lots of impact calc needs to be done on both sides, and the internal links to your offense should be clearly explained.

DA

Have good turns case analysis at each level of the disad (link, internal link, impact). Make sure to have good, recent evidence because these debates often come down to evidence quality. I don't have any strong opposition to the politics disad – the internal links may be silly, but it's probably a necessity on this topic and I will evaluate it like a normal disad.

CP

While it is very helpful to have them, CPs do not need carded solvency advocates, especially if they are based on some of the aff's internal links. All CPs need to have a clear net benefit and must be competitive. I would like an explanation of the perm and how it shields the link to the net benefit, and this explanation should be happening early on in the debate. PICs are awesome, especially ones that are specific to the aff.

K

I enjoy a good K debate, as long as there is good analysis and explanation. I will typically allow the aff to weigh their impacts. That being said, what does it really mean to weigh a fiated extinction impact against your epistemology? I believe affs should have a stronger framework push than just "weigh the aff" because most neg framework arguments will implicate this very process of impact calculus. Specificity to the aff is extremely important, but not necessary. However, generic link arguments without sufficient analysis will make me much more receptive to the perm. Don't read super long overviews - put the explanation of the K's thesis there, maybe an impact explanation, but the rest can go on the line-by-line.

Planless Affs

I think fairness is an impact, and probably the most convincing one. However, you still need to explain to me why that matters. Impacts that rely on some spillover to institutions (i.e. Lundberg 10) are unconvincing to me. If you are going for T, you should answer relevant arguments on the case page. I think TVAs are strategic and don't have to be perfect.

The aff should have a mix of offense and defense to defeat framework. Most of the time, the impact turn approach is a lot more convincing than trying to win a counter-interpretation, but this depends on the aff. Leverage your aff against framework – impact turn the aff's model of debate or read disads to it based on the thesis of the aff. Defensive arguments can also mitigate a lot of the risk of the neg accessing their impacts.

Theory

If you're going for theory, in-round abuse is extremely important. I think the only the thing that can rise to the level of a voting issue is conditionality. 3 condo is fine with me; 4+ is pushing it. Counterplan theory objections are much less convincing if you have a good solvency advocate. I will lean neg on agent cps and 50 state fiat because of the lack of great neg ground on this topic. I lean aff on consult cps, word pics, and certain process cps. Unless there is a 2NR argument for it, I will not kick the CP for you.

Hi there! I did PF for 4 years. Below are some general guidelines for how you can win my ballot :)

A few things to take note of:

- My wifi tends to lag so PLEASE speak SLOWER. If you go too fast I might not catch stuff and I refuse to call for a speech doc unless if you cut out even when you're going at an understandable pace. It's your job to communicate your arguments to me, not mine to read your arguments off a doc :)

- Please don't take hours to find your evidence. I understand that sometimes your internet connection might slow down your evidence finding process but if you're taking way too long I'm not going to be happy. Keep your evidence organized!!

- Please preflow before rounds... if you ask to preflow once you get to the room I'm probably going to dock your speaker points. You have ample time to do so before rounds now that you don't have to physically walk to your room.

Ok now on to how you can win my ballot...

Things I like:

1. Weighing!!! Please weigh!!! If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to do my own weighing which you probably don’t want.

2. Warrants. Explain and flesh out your arguments. Don’t just read a blippy turn without any explanation and expect me to evaluate it at the end of round.

3. Collapsing. Going for an argument or two in the second half will help make your life and my life much easier. Quality over quantity.

4. Frontlining. Since summaries are 3 minutes now, first summary MUST frontline turns or any offense at the very least (second rebuttal should at least do the same).

5. Decorum. Debate is a high school extracurricular activity. Please be nice to your opponents before, during, and after round (although I understand cross can get a bit heated sometimes, just try to be nice). Save any rude comments for the bus or hotel or whatever.

*** If you’re extending a card, please don’t just say the card name. I tend to miss card names so tell me the argument you’re extending!!!!!!!!

Things I don’t like:

1. Spreading. I can usually keep up with speed, just not spreading!

2. New in the 2. Please don't make new arguments in final focus. You're just wasting your time. I'm not even going to flow it.

3. Bigoted arguments. I will drop you immediately and tank your speaks

4. Theory: No, just no. Please don't. If you run theory, I’m not even going to flow it and I definitely will NOT be evaluating it.

5. K’s: I’ll try my best to evaluate them. I’m not super familiar with them so if you do run a K, please flesh out your explanations and tell me why I should evaluate it over other arguments in the round. If you run one, you should be collapsing on it or else I will drop you for using it as a cheap way to win.

6. Postrounding. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Once I make a decision, I stand by it. Asking questions is FINE, but trying to change my mind is not.

7. Miscut evidence. Most likely I won't call for evidence unless if you tell me to or if you go for it and it sounds really sketchy. And yes, hate to break it to you, but I will drop you for miscut evidence (even if you win the debate) :) sorry not sorry! Strike me if this bothers you!

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

I am a parent judge new to debate.

I value logical arguments; clear, consistent extensions of arguments and impact; and comparative weighing.

Clarity is extremely important to me.

Do not spread or speed read. Speed is counterproductive if I can't understand you.

Avoid overusing debate jargon. I do not have the skills to judge on the finer points of technical contention.

If there is an email chain, add me: TheHussainBunch@gmail.com

Hello my name is Irene Hwang. I’m a sophomore at UPenn and I did LD debate for 2.5 years in high school. During that time I strictly competed in JV and didn’t really explore Theory or critical arguments so keep in mind I might not fully understand.

Furthermore, this is pretty basic but don’t be racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. If you’re doing a sexual abuse argument make sure to put a trigger warning.

Also- PLEASE weigh in the final speeches. NO new arguments in the last speeches.

I’m pretty good with speed so it’s fine if you speak fast (not like spreading level though).

For the topic- assume I don’t know anything and put in extra emphasis on explanation.

Hello. I am a lay/parent judge new to debate, so please do not spread. I have a basic understanding of the topic, but would appreciate your speaking clearly and logically so I can follow your flow. I appreciate a well thought out argument with substance and style. Weighing is crucial in the round, I want to hear clear, decisive points. Finally, I expect you to be respectful and courteous to your opponents. Thank you.

Please do your best to come to round preflowed

1. I don't call for cards unless you tell me to

2. Make sure whatever is said in your final focus was stated in summary if you want me to evaluate it

3. Extend arguments (I do flow across if warranted). If they drop points, don't waste time on the extensions but still explain the warrants briefly.
4. Speed: I'll probably be fine with speed (I judged LD and PF) but I will ask you to slow down if necessary (speaker points are subjective and I do not weight them heavily)

5. I do listen during crossfire but don't flow at all so if you want me to note anything said, make sure to bring it up in a speech

6. Please do your best to weigh in summary and final focus in terms of probability, scope, magnitude, etc.

7. Not a big fan of running K's in PF because I don't think people run them efficiently

Feel free to ask me any more questions in round.

Parent judge-

yo

I'm a senior @ stanford double majoring in international relations + anthropology and i did policy in high school

2020 NOTE: I don't know much about this years' resolution-- explain topic-specific acronyms if you use any!

email: edasulj@stanford.edu

POLICY:

tl;dr- i'll listen to literally anything! i love unique arguments but even more importantly i love clash.

kaffs- i love them. i came from the smallest school possible (no coaches, no other policy team) so i find them extremely helpful with specific research focus for small teams/schools. i love them when they are unique and tailored to each individual debater. i think that the best k affs are ones that i can feel the emotion and power in every word you choose to say/sing/rap/dance/draw/perform.

ks- i think ks are extremely productive in debate; prob read some lit on what you are planning on reading. specific links are super awesome and engaging. but if u do k debate pls don't read off your computer the entire time it's sad. i read a lot of postmodern theory (both in hs, but also now in school as a college student), but this may help/hurt you. bad k debates are worse than bad policy debates, so make sure you know what you're talking about. empirical examples for k debates are persuasive. many judges don't feel compelled to vote for postmodern ks because it is hard to tie them to something tangible in the status quo. there are examples-- refer to art, movements, historical events...etc.

framework- framework can be extremely productive, tailor your framework arguments specific to the aff. tva's are good arguments-- make them

das- a really good da debate is exciting to watch. i love it when teams destroy case and do really good anaylsis on the da. pls don't make your 2nc extension of the da just reading more cards, like take the warrants of your 1nc and exacerbate them in the block. good da debates are great.

cps- i mean i'm down for listening to the most abusive cps you have. i think really specific ones are killer. i don't really care about theory unless someone calls you out on it. if you read a delay cp or a plan plus like tell me why that plus/net ben is so important. otherwise i'll vote on like perm: do CP

t- if you can't list a topical caselist with your interpretation why read t. read t when there is an obvious advantage the aff is getting away with. i don't really have a favorite between reasonability vs. competiting interps. like tell me which one to prefer and i'll do whatever.

theory- tbh theory debates are boring i'd still vote on them if i have to

case- case is so underrated especially in kaff debates. if you can destroy case on the kaff i'll be happy to vote on neg presumption or some case turn. if you go destroy case i'll reward you.

truth over tech- i lean more for tech over truth. but i am persuaded by ethos.

do u love the jesus cp?- sure, read whatever weird args you have. if you commit to them i'll give them credit in the round. EDIT: ok but also I strongly dislike the 30-speaks argument!!!!!!!!!!

prep/cross-x- tag team is cool and flashing doesn't count as prep

extras:

debate is an activity that i love and that i invested a lot of time in. please look like you're having fun, at least.

i guess i am a point fairy. debaters work really hard and i think that getting average speaker points like 28.3 is just not exciting nor rewarding. if life is meaningless and debate fills a meaningless void in our lives ill try to give y'all some temporary happiness with higher speaker points.

LD:

pretty much the same as policy; i don't really vibe with debates that are only about the rules of debate

PUBLIC FORUM:

tldr; debate is a game, so use whatever strategies you want. don't care about your speed, but do care if you're using speed as an excuse to not make real arguments. warrant all your arguments! I don't judge PF too often, so assume that I do not know anything about your resolution. Explain acronyms if you use them. HAVE FUN :-)!!

I debated in public forum for 3 years in high school. I will be judging based on arguments that are carried through to summary and final focus. I am not a fan of new arguments in summary/final focus. Looking forward to some good rounds!

I am a parent of a high school debater and I have been judging PF at the National and Regional levels for the last five years.

I love the guidance "To what degree will an argument improve the world as holistically as possible given the resolution––humans, environments, economies, etc.?" Using numbers, and sizes of numbers, to make these cases is critically important to my decision-making processes.

I love ethically-collected, fact-based contentions from reputable sources, such as from the gray circle at the top of this curve: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Think tanks on both ends of the spectrum, particularly those funded by right-wing/Koch money can get a bit sketchy in this context.

And above all else, I expect measured cadence during statements (if I can't understand you, it does you no good!), and a spirit of graciousness during crosses. Points will be taken away for the above misses (particularly if I can't understand what you are saying) as well as any demeaning, sarcastic, or derogatory comments, facial expressions, tone, or evidence. I dislike using debate tribal language in excess and particularly in lieu of content. The "frothing at the mouth preacher style" does not work well with me; I merely ask you to be authentic. Your content should convey the weight of your arguments, not your actions. You will be docked speaking notes for discussions, nodding, or other facial/body expressions while the other team is presenting.

I also delight when humor can be interjected. And smiles are always appreciated.

I will happily share my thought process with teams once the ballots have been entered, while respecting the rules of the specific debate.

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

Email is zkaufmann24@gmail.com if you have any questions or want to be pen pals. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to make a round better for you!

Some general notes:

* Make strategic decisions!

* Please, for the love of all that is holy, put a warrant in everything you say. If your argument lacks a warrant, it's not an argument. I don't feel comfortable voting on things which I would be unable to explain to the opposing team as part of an RFD. Good logic > decontextualized quantitative evidence.

* Please, please weigh. Make fewer arguments and weigh them more. Please explain explicitly how your arguments interact and do weighing that is good, nuanced, and makes sense within the context of the round. Quality > quantity.

* Rebuttal should answer turns on case and include weighing; generally I think that you should respond to offensive arguments in the next speech, case obviously excepted. You need to extend defense in every speech, conditional on your opponents' having answered it.

* If you want me to vote on something, it needs to be cleanly extended in both summary and final focus (i.e. link, warrant, impact, even for dropped arguments). Extend turns in first summary if you’re gonna hinge your whole round strat on it, basically. If I don’t know what I’m voting for, I’ll be sad and your speaks will suffer.

* Debating the way you want to debate and having fun is great, because otherwise there’s no reason for any of us to be here.

* I appreciate non-util framing and making arguments that you actually care about.

* If you feel comfortable, add your pronouns on tab.

Things I am Fine With:

* I am okay-ish with speed. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you, but if you want me to flow important analysis or author names you should slow down.

* I'm fine with theory which checks back for actual abuse and which is articulated more like a traditional PF argument (i.e. paragraph form, which I find much easier to evaluate. If you start spreading, I will have no idea what is going on). I don’t know a ton about theory/Ks/etc, so if you want to do this explain it clearly and a little slower than usual and you should be fine.

In the words of Harry Bagenstos: "I think it is probably possible to debate nontraditional PF arguments such that even an opponent who has no prior familiarity with the style can understand and make technically valid responses to them, and I think you should try to do that rather than presuming the existence of highly-developed theoretical principles imported from other events." In general, just debate how you want to debate, but make a good-faith effort to include your opponents.

Specific Things Which I Dislike:

* Bad evidence ethics. Good logic beats bad evidence. If you want me to call evidence, tell me.

* Card dumping with no warrants. Also, extensions with no warrants. Basically anything without warranting. If you don't warrant something, "this isn't warranted" is an acceptable response.

* Exclusion generally. Debate fails if it’s not accessible to everyone. If you’re spreading to make sure your opponents can't flow or reading arguments that exclude the other debaters in the round, I will not be happy. This also means that I am open to progressive arguments if they check back for this.

* Debaters not treating other debaters like real human beings. Joking around and being snarky is great, but anything blatantly offensive/ mean/ dismissive will get your speaks tanked and you possibly dropped. I debated as a female second speaker with a male partner and I encourage everyone—especially male debaters and those on all-male teams—to consider how "perceptual dominance" or humor can come across as demeaning.

* Co opting issues for a strategy. Care about the issue and make the debate productive for everyone. Consider content warnings and flexing contentions if someone objects--sensitive topics don't exist in a vacuum and can affect the people around you, so be conscious and you should be fine. IF YOU DO NOT READ A CONTENT WARNING ON A SENSITIVE ARGUMENT AND YOUR OPPONENTS OBJECT IN ANY WAY, I WILL DROP YOU. IF ARE RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST, ABLEIST, ETC, I WILL DROP YOU. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPASSION FOR OTHER PEOPLE. If you don't know how to run a content warning, you can ask me before the round starts.

Things I Do Not Care About:

* What you’re wearing, how you're sitting, etc... Debate is stressful and you should be comfy.

My Background:

- Am a practicing lawyer with 33 years of litigation experience

- That said, am a parent judge who started judging when our younger son began debating as a freshman in high school

- Have judged Public Forum and Speech many, many times for the past 6 years

- Have judged Lincoln Douglas a few times over the years

What I expect from debaters:

- Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot stress this enough. If you speak too quickly and I can't follow you, you will not be helping your team.

- Persuade me with arguments that are supported by evidence. Evidence should be presented with full citations and explained clearly. Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive.

- Tell me why I should vote for your side by explaining with particularity why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't. Focus me on the important issues in your favor.

- Be respectful of everyone who is participating in your debate - your opponents, your partner, the judge. Consider your tone, your conduct, and your words.

- Do not assume that I understand acronyms or phrases that are peculiar to the topic but not necessarily in common use in the English language. Take the time to define them.

MICHAEL KEANE PARADIGM

Background:

- A litigator in trial and appellate courts in New York since 1988, I have also taught legal writing and argumentation, and designed and judged moot court competitions.

- I have judged Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Policy Debate (and Speech) since 2014 in New York City, New York State, out-of-State Invitational and National Tournaments.

Debaters:

1. Speak clearly: debaters cannot be credited points for arguments that are not clear.

- To enhance clarity, avoid talking so fast that you cannot be understood, and thus present an incomprehensible argument that fails to score points for your team.

- To enhance clarity, avoid jargon that judges may not understand and that you may misapply, and thus present a confused argument that fails to score points for your team.

- To enhance clarity, avoid "spreading," which usually sacrifices quality for quantity, and thus present a disjointed argument that fails to score points for your team.

2. Provide support for arguments: try to provide identifiable authority for assertions made, with citation to both author and publication (and show appreciation for the relative reliability of different sources).

3. Demonstrate that you have listened to the arguments of you opponents by responding to and pointing out the flaws in those arguments, in addition to promoting your own arguments.

4. Show respect for your opponents and teammates.

5. Have fun.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and I coached for 2 years. That being said, I'm now 4 years out from high school so my flowing isn't quite as fast as it used to be. Do with that information what you will.

Otherwise my paradigm is pretty simple:

The most important thing is that I will always choose the easiest/cleanest path to the ballot. 

Terminal defense does NOT have to be in first summary.

I like weighing. Judging is super hard when I have a bunch of arguments on both sides with no way to analyze them and if I'm feeling rushed I might analyze them wrong on my own. So do it for me.

Don't trust my facial expressions. You can say the best argument I've ever heard and I'll still look bored.

Don't be rude in round. I know the difference between aggressive and mean, and I'm not afraid to dock points if I see the latter.

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

I used to have something on here saying "strike me if you're gonna run theory", however; it would seem that they have become so pervasive in debate that everyone would have to strike me. So now I will just say: I barely understand how progressive arguments work, I have no understanding of the rules behind them, and I really really REALLY prefer arguments that stick to the topic. So like I said at the beginning, do with that information what you will. 

I am a parent judge.

I debated in PF at Nova High School for four years. I go with the flow. Please do not spread. I will only vote on impacts that are well warranted. Please weigh. Please collapse. Please.

Preflow before the tech check.

Judging philosophy specifics:

I am not familiar with theory so please do not read it unless an egregious violation has occurred in the round.

Frontlining is not an extension. It simply grants you the ability to cleanly extend. Make sure you go back and actually extend your arguments after frontlining.

2nd Rebuttal: Should respond to turns presented in 1st rebuttal.

1st Summary: Doesn't need to extend terminal defense that hasn't been responded to.

Final Focuses: Any offense gone for in FF must have been in summary.

Crossfires: I do not listen to them. If a concession is made, it must be brought up in a speech for me to consider it as something to vote on.

Have fun and be civil :). You can win the round while being nice. Rude debaters will have their speaker points dropped and offensive debaters will have that and lose the round.

If you have additional question feel free to ask me.

Hi everyone! I am a public forum judge and have judged tournaments for the past year.

I'm a lay judge. Please don't spread because it will most likely turn out that I won't be able to understand you. If you speak quickly and I can't understand it, then I won't be able to use any of the information you're giving me.

Please extend through rebuttal, summary, and final, and most importantly, weigh.

In regard to cross, I like to see time being used productively. I don't like to see a lot of arguing back-and-forth about small details, especially if it is taking up a lot of time. Please be respectful of each other. Your speaks will be lowered if I see a condescending or disrespectful attitude towards your opponent.

Good luck and have fun!

Berkeley elims update: elim rounds are open to the public, if you try to ask people to not watch the round I will be incredibly displeased.

About Me

Kyle (he/they), did circuit PF (and some policy and extemp on the state level) and coached for Fairmont. Studied math education at Cal, and didn't debate in college. Please use my first name and don't call me "judge", I promise I'm not much older than you.

I've judged rather infrequently over the past three years - I still keep a very good flow by PF standards (can still get cites for every card), but keep in mind my rust and don't speak too quickly. I can deal with cards being spread IF you are slow on tags and cites AND your cards are long enough that you're not spreading 12 words and going back to slow. I won't flow off a speech doc.

Email me at kylek@berkeley.edu if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

You can make warrants in round about why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

General

Tabula rasa is a myth; the best a judge can do is explain the ways in which they are not tab before the round. So read this.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above. You can (and maybe should) warrant to me why I should be truth > tech on theory or structural violence arguments.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing and turns are obviously fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you only read one section from this paradigm, make it this one: if you are the second speaking team, you need to respond to everything from the first rebuttal related to the arguments that you intend to go for in summary and final focus. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact. Anything said in the first rebuttal that isn't addressed in the second is considered dropped.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts. I need a full link chain extended to grant you offense on an argument.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? Don't just use buzzwords. And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose and I'll vote for disclosure theory. I'm ambivalent on specific disclosure interps (ex: round reports), but please understand the inherent differences between PF and policy before you read these arguments. I don't have any predisposed leanings on paraphrasing, but misconstruction of evidence is academic dishonesty and will be treated as such. Even if you paraphrase you should have all your cut cards in one document and evidence exchanges should take less than a minute.

On RVIs: you shouldn't win just for following the rules, but you should also be able to argue that theory trades off with topic education and therefore is a voter. I've been told some folks disagree on whether that means I default yes or no RVIs, but that is my baseline stance. Again, I will not hack for/against any of these arguments, but I want to list my general dispositions here for full transparency's sake. Ask me before round if you have any questions.

I will vote for your K or policy argument with non-utilitarian kritikal framing. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate (i.e. have a good ROTB argument). I generally believe K's should have some link to the topic.

Things I would be a very good judge for: LARP vs. LARP, disclosure, K vs. FW, LARP with K framing

Things I would be a pretty good judge for: LARP vs. K, other theory, K vs. K

Things I would be a very bad judge for: non-topical K, frivolous theory, tricks (really any argument that doesn't have a claim, warrant, and impact at bare minimum)

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

Hi! My name is Kate. I'm a former debater myself; I competed extensively on the NJ and national circuits in Congressional debate from 2012-2016. When I was on the circuit I championed a number of tournaments including Yale, the TOC, NJ states, the NYC invitational, GMU Patriot Games, and more. I also gained some experience in Extemp and PF, but my main focus competitively was definitively in Congress, so I come from a background where speaking style and argumentation are both important (although, depending upon the event, this will not always impact the way that I judge.)

Regardless of the event that I'm judging, I really prioritize good, clean competition. It is extremely important to me that competitors display respect for their opponents at all times. This means using legitimate evidence, refraining from laughing or eye-rolling, listening to and engaging with your opponents' arguments, and carrying yourself with dignity. Be respectful, and be kind!!!!

PF paradigm

-My goal in judging a PF round is to intervene as little as possible in order to let you speak uninterrupted. I will involve myself only if a rule is obviously broken or if a piece of evidence seems so obviously out of line that I feel it warrants card-calling, and other than that, I will be flowing the round and focusing on your argumentation.

-Frameworks are important. Don't skip them!

-Evidence matters. Make evidence challenges if something seems off, and perform evidence comparisons whenever and wherever they are relevant.

-Throughout the round, clash is good and weighing is your friend. Remind me of why your arguments have been the most important ones raised, and specifically outline why they should win you the debate.

-Use the summary to respond to your opponent's rebuttal, but remember to focus on the strengths of your own arguments as well. Bring your strongest arguments back into play here, and make sure that you prove why they are stronger or more relevant than whatever your opponent has brought to the table.

-In the final focus, it is incredibly important to crystallize. Crystallization provides an opportunity to remind us of what's happened in the round, weigh your arguments against your opponent's, and clearly illustrate why yours come out on top.

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun, and best of luck!

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

paradigm!

i did pf in high school

- signpost and warrant and weigh

- mirror summary and ff

- frontline offense in second rebuttal

- dont read theory or k's or that kinda stuff cause idk what it is

- dont be sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.

- julia wu’s paradigm is good too

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

music!

- my spotify

- top five: frank ocean, tyler, the creator, travis scott, brockhampton, and kanye west

- others: playboi carti, a$ap rocky, rex orange county, aries, sza, lana del rey, steve lacy, earl sweatshirt, childish gambino, young nudy, lucki, jaden, vince staples, daniel caesar, kali uchis, dominic fike, weston estate, and ceddy bu [r.i.p.]

- p.s. if you can get lana and rocky married, 30's + win

I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep (2015-2018) and I'm a senior at uchicago. Email chain: sophialam@polyprep.org

- here's how i make my decision: i look at who wins the weighing/framework. I evaluate that argument. If you win the weighing/framework and the offense with a terminalized impact, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna go with scope or the argument with the least ink.

- I don't like frivolous theory. If you read it you better go for it. Ks are cool, but I reserve the right to intervene if I feel like you're running it in a problematic/game-y way.

- I like warrants. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.

- speed is fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech

- I don't time, if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing but give them at least 5 seconds. Don't hold up your timer .5 seconds after the speech time is over

- i default neg if there's no offense

Eric Lanning

I've been involved in policy debate for 15+ years as a debater and coach on the national circuit, including at the highest levels at the Tournament of Champions and National Debate Tournament.

I do my best to evaluate arguments based off what's said in the debate, but like anyone else I bring some preconceived notions about the activity and world that create "default" positions. I'll do my best to detail these below. I am very expressive and communicative and often provide "instant" feedback in the form of non-verbal expressions.

In general you should feel free to make whatever arguments you'd like! Debate is for the debaters and I will do my best to adapt to you.

I think the best debates are between two well researched opponents, and that predictable limits on the topic are important for in depth debate. I don't think that means the affirmative must necessarily defend "implementation by the federal government". I often find framework debates stale and difficult to resolve.

I am often quite skeptical of negative strategies that focus on multiple conditional counterplans or process counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive . I wish more affirmatives would object to the proliferation of 2-3 conditional advocacies and strongly believe that "rejecting the team, not the argument" is the appropriate remedy.

Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate.

While I will often ask to see a card document - I tend to default to the explanation/spin of debaters in the round. IE its very important for you to explain and compare evidence!

I am interested in the thoughtful exchange of ideas. Students should be prepared to engage issues in a calm, focused manner without emphasis on the technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

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

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

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

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

meow

I debated PF at Stuyvesant High School for 4 years.

Update for Harvard Tournament: i am old now. please do not speak fast because i truly will not be able to follow it. please disregard everything below. a slow, logical, and captivating speech delivery will surely convince me.

Speech-docs & questions about the decision should be emailed to: jeremylee@college.harvard.edu.

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning. Give a phone number for participants to anonymously report any concerns, and if there are any, you must have an alternative case ready to read.

TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge. I will evaluate rounds with a technical standard, but I dislike fast, blippy "tech" debate. As tech as I try to be, your persuasive ability will inevitably skew me one way or another, so please don't throw away presentational skills for the sake of spewing jargon. Every argument needs a clearly-explained warrant for me to consider it. I will vote for the team with the least mitigated link to the greatest impact.

Technicalities

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. Use it for your own benefit to clarify arguments.

- First summary doesn't need defense.

- I care little about numbers and number comparisons in weighing. Most of the time, impact quantifications in PF are over exaggerated because impacts that happen on margins are extremely difficult if not impossible to quantify.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't, I won't know whether to evaluate your response or your opponents' case first. This means I can still vote for a team with a dropped turn on their flow.)

- Compare your weighing to your opponents. If this is not done, know that I weigh primarily on the link level because I think it is the key factor in determining the marginality of your impact (or if it happens at all). If you don’t want an unexpected decision, do the weighing yourself. Side-note: Link ins don’t count as weighing unless you show that your link is stronger than theirs.

- It is my belief that weighing fundamentally comes down to two things: how large your impact is and how probable your impact is. I take both things into account so if you weigh on probability and your opponent weighs on magnitude (and you both don't interact with each other's weighing), I will intervene to determine which argument is more important.

- I won't vote off of dropped defense if it is not extended

- Paragraph theory is good with me and is probably more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.]

- No CPs or Ks.

- Weighing in first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- No offensive OVs in second rebuttal. I just won't vote on it

- Tech>truth most times, but the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. You need to always link the argument back to the resolution and draw it out to an impact. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a clear extension because it is essential for transparent collapsing.

- Please don't use the abusive strategy of kicking out of all of your opponent's responses to your case just to read a new link to your impact. If your opponents do this, call them out for it in speech.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round.

Etiquette (how to get high speaks)

- Don't spread. I flow on my computer, so I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is bad for the activity. It excludes so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making faces while your opponent is speaking, speaking over your opponent in cross, and making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Evidence

- Please don't call for every piece of evidence your opponents read. I understand if you think the card is super important to win the round, but in 99% of rounds, I do not even consider evidence in my decision. I instead look at logic and argument quality, so call for evidence sparingly.

- I think evidence is overrated and warrants matter much more. This means you need to attach warrants to evidence and also should discourage the misconstruction of evidence. Your insane card won't win you the round. Read your evidence ethically and then explain its role in the round.

(Guide) Warranted analytics + evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > assertions.

- At the minimum, last name and year

- I am fairly lenient with paraphrased cards because I understand that when all evidence is taken word for word from the source, word economy suffers and many debaters resort to speaking faster. However, this is on the condition that evidence is NOT misconstrued. If you are to paraphrase evidence, make sure to fully understand the source and maintain the source's intention; do NOT paraphrase evidence for the sake of getting it to say what you want it to say.

- I will only call for evidence if you tell me during a speech or if I find it relevant to my decision at the end of the round.

- To discourage cheating, if you blatantly misrepresent evidence, I will drop the entire arg/contention.

Misc.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

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

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Feel free to ask questions about the decision after the round. I won't feel offended if you disagree with my decision, and I am happy to discuss it after the round.

If you have any other questions, ask before the round.

I debated four years of public forum debate in high school for The Altamont School and now do APDA at Brown U.

I consider myself to be a really normal judge and don't have any really interesting demands, but here are some things that can help guide how you take on the round!

1) PRE-FLOW: please preflow before round! I will not let yall do it in the room if the round should have started already.

2) EXPLANATION: contextualize cards; explain why they are important and how they support your point/ interact with your opponents case. not doing this makes it really difficult as a judge to understand how you want the round to play out and usually leads to forced intervention

3) 2ND SPEAKING TEAM: you gotta cover turns in 2nd rebuttal. if you don't cover turns then it is offense for the first speaking team.

4) 1ST SPEAKING TEAM: you can extend defense from first rebuttal to final focus but pls try to have some in first summary. I expect at least some defense in 1st summary, especially since there are 3 minutes for the summary now.

5) WEIGHING: even if something is "clean-dropped" you still need to weigh it. I will have a hard time voting on any argument (no matter how cleanly extended) if I am not sure why it's important.

6) ARGUMENTS

A)if you are making an argument about harms to countries that are viewed as "developing" by a western hierarchical perspective, or discussing in your case or in weighing, please be respectful and don't make your own uncarded analysis about the struggles these countries have. I would also prefer not to hear weighing analyses about these countries that mention anything about "these countries have so little" etc.

B) if you are running an implementation/process of getting the bill to the public argument, do so at your own risk. I generally do not find these arguments persuasive or topical, and chances are that if your opponent says I should not evaluate those kind of arguments in a debate round I will drop it from my flow. An example of this is "the united states should not pass ____ because it would be torn up in the courts/loaded with riders."

C) if you are running an econ argument, please be sure to explain it really well in extensions in ff and summary. in my experience, econ rounds are the most difficult to judge because of clarity problems in link extensions and warranting, so make sure you spend time explaining it!

7) EXTENSIONS: don't extend through ink. interact with the argument you are responding to and dont just say "my opponents dropped ___" when they really did not. Frequent issues with extensions through ink lead to lower speaker points and a worse round :(

8) EVIDENCE: I will call for cards you tell me to call for if they are highly important to the debate round. I will also call for any card that seems too good to be true. Evidence ethics is very important and I will intervene if I catch faulty evidence

1. I'm a lay judge.
2. Don't be offensive. If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.
3. Signpost & be clear.
4. No spreading - If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25 speaks. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will get a 25 as well. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.
5. LD - set up email chain before the round and I’ll add .5 to your speaks
Remember - Speech & Debate is about having fun! If you’re the only person in the room having fun, then you just lost a round.
Good luck!

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

Speaking:

- Please speak clearly and at an understandable pace.

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

Content:

- Be clear about what argument you are talking about.

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

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

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

- Impact - please don't exaggerate :)

Good luck and have fun!

I'm writing this paradigm for my dad

He's a parent judge but has judges multiple times before and I have ranted to him about rounds before so he knows some things.

Don't go too fast. Your speed doesn't matter as much as quality, quality > quantity.

Be respectful of your opponents, don't be too loud and don't insult anyone. No racism/sexism/homophobia/etc

Your arguments don't matter, no preconceptions in this round, you can read anything you want with a warrant. Explain more complicated arguments slowly and make it make sense, because my dad won't have any biases.

He sort of flows, but it's more of a note talking, so don't focus too much on the line by line.

Just treat him like a lay in terms of speed and jargon and explanation, but you can run whatever non-discriminative arguments with him that you want to(including things like spark, I confirmed this myself, you just really need to warrant it out and always articulate reasons clearly). Don't forget to weight, slowly and clearly, like you would on a normal lay.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for three years. I find the topics interesting and love hearing the rounds, but I never debated myself. I value logical arguments, but I find it hard to vote off of far fetched arguments that have long link chains. I flow but if you talk too fast I won't be able to follow. I'd appreciate it if you didn't use too much jargon. And most of all, be sure to have fun!

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

Other very important things to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other very important things to note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge with four years of experience in judging Public Forum. Never competed Public Forum or any other Forensic activities, but as a parent judge I always read some review articles about the topics, therefore I do have some background knowledge in things that you are talking about and enjoy watching the debate.

I prefer clear and not too fast speech, so I can catch up the words and meaning of your talk.

I use following criteria when I judge a round:

Were the arguments intelligent? Your response to the arguments

The discrediting to the opposition’s response

The debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed

Fair in interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?

Who is advancing the most significant arguments in the round?

I don’t weight much on the speed of speech, believe less words with sound arguments are much better than too much words which have to be delivered with fast speech.

Don’t have preference on the format of Summary Speeches, and evaluate argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, their arguments have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches. If a team is second speaking, I prefer that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech.

Don’t vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus.

I did PF for four years, now I’m a coach for Walt Whitman and a college debater.

If you’re comfortable, please put your pronouns in your tab account.

I'm a pretty standard tech judge, however I care infinitely more about good logical warranting than cards.

I can deal with any speed, but if you're going fast please signpost clearly.

I don't require all defense to be extended in first summary, however if it's frontlined you should respond if you want to extend it.

If you have any questions about my feedback or decision, feel free to ask. Be respectful tho.

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, be confident, and explain your arguments well. I take notes throughout the round, but I will most likely not catch everything so collapse and tell me why you are winning in your final 2 speeches. It is also difficult for me to follow along during your speeches, so it would really help me if you sent me a speech document in the email chain. My email is mahatme.mayuresh@gmail.com.

Most importantly, have fun!!

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

PF

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

I have been a parent judge for the past 3 years. I prefer quality contentions vs quantity. Good content is very important to me as it shows the participants are prepared. Please try to speak clearly so I can judge effectively.

Hi, I did Public Forum debate for four years at Lake Mary Prep in Orlando, Florida.

Some things I like:

Warrants and lines of logic over evidence that is unwarranted

Weighing, the earlier the better

Front-lining in Second Rebuttal. You don't have to do this but I think it is a good idea

Narratives

Collapsing ***** 3 min summary does not mean go for more, just COLLAPSE BETTER *****

My coach always used to say "50% fewer arguments and 100% more analysis"

Some things I don't like:

Miscut Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing but please make sure its an accurate representation of the evidence (I reserve the right to drop you if it is seriously misrepresented)

Blippy Arguments that are not weighed, warranted, or implicated

Spreading

Theory / Ks unless there is a serious issue or abuse in the topic or the round. I am also really bad at understanding these, so you should probably strike me if this is your thing.

Any bigoted argument I will immediately drop you no questions asked.

To Summarize, In the poetic words of Ozan Ergrunor:

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

I am a parent judge and have been actively judging since 2019 in multiple national tournaments. I have completed the NSDA judge training and Cultural Competency course. As a global business professional, I travel extensively and am fairly familiar with most topics debated in NSDA PF.

Speak at a reasonable pace – clarity is your responsibility. If you make an argument, you should explain and weigh the argument. Warranting is important. Clearly signpost throughout the round. Extending an impact, without explaining its warrant won’t win you the impact. Paraphrasing is fine – but needs to be accurate. Explain clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win.

Cards: Exchange of cards is mandatory when requested. If you cannot produce a card in 2 minutes, I will ignore it.

Timing: Time yourself (rounds and prep)

Audience: This is public forum – public (especially parents) are welcome.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to a non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas is essential to debate.

Debaters should display logic and reasoning, advocate a position, use evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

Neither the pro team nor the con team should offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

LD judge:

On Speed, your welcome to spread your evidence however, I would prefer you slow the rate of speed for the actual articulation of your argument.

-A participant can likely sway me to their persuasion with strong empirical evidence. While more recent generally is stronger, but depending upon the topic, some evidence/data can be older if tied to a relevant argument.

I prefer qualitative supporting contentions that link to your philosophical framework. I prefer traditional LD.

-I prefer debate rounds that are on the actual resolution...you may note when you feel the opponent is abusive and will be considered...but if your entire argument shifts to become non-topical (aka theory or kritiks)...it will be tough for you to win the round.

PF Judge:

All of the above applies.

My favorite type of PF round is when the competitors argue the pros and cons of the policy proposal imbedded in the resolution.

You can reach on your impacts, but the more practical go further with me in most cases.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

I’m an attorney and mother of two high school students, one of whom competes. I have judged LD but new to PF. I will give the win to the team who can convince me of their arguments by being superior in their advocating a position by persuasion. I will penalize condescension and intimidation tactics. To win my vote, your team must meet its burden to convince me of the desirability or undesirability of the topic. After the round, I will give oral feedback upon request of either team but will not disclose which team wins. Using your time wisely and articulating your arguments clearly will be helpful to me in making my decision.

i debated at Cinco Ranch in PF -- i'm now at Duke (gthc)

i am generally a standard flow judge; i expect extensions, weighing, signposting, and i'll notice if you do something super abusive

1. when it comes to speed, i'm not a huge fan, especially in the back half of the round (please collapse) but i can keep up with a pretty brisk rebuttal, etc.

2. i never personally used progressive args / theory, but i don't hate them. if you plan on using them to pick up ballots, then you should strike, but i will pay attention to shells

3. second rebuttal needs to frontline

4. don't be cocky or rude in cross, and if you're blatantly sexist i will down you

5. i will never call for evidence unless someone on the other side explicitly tells me to in FF (it needs to be because it's been misconstrued, not 'worse'). don't ask me to look at your own pls

6. i am not very ham on extending impacts-- it will help you if you do it, but i won't down someone because they didn't extend the precise # of lives lost to genocide (e.g.)

8. weighing is always your friend, but i think your time is better spent engaging with the arguments directly instead of meta-weighing if it comes to that

9. i will presume first speaker, not neg

10. if you treat anyone in a racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/ableist way, or you run similar arguments, i will down you and cut your speaks

Background: I'm a senior in college and I attended McDowell in Erie, PA. I did a lot of events but some of them were extemp, info, DI, OO, and BQ.

Pf:

What I want to see: I am a math & cs major. I like quantitative arguments that can have impacts. I have been out of the speech and debate world for a little bit so please give some background to the topic but you can mainly go right into the args. Weigh impacts + tell me how i should judge the round. I am also good at understanding speed but don't spread cause it's pf. Also if you think it's a good theory argument then i guess use it but its also pf. I will flow the round and probably judge based on that.

Please be nice :)I will not tolerate hate or intolerance of any type. I will tank speaks if you are mean.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before or after the round, but if you try to argue with me after round I won't like that and probably give you poor speaks :)

Here's my email for the doc chain evelyn.moore2002@gmail.com

Assume I know nothing.

Make it believable and accurate.

Be respectful.

Don't tell me what to think, present evidence and clear and concise explanations to weigh in my final decision.

I am here to listen to your points and only to your points. Do not rush/speed read please.

I would like to hear your arguments clearly and in a calm voice. I love to hear calm, good quality arguments, not high pitched arguments.

Please make sure to have your pieces of evidence/cards, I will request to see it - if I find it unconvincing or appears to be made up.

Hello Everyone,

I am a parent judge. Please include me on your email chain: cnakakura@earthlink.net

In the real world, the people you encounter do not give you a long list of how to interact with them, so I will not do this for you, as I am sure you are intelligent and know how to handle yourselves.

I have a Ph.D. in experimental physics, so evidence and logical reasoning are important to me.

Have fun!

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

2024 Note:::: I broke my wrist and im not 100% yet so i CANNOT type consistently for 4 minutes straight. GO SLOWER for me so i can get everything

I did 4 years of PF at Cypress Bay in Weston, Florida (2016-2020). I'm currently a senior at duke.

My paradigm is just random notes and bullets because I'm a pretty boring and receptive judge. Generally flow, emphasis on weighing, implicating, offense. I'll evaluate anything, just explain it. Feel free to ask me anything before the round.

-Extend offense pls, I wont do it for you

-Weigh like the W depends on it, because it does. Respond to your opps weighing if you're cool.

-Cross is for you, does not impact I evaluate a round (unless it comes up in speech ofc)

-Don't read responses you won't implicate/explain/understand, makes the whole debate better

-please don’t shake my hand. I'm sick rn

-3 min summary is cool and all but collapse

-Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

-Please have fun. Like actual fun and not like fun in pursuit of a W.

-I normally vote for the best singular piece of offense in the round. (collapse please)

-not paradigmatically/morally against them at all, but reading a K (or theory) in front of me is probably not the best idea unless you REALLY take the time to explain everything. I’m out of practice and never totally learned it all to begin with

• If you have any other questions feel free to email me matthewnorman2002@gmail.com or ask me before the round. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sepul.fabiola@gmail.com

At the end of the day, debate is up to the debaters. Do what you enjoy/are best at and I'll do my best to be receptive and evaluate it all fairly.

TLDR:

Wired: Collapse, weigh, signpost, tom brady slander, being nice, talking slow

Tired: being mean, friv theory, partial quads (i dont know what partial quads are), tom brady, being mean.

******If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill, I will not intervene. Only valid if both teams are definitely breaking or definitely not.

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

I have been involved with debate since 2008. I debated all 4 years of high school, judged in college, and am now an assistant coach. I appreciate true debate and don't like when debate gets caught up in "definition" wars. I flow everything and make my decision on which team was better able to defend their contentions. I don't appreciate speed, so don't try to spread.

No need for defense in first summary unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal. If a turn isn't frontlined in second rebuttal it cant be responded to later (you can weigh against it but no new responses). Any argument in final focus that wasn't in summary won’t matter on my ballot (unless its weighing).

debated for a fat bit in hs

i will flow

be nice

extend links and impacts

speed threshold ~200 wpm if more then send a doc

frontline in second rebuttal

read content warnings

please weigh - that includes links and impacts

Don't be racist, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or exclusive in any way please or we will not b having a good time and i will drop u

ask me for any specifics

also gabe rusk's paradigm is v good use that one

or kyle kishimoto's that one's also v good

Hi,

Update for St. Mary's. Do not spread. Do not read progressive arguments.

My name is Evan Ortiz, I debated for 4 years in Texas, and was ok. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida (Speech only tho because I live for extemp). Feel free to reach out to me if something in my paradigm confuses you.

Please add me to the email chain evanortiz64@gmail.com

Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safer or better experience for you. I love debate and I want to make sure rounds are a place that you can love, too.

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- I am not a super big fan of paraphrasing. I feel like this is a big ethical dilemma in PF and I am just not a fan, please just read cut cards.

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> you final focus should just write my ballot for me

- 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st in some sort of way... if not? Go off I guess the summary better do work then.

- Summary needs to extend defense - you have time now :(

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

Miscellaneous Nonsense

- Have fun!!! Debate after all is an activity first, competition second. Please have fun in the round.

- Be nice to each other. Sass is sometimes cool, but know your lane and stay in it.

- Run whatever you want, you do you!

*Regarding the notion from above. Honestly, do not read theory in front of me. The only interaction I have had with Theory in PF is larger schools reading disclosure theory on relatively small and or inexperienced schools. I don't want to see it. Regardless of my debate background with a small school, frivolous disclosure theory is not educational for the round nor fun for me to judge. If you choose to run theory, it better not be disclosure theory. If it is, and you are from a large school with the institutional knowledge to engage with theory and you choose to read it against a small school or inexperienced opponents, you will not like the outcome. It is mind-boggling to me that this is a norm and will not vote for it. If you want to read other theory, I would prefer it not to be in shell form - just give me the jist. I don't like voting off of theory technicalities, so make it at least accessible. (Paraphrase theory is meh but if you can prove a violation then sure why not)

Hello! I'm Cathrine (she/her) and I’m currently a student at the University of Florida. I thoroughly enjoyed debate in high school and was an active participant, competing in Congress and Public Forum throughout my four years. I’ve judged at multiple county-level tournaments in high school and I'm now a national-level judge.

Email: katieepacini@gmail.com

Conflicts: West Broward HS (Pembroke Pines, FL), Ransom Everglades (Miami, FL)

I'm mainly a PF judge and I have some experience judging LD (but none competing). Notable differences in my judging style between the two events are described below. Please read each carefully :)

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 anyone. Any form of disrespect will be noted on the ballot and your speaker points.

2. Please provide trigger warnings (TW)

3. I don’t like blatantly offensive arguments at all. I don’t want to hear them. No excuses.

4. If you show up extremely late to the round, it'll be shown in speaker points. I'd like to make the online platform as easy and smooth as possible. No one likes waiting to start the round.

Summary of my PUBLIC FORUM judging style

I was a traditional debater, so I prefer traditional-style debate.

No progressive debate (Ks, theory, etc.). However, I will consider topical arguments.

Don't assume an argument is "common knowledge", explain it and provide evidence for claims.

Crossfire: I take some notes during CX but I do not flow it. Simply put, if an interesting question is asked, I will record the response on my end. Ask efficient questions and maximize your time. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech. I dislike using this time for argument clarifications.

Summary: Focus on extending turns, warrants, and why you’ve won. Don't just reiterate, weigh at the end with clear points.

Final focus: Weigh impacts and why you've won, don’t try to revive arguments that weren't even touched/mentioned in the summary. If an argument wasn’t carried to summary, I won’t count it for your final focus. Once again, I like weighing at the end with clear points, these distinct points why you won are always good.

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 in rounds and no spreading. If I can't understand you, this will be reflected in speaker points and I may not flow something important.

Flex Prep: I do not allow flex prep, even if your opponent is mutually consensual of it. There is a time for CX for a reason.

Speaker Points: Speaker points decrease based upon professionalism in the round. Unused time, blatantly offensive things, or fluency will significantly affect your points. I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates. If the round is well debated, regardless of who wins, your speaker points will reflect. I won't give you under 27 unless you were offensive and/or put in no effort.

Cards: Do not take a long time to pull up a card or delay the debate. You should have cards pre-saved on your computer or have the link readily available. When you start reading your opponent's card, let me know so I can record prep time on my end ("starting prep now", "ending prep now"). Send all cards in the chat or start an email chain (include me in it, reference my email above).

Timing: It's not the judge's responsibility to manage your time, I will hold you accountable for this. If you recognize your opponent going overtime, politely call them out.

If there is a discrepancy during the round pertaining to a card OR if someone tells me to call for evidence, I will look at it at the end of the round. Please have the card ready and sent to me.

Summary of my LINCOLN-DOUGLAS judging style

Basically, anything goes as long as it makes sense and is argued in a proficient manner.

I accept progressive debate (Ks, theory, etc.) and any type of traditional-level arguments (topical). BUT any insensitive, incredulous arguments will NEVER be counted or considered. Furthermore, address and refute all arguments made by your opponent regardless of your debate style.

I don't have a "preferred" case style and, once again, anything goes that is not offensive.

Values and criterion are not required, but they do bolster your argument. If you are to establish one, explain it.

Don't assume an argument is "common knowledge", explain it and provide evidence for claims.

Crossfire: I take some notes during CX but I do not flow it. Simply put, if an interesting question is asked, I will record the response on my end. Ask efficient questions and maximize your time. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

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 in rounds but will not penalty you based on spreading (send your case to my email if you desire to spread please). If I can't understand you, this will be reflected in speaker points and I may not flow something important.

Flex Prep: I do not allow flex prep, even if your opponent is mutually consensual of it. There is a time for CX for a reason.

Speaker Points: Speaker points decrease based upon professionalism in the round. Unused time, blatantly offensive things, or fluency will significantly affect your points. I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates. If the round is well debated, regardless of who wins, your speaker points will reflect. I won't give you under 27 unless you were offensive and/or put in no effort.

Cards: Do not take a long time to pull up a card or delay the debate. You should have cards pre-saved on your computer or have the link readily available. When you start reading your opponent's card, let me know so I can record prep time on my end ("starting prep now", "ending prep now"). Send all cards in the chat or start an email chain (include me in it, reference my email above).

Timing: It's not the judge's responsibility to manage your time, I will hold you accountable for this. If you recognize your opponent going overtime, politely call them out.

If there is a discrepancy during the round pertaining to a card OR if someone tells me to call for evidence, I will look at it at the end of the round. Please have the card ready and sent to me.

Please ask any questions you may have via email or when I enter the round. Hope you have a great tournament!

Hey! My name is Sam Padmanabhan (he/him/his) and I've been in and out of the speech and debate scene in the Upper Midwest for the better part of the last decade. I've competed in and coached most PA and debate events (my main events were Oratory, Congress, IX/USX, and PF).

Email: samuelpadmanabhan@gmail.com

General Debate Things

- Evidence ethics is super important. Don't fabricate or misrepresent evidence

- Be respectful at all times. Any language or arguments that is/are hurtful or hateful (ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) will get you the 20 L or bottom rank. On this note, I don’t mind a little bit of snark but being disrespectful/rude is never okay.

- Be smart → don’t just repeat meaningless cards. I want to see smart analytics that show you understand what you’re saying (this goes for all debate formats)

- Have fun! Debate should be fun :)

Congress

- Top ranks will always go to the students who move the debate forward

- Speeches: quality over quantity

- Presentation is important but argumentation is more important

- Cite complete sources → Author, Publication, Month, Year. Also be cognizant of source quality. I want to see expert analysis, empirical data, etc.

- POs should make the round feel seamless. The ideal PO runs the chamber so well that I don't even know they're there. I will rank good POs very well.

- I need to see clash. People often mischaracterize Congress as a speech event; this is not true. Congress is debate so I need to see clash, refutation, clear interaction between arguments. Especially if you give a later cycle speech, make sure you’re engaging with what’s been said in the round (either by refuting it or crystallizing the issues). New arguments in the 4th or 5th cycle won’t help you. When doing refutation, the preferred style is line by line OR picking the major arguments and arguing at the warrant level.

*Simply offering competing evidence or analytics is not a refutation. Show me why I buy your argument MORE THAN the opposing side*

- Play the game. As a judge and former competitor, I’m observing how you conduct yourself at all times. Getting my top ranks can only happen if you engage in the chamber the entire session. Ask questions, give speeches, make motions. Show me you want to be there.

- Never ever break cycle in front of me. If you give the speech that breaks the cycle, it’s pretty much an automatic 9. I’m expecting preparedness and breaking cycle is a sign you aren’t prepared. Showing up to debate PF with only an Aff case prepared wouldn’t be acceptable so why should it be acceptable in Congress?

- ^That being said, if you save the chamber from breaking cycle, this will give you a major boost. My bar will lower (slightly but still lower) for impromptu speeches that keep the cycle intact

- Don’t waste questioning time by: asking softballs (especially in Varsity), asking only one question, yelling, making statements and not questions, etc.

- The easiest path to my ballot: speak often, play the game, be smart.

Since my program only competes in Congress at the moment, I likely won't be judging PF or LD. If I am judging you in one of these formats, read the below headings. That being said, I'm pretty tabula rasa so just debate how you debate and I will do my best to judge accordingly.

LD (never competed but I have a working knowledge of LD and I've judged it a bit so here are some of my preferences)

- I'm good with speed

- I enjoy a good theory debate but make sure to prove the violation and the interpretation (just spamming buzzwords is not enough here)

- I'm good with Ks as well but make sure the K links in with the argument being made (see above parentheses)

PF (familiar enough with MN and circuit style PF)

- Tech over truth. I'm more flow than lay but persuasiveness is still important

- Don't extend through the ink --> tell me why I prefer your analysis more than your opponent's

- I won't call for cards unless explicitly asked to in round or if there is a major controversy over evidence (avoid these problems by maintaining high evidence ethics)

- Speed is fine but if I can't understand you, it's not ending up on my flow

- Clear signposting is a must

- Give me clear voters and make sure you weigh

- Smart analytics + good evidence >>> just evidence

- Source citations: author + qualifications + publication + month + year (i.e. Dr. Daniel Byman of Georgetown University writing for the Brookings Institution in December 2017)

- The warrant level debate is key

- Notes on Progressive Argumentation: My thoughts on progressive argumentation have really changed over the years. I do see the importance for it in the debate space and thus, if progressive arguments (K's, Theory, CPs, etc.) are run, I will evaluate them. In PF, I don't enjoy seeing progressive args as much but I will still evaluate. That being said, please don't use progressive args purely as a tactical move. If I catch you doing this, it will result in the 20 L. In order to get me to properly evaluate progressive args, you need to prove the connection to the arguments being made (i.e. prove the link to the arg with Ks, the violation and the interps with theory, etc.) --> as long as they are clear/substantiated, I'm willing to listen and evaluate.

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

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!

TLDR: I'm a first year out who was a former LD/PF Debater. Treat me as a tech judge who doesn't like spreading, theory, bs, or nontopical arguments.

About Me:

Sophomore at Northwestern studying Econ, Business, and Art

Debated for Hawken School in Ohio (4 years LD, 1 year PF)

Top 4 in LD in Ohio, dabbled in nat circuit LD, prefers traditional style

Made it to bid round in VPF at Stanford and Yale with my LD co-captain Ally Sewell.

LD Judging Preferences:

Don't spread, fast conversational speed is fine

Don't run phil you don't understand or trivial/bs arguments that are barely topical

Don't shift your advocacy mid-round

CX is binding, I will listen to it

Do link all offense to your FW

Weigh enough so that I can make a decision. Just give me some common sense weighing.

You can be dominant in round, but don't be rude. I don't mind if you cut someone off once or twice, but doing it repeatedly to misconstrue your opponent's arguments is not okay. Debaters being rude/condescending/misogynistic/racist will result in lower speaks to say the least.

All evidence should be mentioned with either author name or publication name, in case or in rebuttal. I expected the evidence to be at least in card form, PDF of original source would be better.

No theory, no spikes in the AC, no T, no untopical Ks, just have a good substantive traditional round. You can run theory if you're opponent is abusive I suppose, but don't bank on it to win the round.

1AR is the hardest speech, so do that well, you'll get high speaks.

PF Judging Preferences:

Same as LD judging preferences whenever applicable. Additional Notes:

I don't like the whole "my partner will address it later" as a way to dodge questions

PF is PF, don't run anything other than a proper substantive case, I default to util framework but if u want to run something go for it, I think it's dumb to have any debate outside of a util framework for PF but whatever

If u run Ks, Ts, Theory, spread or anything that is not intended for a general public forum, I will drop your speaks to say the least.

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

Update 10/8/22:

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

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

Some notes/comments in no particular order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

I am a lay judge, and I have little experience judging PF. Make sure to explain your arguments clearly with supporting evidence. Be respectful to your opponents, and have fun!

1. Speak slowly and clearly. If you speak too fast I won't be able to understand what you are saying.

2. Speak in coherent sentences. Please avoid words such as "like" and "um."

3. Frame your arguments in a logical flow. Don't make scattered points and expect me to put them together.

4. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents. Being condescending or arrogant will not be viewed favorably.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

tinyurl.com/433bv36x

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

--

he/him

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

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

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

In general:

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

How I decide rounds/preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical arguments:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

I did 2 years of circuit debate pretty competitively.

I try to be flow, only two things kinda different about me:

1. Terminal defense exists to infinity. If you never frontline an argument your opponents defensive ink still exists on my flow. Them not extending responses is not an excuse. Extensions of terminal defense are never necessary, just appreciated. You will never win an argument if defense against it is dropped.

2. I care more about warrants than impacts. Weighing an impact is irrelevant at the point that you do not win the links into the impact. If there is clash at the warrant level make sure to weigh links and actually explain to me why your warrant should be preferred to that of your opponents.

I'll evaluate any claim backed up in evidence or logic, run crazy shit, it's fun

I have been a judge for 2 years. I have judged all events on the speech side at local tournaments and both nationals. I have judged PF at every local tournament for the last year. I want to hear concrete, logically connected arguments. Before you start your speech tell me which side of the flow you are starting on, stating clearly your contentions and sub-points. I have issues with spreading, if I cannot flow your arguments, you cannot win, simple as that. Please weigh at the end. I expect professionalism and good sportsmanship. Most important have fun and good luck!

I was a PF debater for 4 years. I also have some experience in Policy.

A few notes:

1. Weigh

Please weigh, it is how you win the round. If you make me weigh, then I have to add my own opinions on the validity of your arguments into the round. Please start weighing before your final focus. Impacting to lives saved is not an automatic trump card, you must tell me why saving lives is more important than your opponent's impacts. Magnitude is not the only way to weigh (no pun intended), so please try to use other methods (I think probability is a very underused weighing mechanism). I vote off of impacts and weighing, not warrants, so please make sure you are consistently flowing your impacts through and make sure you weigh, at the very least in your Final Focus.

2. Clarity

PF debating is meant to be judged by a layperson, please speak at a reasonable speed. While I will understand if you speak in PF speed, but not spreading, I may not have time to write it down and I am more likely to miss something. If it is important to your case, please emphasize it and make sure I know it is important. Please explain your entire case. My dad judged a national tournament with the UNCLOS topic and at the end of the tournament, I asked him what he thought UNCLOS was and he said, "something to do with the South China Sea." Don't assume I know that FDI means Foreign Direct Investment and don't assume that because you quickly defined the acronym once means I'll remember by the end of your case. If your argument is convoluted, please explain it. If your link chain is convoluted, I have no idea whether or not it is reasonable, so I cannot vote for it, so please make sure you clearly explain all your arguments and impacts.

3. Evidence

If your opponent asks for evidence, show them a PDF unless they specifically say they would rather see the card. Please have your evidence organized. While I am not setting a time limit on how long it takes to find your evidence, if you are taking a long time I will ask you to drop the card. If you believe your opponents have misconstrued their card, please bring it up in the round and then ask me to call for the card in Final Focus. Also, just because a card says something doesn't mean it's true, you must explain the warrant— a warranted analytic response is better than an unwarranted card. Note for online tournaments: Please add me to your email chains, but I will not be looking at any of the cards unless a team asks me to until after I have made my decision (I would then look to give feedback for future rounds).

4. Crossfire

I will pay attention to crossfire and take notes to provide feedback, but anything important that comes up in crossfire must be brought back up in one of your speeches or I will disregard it.

5. Frontline

If your team is speaking second, please do the bulk of your frontlining in rebuttal. Your opponents cannot be expected to respond to frontlines in their final focus.

6. Signpost

Please signpost. It makes it easier for me to flow and follow what you are saying, and if I better keep track of your arguments and follow them, then I will be better able to judge your arguments.

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

I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and recently graduated from Pomona. I went to TOC a few times and reached finals my senior year. I graduated in 2017. My email is ninapotischman@gmail.com—put me on the email chain! If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

TLDR; please weigh (a lot), one good argument > four blippy arguments, be nice to your opponent!

*FOR PF*

Hi PF! I have coached LD in various places. I now coach PF for Oakwood. I will try to adapt to PF norms for judging, though my LD background will inform how I perceive rounds. I prefer to do as little work for debaters as possible. The best debaters will write my ballot for me.

TLDR; I have a high threshold for warrants and extensions. I'll vote on policy style extinction scenarios if done well, but they're often executed poorly—be sure you can tell a clear story with warrants in later speeches.

General:

• Send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
• The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing—i.e., don't just say that nuclear war is worse than poverty—you should also have a number of arguments comparing your/your opponent's internal links. Extend warrants into final focus.
• People in PF have started to read LD/policy type arguments with long link chains. Often, these arguments don't have proper uniqueness/link/impact. If you can't tell a clear story establishing a brink for impacts that would require a brink, it will be hard to get me to vote on these arguments against something with a clearer narrative. I also tend to find these arguments unpersuasive since the strength of link to your terminal impact is always pretty low, and often some of the links are barely warranted. You can execute this well, but be cautious that the links are well-articulated.
• I have a lot of trouble with signposting in PF. Be extra clear about where you are on the flow at all times. I tend to miss card names, so don't use those to signpost. If you're spreading, slow down more.
• Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
• I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
• I'm relatively technical, but I am less inclined to vote for you're not persuasive
• I do not understand how the economy works..... if you're using technical economic terms please explain what they mean! And be extra-extra explicit about how you reach your impacts. Examples help.

Evidence exchange takes much too long. If the round takes over an 1 hr 10 min due to evidence exchange, speaks are capped at a 27.5. If one team sends their evidence before every speech, this only applies to the other team. If one team seems to excessively ask for evidence, this rule will only affect the speaks of the other team.

Theory/ks:

• I can flow spreading, but I'd rather not and I'll probably miss things—especially if you don't send speech docs/make 1-2 line arguments. Use spreading as an opportunity to make more in-depth arguments, rather than spewing blips
• I will not intervene unless I believe you are engaging in a practice that excludes your opponent—for example, reading theory against novices/a team that clearly doesn't know what theory is, particularly if the arguments are frivolous. Use your judgment & debate with the best intentions.
• I will vote on kritiks that are executed correctly, but please make an effort to ensure your opponent understands your positions and err towards over-explanation. Kritiks should be disclosed
• If both teams seem to want to have a theory/k/etc. debate, then I will evaluate this argument as if it is an LD round. If you miss necessary argument components, that's on you—e.g., I won't pretend you read a theory voter if you did not
• Good, true arguments > highly technical bad arguments
• If you read disclosure theory and don't disclose your disclosure theory shell, you should lose, though your opponent must point this out.

Evidence ethics:

• I have a low threshold for ev ethics violations. If you think your opponent did something bad, they probably did. Feel free to stop the round, or make a brief argument explaining the violation, and I'll vote on it if I think the violation is clear. You can read a full theory shell if you want to, but it's not necessary
• Things that are bad: clipping, miscutting, misattributing evidence, broken links, changing the meaning of the cards with brackets, lying, not reading things that change the meaning of the evidence, etc.

*FOR LD*

General

I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although I debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than to try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. My biggest preference is just for intelligent well-thought out arguments, whether that's a kritik, a plan aff or a framework. That said, here are my preferences:

• Please please please do not be late :(
• Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC . So if you're extemping things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
• The biggest reason people lose in front of me is because they do not explicitly weigh. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, PLEASE, OR ELSE I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE. And then we will all be sad. If you do not weigh in your speech, and then you lose, that is on you.
• Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
• I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
• I reserve the right to not vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
• I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
• I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
• I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
• I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default
• It's really hard to flow spreading on Zoom. I'll yell clear, but if I have to say it more than a couple of times I am missing arguments you've made and I won't fill in the blanks

Theory

• If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
• I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded. Just know your speaks will suffer.
• Slow down for interps/counterinterps
• If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it

Framework

• I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
• Please weigh

Ks

• I think people think I don't like Ks?? This is not true. Kritiks, run well, are one of my favorite kinds of arguments. I'm pretty familiar with most K lit, with the exception of POMO stuff, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense. If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you. Concrete examples are always good.
• My defaults for kritiks are the same as other positions, which is: please weigh, and please be explicit with interactions. Don't expect me to know what arguments your position takes out without an explicit implication. (I.e. you have to say, this takes out theory, and why).

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks

• Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
• Good strategies
• Using CX effectively
• High argument quality
• Good overviews/crystallization
• Good case debate. Please don't drop the aff!!!!

Things that will get you low speaks:

• not disclosing
• tricks
• being shifty
• lots of spikes/blippy arguments
• super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
• clearly not understanding your own positions
• being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
• academic dishonesty

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

PO resources

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

If a paradigm in tab room is not read, does it exist?

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

You are the teacher, I am the student.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, perhaps focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this month at STATE to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Mitch and I are also up there on the bench.
10. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.

I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos

"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"

Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

Updated 10/28/20

1. Personal background: I debated traditional LD in OH for four years (2015/16 - 2018/19). I also have experience counseling/coaching, and now mostly judge PF

2. I pick a winner based on who I thought did the better debating (i.e. not whoever has the most and biggest numbers, but rather whoever takes the time to slowly and deeply engage in analytics, unique and nuanced clash, well-thought out round strategy, and of course, persuasive speaking).

3. THAT BEING SAID, I am not a "lay judge." I will flow on my computer, and write down everything that seems relevant and that I can catch (don't speak too quickly, both for the sake of your clarity and your appeal)

4. I have a personal preference against "progressive" / non-traditional strategies. I always strongly prefer something topical over Ks, theory, etc. IF you intend to utilize one of these types of arguments, PLEASE ask your opponent their level of comfort with it before the round begins, and if they are not comfortable or experienced with progressive argumentation/style, don't go down that route, or I'll probably drop you right there.

5. I do not intend to read your evidence after the round. It's on both teams to explain and settle evidence debates in speeches

6. If you read evidence, READ THE WARRANTS. For me, evidence w/o logical explanation > nothing, logic w/o evidence > evidence w/o logic, and evidence w/ logic > all. It also makes my life infinitely easier if, when extending arguments toward the end of the round, you take the five to ten seconds to re-explain the warrant behind the argument

7. I don't typically time prep. You can keep track of it yourself, or have your opponents keep you accountable. Just don't be scummy about taking extra

PF specifics:

a) please do not read a framework

b) collapse asap (at second rebuttal ideally)

Reasonable Pace, thought out arguments, and maturity when opposition is speaking.

Hey, I'm the son of Sridevi Ramesh. 150% lay, don't do too many intricate links and don't go too fast. She won't vote of speaks but speaking clearer and slower will definitely help. Obviously don't be rude. Speaks range from 26-29s. She's only going to vote of something if its Final Focus, and everything in Final Focus has to be in summary.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

I'm a former PF and college debater. ask before the round if you have any questions.

•analysis > evidence. not everything needs to be carded. I give higher speaks for solid analytical responses that show conceptual understanding of the topic. I rarely call for evidence.

•arguments that work in the real world preferred over gimmicky arguments (e.g. long, relatively implausible link chains to huge impacts).

•for virtual debate: set up a way to share evidence with the other team before the round.

•style: I prefer depth over breadth i.e. choose your 1 to 3 best responses rather than listing a bunch without explanation and a clear link chain.

•speed: I can flow whatever speed you go at, but like I said, I prefer depth over breadth. This means you should default to slower unless you feel its critical for your speech cover a lot.

•cross: I don't pay close attention to cross. Say it in a speech if it's important.

•theory/progressive debate: I don't like theory and I rarely vote on it. (One type of theory I do like is economic theory.)

I am a Junior Diplomat based in Singapore, who recently graduated from University College London with a Master’s Degree in International Security and from Durham University in 2020 with a Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations. I have also had stints at Georgetown University (on a 1 year exchange program) and Cranbrook (High School, graduated in 2016). During my High School/University days, I have participated in both Model United Nations and Debating. Feel free to ask any clarifying questions to basanth@basanth.org if you still have any concerns after reading this paradigm.

I am a pretty relaxed flay judge, and generally try to be flexible/accommodating to both sides during the debates. However, there are a couple of pointers you should be aware of before coming in for a VPF round with me:

1. Delivery

It is fine with me if you go fast. However, please make sure you are clear at the same time. The number of teams I have judged who prioritize speed over me actually being able to hear their words has been remarkable. If I cannot understand what you are saying or if I am not sure what word you just said, it is wrong.

2. Evidence and Cards

I am fine with the use of evidence and cards, and would recommend their use wherever needed. However, please ensure that it is actually related to what you are talking about! Ask yourself this question before running a card during this debate: How much does it strengthen my argument/ weaken the argument of the other party? If the answer to either question is "Not much", then maybe consider utilizing a different approach. I am also alright with paraphrasing. However, do ensure that the key points of your argument are still retained! Otherwise if your opponent/myself decides to call for your card, it would mean serious issues for you. Dates for these cards are also very important.

3. Structure and Delivery

Always ensure that your points are supported by evidence, and I would also recommend the use of proper signposting so that both myself and your opponents can follow your argument. In addition, please avoid delving into descriptive language when delivering your arguments (If you find yourself using a lot of connectors such as "Also", "Furthermore" etc...) this is when you know that your structure is not at its best. Essentially, arguments should be delivered as follows: Main point-Supporting Evidence- Why it is relevant/What it shows. It is also fine to quote external sources/key figures in your arguments. However, please do not turn your speeches into glorified shopping lists! I have had too many teams who simply list arguments from other sources/speakers without substantiating them with any of their own opinions/arguments. As mentioned earlier, always connect these to the wider scope of your argument using clear signposting, and you will be fine.

4. Rebuttals

This is where a lot of teams tend to lose points. It is natural to attack your opponent's points and state what is wrong about them. However, what is (consequently) right about YOUR argument? It is fine (and necessary!) to criticize your opponent's argument, but what makes yours better?

5. Final Focus Speeches/Summaries

As evidenced from their names, many teams have a tendency to re-run their previously used arguments, which is fine. However, if you are looking to raise your score by just a little bit (which could well be the difference between a W or L), highlight some of the new (if any) points which transpired during the course of the debate, as well as bring in a few of your opponent's arguments. Explain why your arguments make more sense than theirs if you can. This is evidence that you have been listening to the debate and something I appreciate a great deal. The prep time you have is the perfect opportunity to get this sorted out.

6. Conduct during debates

Nothing much to say here other than be professional, respect your opponents and by no means talk down/denigrate them during the debate. It is perfectly possible to dispute/call into question their arguments in a proper manner without coming across as a Class A jerk. If you have concerns regarding the conduct of the other team, call them out on it. Please also stay professional at all times (keep your jackets/shoes on, no loud chatter in the room before the start of the debate, and no phones to be used during the debate unless you are using it to time yourself). Feel free to come into the room early to get set up. I expect both teams to be all set up and ready to go at the start of the round. I will assist with formalities such as the coin toss so there is no need to worry about that.

7. Prep/Timing

Feel free to use your own watches/phones to time yourselves during speeches. However, please refrain from using them with sound (especially the watches which beep continuously when the timer hits zero). I will be timing you and the time on my laptop/phone will be the official time. I will start the timer as soon as you say your first word and will also give you cues when your time is about to run out (one knock on the table for 10 seconds left, two knocks which means your time is up). Do not attempt to squeeze in another sentence or two once you hear two knocks as anything you say after the timer hits zero will not be considered in your score. In addition, you will be delaying the rest of the debate (and annoying me severely)

Good luck to all of you during the tournament and I look forward to seeing you during the rounds.

General:

I did PF in high school.

Debate is a communication activity. So, run absolutely whatever arguments you wish to run, but if you cannot effectively communicate what your arguments are, why you won those arguments, and why winning those arguments wins you the round, I cannot vote for you.

Specifics:

1. Speed is fine. Don't use this as an excuse to be unclear and/or messy.

2. Second rebuttal must frontline both offense and defense. First summary must extend defense.

3. Theory and Ks are both fine. Note: I don't particularly like disclosure or paraphrase theory. That doesn't mean I won't vote for you on these arguments if you win them, but I would rather not hear them.

4. The easiest way to win in front of me is by doing good, strategic weighing and lots of it.

5. The easiest way to get a 30 from me is just by being chill. Look calm, act calm, sound calm. That's honestly all I really care about when determining speaks (assuming you can coherently deliver your speeches).

Email: aas363@cornell.edu

do whatever you want

SAFETY NOTE:

Safety comes first. If the round becomes unsafe for you or your partner and you are not comfortable voicing your concerns in the round, please email or FB message me immediately. I want all debaters to know that I am an adult you can trust in this space. I will do as much as I can to protect you and keep this activity safe for you.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

1. debate how you want EXCEPT probability weighing is fake unless it uses defense from rebuttal, or some argument about how to calculate probability, or some reason why it should be applied- just needs some justification- it becomes a new response in summary if not

2. if you are nice to your opponents I will likely give you 30's- if I have to presume I'll give it to whatever side is nicer to the other (no exceptions)

Debated Congress and PF in high school. A few things:

1. Respect is a must. "Zingers" and one liners are fun, but not at the expense of a good debate or your opponent.

2. Cross-fire is apart of the debate. I do not want new arguments in cross, but please use your questions productively. Attack weak analysis, set up weighing, issue burdens etc.

3. Clarity is important but speaking style is not. Being a good orator is nice, but being a good orator comes in many shapes and forms. For example, stuttering, having a quiet voice, or having an accent that is different than mine will not be causes for lower speaker points or bad marks on clarity. Slurred/lazy words, failure to enunciate, unorganized speeches and reading with no emotions or passion will.

4. Signpost.

5. If your opponents logic is dubious, point it out (even if briefly). I will not count a weak argument against them if you do not tell me to. This makes it fair so that you are debating each other rather than me simply putting my own opinions or thoughts into if an argument good or not.

6. Have cards ready. This is a personal pet peeve. Do not delay the round because your sources are not organized.

Have fun. I enjoy judging because of how much you all enjoy debating.

Background

I debated for four years (2016-2020) at Cypress Bay High School in South Florida. Third year at the University of Chicago now. Credits to all the former cypress debaters that let me steal their paradigms.

TL;DR

This ain't it: new cards in second summary, extending thru ink, misconstrued evidence, being rude and offensive.

This is it: comparative weighing, signposting, cool strats, email chains, split rebuttals, being lighthearted. Warrant your arguments well. If you read something, explain why it happens/its true. This applies to blocks in rebuttal as well as case arguments.

General

Weigh. Signpost. Time yourself. Narratives are cool.

I believe public forum should be accessible to everyone. That means if your behavior in round is excessively rude, belittling, or hateful, you will receive 20 speaks even if you won all the arguments in the round.

***Please have preflows ready before the round so we don't start later than we should.***

Evidence

Read dates. I won't drop you if you don't (I’ll lower speaks) but if you get called out for not reading dates you'll look bad, and I'll probably assume your opponents evidence is more recent.

Email chains are great.

Don't misconstrue evidence.

I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or both teams read conflicting evidence and neither team weighs one over the other.

Case/Rebuttal

Warrants are mega important. If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but it can be strategic.

Arguments that are not responded to are considered conceded. If the summary calls the argument conceded, and it is, then they will probably win the round unless you can outweigh the argument effectively.

If you're turning something label it as a turn, I'll probably figure it out on my own but it just visually makes it easier on my flow.

Summary/Final Focus

You don't need to extend defensive responses in first summary unless the other team responded to it in second rebuttal. I would prefer you do. You do need turns.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Give me 1-2 voters in final focus.

Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

weigh a lot

How I vote

I'll look at what offense was extended through summary and final focus then vote for the argument/narrative that was weighed best. If no one weighs then I'll do my own weighing and that means there's a good chance you will be upset with the outcome. If both teams weigh and it's still very close, I will take the path of least resistance i.e. the cleanest piece of offense in the round.

Speaker Points

I usually am nice about speaks. Do the stuff below to get closer to a 30.

Weigh and signpost well.

Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated.

Don't steal prep.

Progressive Args

I will vote on K's if clearly warranted and made accessible to your opponents.

I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should only be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse. So running it to waste time, get a cheap win, or exclude your opponents from the debate will result in low speaks and possibly a loss if you annoy me enough.

If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a trigger/content warning before the round. Please work to maintain debate as a safe space and refrain from reading potentially triggering arguments if someone in the round asks you not to. If you have any questions as to what a content warning is, how to go about reading a content warning, or if you're unsure if you should read one- let me know before the round. I'm more than happy to help you!

If you have any other questions feel free to email me at sepul.fabiola@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

extemp
grace is okay, go 7:29 if you need it, but manage time well across points

need sources with Day, Month, and Publication (EX: "As of the New York Times on Feb 28th, 2021...")


cx/ld
explain all of your arguments, don't assume I know what something like T is
spreading is okay but you need to be clear
you have to explain Ks and be able to defend them
don't run an absurd amount of disadvs without a really good reason why
overviews + line by line are nice
do impact calc, and if your impact is nuke war, make sure you have solid cards and not a huge link chain
^on that, try to not have your impact be total annihilation of living beings and the ecosystem without solid evidence
aff: if the plan and cp aren't mutually exclusive, just perm
neg: try to be as specific as possible with everything, and don't run things to waste or fill time

pf

line by line is great

do the impact weighing for me, before final focus is better

kick things you aren't going for

i'll listen to anything

speed is fine, as long as you can be understood

tell me when you're moving to different parts of the speeches, organization is key especially with online debate

I did PF in high school! Here are some things I like to see in a round:

1. Pretty extensions. If you want me to vote on an argument, re-explain it in summary and final focus.

2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you want me to vote on one of your contentions, you should defend it in second rebuttal.

3. Collapsing. It's better to pick and clearly explain 1 of your contentions than speed through 3.

4. Weighing. Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.

5. A friendly crossfire. Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponent in cross. I probably won't pay attention to crossfire, but if people are being mean I'll drop speaks.

I'm not super familiar with progressive arguments (k, theory, etc.), so if you do run them please explain them well.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

P.S. if you do a TikTok dance/make a TikTok reference you'll get +.5 speaks

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

speak clearly

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Hello my name is Pat Skipper. I am a parent judge so tell a story. Team with the best argument wins. Good luck!!

I am sometimes asked prior to the beginning of a round if I might offer any additional insight into my paradigm or I might be asked a question pertaining to what I might identify as key voting issues. I do hope all of you take the time to read through all of the paradigms posted as they are for your benefit. I might argue that if you do that in advance it should help you determine what each of us is looking for. For the record, I do have an extensive background in the forensic world of debate at both the high school and college level. I debated for Bellaire High School from 1973 to 1976 where I learned to win quite often and for four plus years on a full debate scholarship at Houston Baptist University. I competed in high school and in college in policy debate (CX) and competed at a national level during my college years. Although it's been awhile since those days filled with stress and with competition, I have been judging off and on the past 12 years and I certainly have a few opinions to share with you perhaps best referred to as some friendly advice.

Like any good judge ought to insist upon during any round, my decision is based upon what the contestants themselves argue during the round, based upon extensions advanced to the flow and of course based upon what does persuade me or does appear most compelling at the end of the round. I do actively take down cites on most evidence read during a round and respectfully, I will not need a road map from you. That's probably helpful though for you guys to share between you. By now surely we all know that there should be no new arguments presented during rebuttals. I would also hope that debaters at all levels understand and fully embrace the notion that competition during a debate as a battle of wits ought to come down to winning arguments that can be proven and are linked quite reasonably. In my own mind, it ought to be fairly clear for me to see by the end of a round what the important voting issues are and why. I suggest trying to limit repeating what you have already said and instead focus upon extending your own case and or arguments as your key arguments. Any success during the round should be sought through purposeful and thoughtful clash with your opponents on the flow. I tend to look for and typically best follow teams that extend effectively in ways in which I can still flow where it belongs. I tend to defer to the team who best persuasively convinces me that their intended plan of action is much better than the other based upon evidence, reasoning and logic.

I am also asked if I can handle a fast speed or for that matter, the flow. I try never to be rude when I might retort in response that there is simply no way they or anyone else could ever be any faster than he and I were while debating the likes of Harvard, Georgetown etc. in that college setting I mentioned. Nevertheless, speed can still kill a good argument due to a lack of application, lack of explanation or simply because it was unintelligibly spit out. At high speed your killer evidence may indeed just become lost upon the deaf ears of a lay judge or even upon the perky ears of seemingly competent judges doing their very best to follow you. Your successes will be most often determined by you, your style and by your unique ability to fully connect the dots on the flow for all to see. You must be prepared to make your evidence and arguments count with great force in such a way that it sticks with your judge. I do accept most reasonable arguments as presented during a round especially those that are well defended with evidence, with logic and sound reasoning. I believe strongly in a professional courteous exchange at all times during a round, especially during crossfire. Cross fire is certainly not the time to keep on arguing with your opponent thinking they will agree that you are going to win. We all accept that you will probably never agree with the other side on this day of battle (until you must debate the opposite side of the flip), but use your CX time not to help set the record straight for everyone but instead to win. Utilize this precious time to seek out and gain needed clarification providing clarity for your own purposes. Responses given during cross fire are binding unless dropped or explained in context. If properly employed crossfire time can certainly make a difference in the result of the round.

Let me state it more clearly, if you are rude, obnoxious or loud during crossfire exchanges you do rub most judges the wrong way. Lastly, you might be surprised how many debaters do not do a very good job telling me as a judge why I should vote for them. Typically they insist that I must vote their way. Tell me why and keep telling me why. It begins with those first two constructive speeches in which clash is fully expected and undertaken. For the record, I do not give decisions or feedback at the end of a preliminary round, but of course I do during elimination rounds as allowed. My ballot will generally always make it crystal clear to both parties why I voted the way I did, agree or disagree. Debate is and always has been intended to be a fun, exciting activity and of course, highly competitive. Highly competitive though is not defined by talking over someone during cross fire or by being rude to another or by speaking much faster and much louder than others. I view forensic activities as a whole to be in large part preparation for your future endeavors in life with the potential to help one distinguish between what is true in theory and what might actually happen in the real world.

In terms of student Congress and Senate competition, I have judged those events often over the past 12 years and I do enjoy it immensely. It is still all about the numbers if you desire to win at a high level so naturally it does matter how many bills you are prepared to address with substance and it matters what you have to say about the subject. Your ability to effectively and respectfully question your peers effectively when called upon is critical to help garner a judges attention. It might help if you try and visualize Congress being in session and accept that you are literally debating a bill on the floor. Respect for each other, your demeanor and your own ability to participate is vital to making a great impression on your judge. Embrace that role and allow your efforts from the minute you walk into the room be dedicated to collaborating with others alongside representatives you hope might be persuaded to vote for the bill you choose to defend. If you go into a student congress event be prepared to participate, that is why you are in the session itself.

Individual events tend to be speeches or performances where you are on your own for the most part. It's important if you do want to place and compete that you make every effort to most effectively utilize the time you have been given to speak. A short speech is just that, it's short and often way too short. Proper use of mannerisms, natural body movements and practicing a deliberate and confident style used to deliver your piece is critical to success. Judges do tend to remember a genuine smile, a look or feel feel of sincerity and almost always naturally connect to the dynamic use of voice, dialog and diction patterns. It does not matter where you are in the speaking rotation. I can assure you, judges are waiting in earnest looking for you to stand right up their and knock their socks off so just do it.

A little bit about me:

Debated Public Forum for 4 years in high school.

I am addicted to chapstick, (Burt's bees) so if I put on chapstick a lot during the round that's why.

I want to be your friend, probably.

Judging style:

Be respectful to each other, but I like a little sass lol.

I don't flow cross and usually don't listen.

Be sure to weigh for me so I don't have to.

Warrants are essential. If you can't back up your evidence with logical reasoning and warrants then the argument is not an argument at all.

Defense is key. Frontlining in second rebuttal is ideal.

I enjoy unique arguments, but your link chain needs to be established clearly. I won't weigh arguments that don't make sense.

I am fine with speed as long as you can be understood by the opponents and myself.

Sign posting is a MUST. Roadmaps should not be longer than 5 seconds.

Don't ignore contradicting evidence and continue to restate your evidence as an answer, INTERACT with your opponents evidence and explain why I prefer yours over theirs. Same goes for warrants. PLEASE compare your warrants and why I prefer yours over theirs.

I am a fan of organization in your speeches. Tell me where you are going. I lose a lot of motivation to flow if you jump around randomly every .2 seconds.

I don't want to be confused at the end of the round. Make sure your FF is clear.

If your opponents are saying something abusive or untrue, there is no need to get visibly frustrated to let me know what they are saying isn't right. Like you I also have ears, so take a deep breath and maintain your composure. I will catch it.

Please don't take 78483927 years to pull up your evidence. I will be very very sad. :/

When you are reading evidence you need to take prep! I'm really not out here tryna stay in one round for 2 hours.

You can run anything as long as it makes sense, but as a PSA I do not have a lot of experience with theory or K's, so if you run theory, you better approach it as if you are explaining it to a white suburban mother of 6.

PLEASE make the round fun. I beg of you. If you make me laugh, I will increase your speaker points by 0.2

These are super basic principles, so if you have detailed questions you can email me at hunterjakesteele@gmail.com

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

I am a lay judge, but I have watched dozens of rounds of PF before. I will consider arguments if they are made clearly and consistently in the round.

Please make sure your voice is clear.

Refrain from using debate jargon in general... if you want me to understand how your actions play into the round, explain why they matter

Scientific jargon is welcome

Make sure to signpost in every part of your speech

Do not be exclusionary towards your opponents; you will be dropped immediately

Explain why your arguments are more important instead of using weighing jargon

Do not run theory or Ks; I will not know how to evaluate them on my ballot.

Truth over tech unless one side is clearly winning

Gained lots of experience in PF judging over 3 years, have a good idea on how to evaluate arguments and the flow. If you just debate how you normally do, it should be sufficient to win my ballot.

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

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

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

TLDR on my paradigm:

I debated my junior and senior year of high school in the West LA/OCSL circuits and graduated in '20; qualified to nats and STOC my senior year & coached for ~3 years after that. I am now pursuing a bachelors in Politics & Public Affairs & coaching the debate team @ Denison U.

email: tan_s1@denison.edu

Important Things for the skimmers:

-I am about 75% tech 25% truth.

-Spread and I will drop you.

-I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis w/ a value of human life if no other framework is read and first speaking if there is no offense on the flow.

-I require weighing and extensions if you want to win the debate. Both defense and offense are not sticky (more on this below). I should hear extensions from the 1SS onward.

-I flow on paper, so keep it somewhat slow.

It has been quiteeeee a while since I've last judged, so please be gentle with my feeble mind.

If you are running theory or Ks, both sides must OK it for me to evaluate the arg. I never debated and have hardly judged pre-fiat so don't expect me to be anywhere close to my post-fiat judging abilities.

I have voted aff 69 times and neg 87 times (give or take), meaning an almost 56% neg bias. Yikes. I would guess the bias is from defaulting neg; I have since shifted to voting for first speaking in the interest of fairness.

Parli:

Debated parli mainly my junior year, I am versed in the event.

POIs need to be short. I will not flow them. Bring it up in a speech if it's important.

I'll tell you if I accept your Point of Order.

I am versed in topicality shells. I am receptive to prefiat args in this event, but you'll still need to slow them down and dumb them down a bit.

I prefer that Ks link in to the res, but non res Ks are fine, I'm just more receptive to res level.

I know that quantified impacts are hard to come by in parli. If you don’t have a quantifiable impact, I expect some sort of framing that replaces terminalization. If you don’t have terminalization or a framing level thing going for your impact, I find it difficult to vote for it.

LD:

I tend to evaluate the round on framing and VC above all else. Treat me like a flay judge (quick reminder that I have the least amount of experience judging this event). Pre-fiat args are ok (and encouraged), but no guarantee I can evaluate them well.

PF:

What I like to see in round:

Extensions: My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for; they can be paraphrased. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

Signposting: I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. Seriously, this is one of my biggest problems in-round. Signpost.

Two worlds analysis: I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

Weighing: Weighing is a must if you want to win the round. If you don't weigh and your opponent does, they win. Irrespective of the quality and integrity of your link chain and impact, I will always vote for the side with the winning weighing. If you both weigh, you'll also need to metaweigh to get my ballot.

Evidence analysis: I like it when you call for evidence. Evidence standards in pf suck and have been getting worse. You're likely to find some great responses if you call out crappy evidence. It also makes me happy to hear people call out a crappy card.

What I don't like to see in round:

Sloppy crossfires: Crossfire can be a great way to clear up confusion and communicate critiques of the other side. They can also be horrible screaming fits where nothing gets done and you both end up angry. Make sure you are having constructive conversation or I will drop speaks.

Disorganization: If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

Ad hominem: If you're racist/rude/homophobic you get L20'd & tournament management will be notified.

My quirks:

Defense is not sticky: Lack of defensive extensions, even if dropped, makes for a messy backend debate. You will win the defense if it is dropped, no need to spend too much time on it.

Post-rounding: I encourage post-rounding in order to better myself as a judge. Judges that drop you and say, "everyone did great!" made me extremely angry when I debated. If I missed something, bring it up. However, it will not change my ballot. If I missed it, I missed it.

The "truth" part of my paradigm: If the round gets really messy or your evidence sounds far too absurd then I will intervene. It pains me to say this, but the standard for evidence is already rock bottom and I am trying to make a minuscule difference. If you don't have messy rounds and read good evidence then this shouldn't worry you.

Remember that I am a human and debate is a game. I will sometimes make mistakes, please do not hate me for it.

Currently a college freshman. Have never done debate before, treat me like a lay judge.

I am a lay judge. Don't spread.

Truth > Tech

Please do not just hand me 80 cards and say look we have evidence. Make sure you explain your evidence.

Anything in final focus must be in summary.

It's fine if you are passionate in crossfire but yelling will result in lower speaker points. Also do not laugh at your opponents or I will lower your speaker points. Doing well in crossfire is important to me as well.

Also Theory and K cases are not appreciated.

I do not disclose (in prelims) unless required.

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!

Hi, I'm a newish parent judge. This is my second PF judging event. Please speak clearly. Thank you.

I am a LAY judge.

Your best choice of action is to speak slower.

I try to be tabula rasa. I vote off of strongly supported arguments that are not refuted well by the other team. I do listen to crossfire as well.

Also make sure to weigh, and try to convince me.

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters end up talking more about how the debate is going down rather than the actual issues at hand. Try your best to avoid debating debate and debate the resolution.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

I have been judging PF for past 1 year. I don't have a lot of "must do's"

Speak clearly and concisely.

If you are speaking too fast, I might miss some salient points. Although I will not deduct any scores for speaking style.

Please cite your evidences. I appreciate any statement you make if you can back it up with reliable source.

Good Luck!!!

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Decartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

I debated for Marist.
General Stuff:
Tech > truth to an extent
Please explain your arguments and have warrants that back them up.
Evidence: Honestly everyone is pretty shady in PF with evidence and it gets pretty annoying. You should have all of your evidence cut and preferably not paraphrased. I will almost always prefer an argument with evidence to an analytical argument.
Rebuttal/Second half: Second rebuttal needs to frontline at least turns. Summary and FF need to mirror each other. Defense is needed in first rebuttal. Besides that do whatever you want

Cross: Please be civil during cross. Interrupting your opponent is not an argument and you will get low speaks if you are unnecessarily rude.
Speed: I’m a pretty fast debater for the most part so just do whatever you want.
Theory: Theory is a good way to check back for abusive practices in the community like paraphrasing but do not just run theory to run it and get an easy W. That’s abusive and defeats the point

This year I have not judged Policy at all as of 11/17 so I will be unfamiliar with the lit base and positions.

I want to do the minimum amount of work possible once the debate is over, tell me why you win in a global sense and on the specific positions. In general, assume that this is the first time I'm hearing these arguments.

I debated in high school for 3 years and have 1 year of experience judging.

Some specific notes:

Framework: Engage with the other framework is all.

Case: I think a well-done case debate can be really compelling, especially early in the debate

DA/CP: I'll vote on anything if done well.

Kritik: I like K debate, but it's really only compelling to me if it's not generic. Point out exactly where/how the 1AC/2AC links. I'll vote on a K aff if you explain the significance of it, I think pre-fiat impacts on a K aff are really persuasive. Please do not assume that I have heard your argument before nor that I am familiar with the literature. I am judging this round as though it is my first time hearing any of these positions.

Topicality: Like any position, I'm willing to vote on it, but you need to 1) give me a framework. If there's no framework I will use competing interpretations and evaluate the standards. Standards are the impacts of the interpretation in my view, so this means if you're going for T the 2NR will need to do some impact calc. I need to know what debate looks like under your interpretation and why it's better. It's also easier for the neg if there are examples of in-round abuse.

Theory: I can evaluate theory when a debate happens if it's just getting up, reading blocks, and sitting down I'm likely not going to vote on theory alone. You need to show why the violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument.

Speed: I'm out of practice, so break up your speech pattern and differentiate between tags, warrants, and internals. Be clear.

I am a parent. This is my fourth year judging debates, and third year judging public forum. Refer to my judging record to gauge my judging experience.

I know some debate jargon, but am still learning. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself as a 6. I prefer to watch a debate as a civil and intelligent professional exchange of opinions. Be courteous to everyone. Do not mis-interpret any evidences and have your cards ready in case I call them. (Mis-representing a piece of evidence is enough reason to lose a round. So be careful here. )

On speaking style, I prefer well organized and clearly articulated speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

P.S. I don't disclose in prelim rounds unless it is required by a tournament.

P.S. When judging, I base my decision on information presented to me in the round and how it is presented. Use your judgement when deciding how to engage me in conversations.

I am a parent judge. Please don't talk too fast or use debate jargon. Make sure to explain your arguments clearly. Be polite in crossfire. I won't disclose in preliminary rounds unless the tournament asks me to.

I am a parent judge. I am relatively new to judging varsity debate, so please talk slowly and try your best to be clear. I appreciate thoughtful commentary and response to the other team's position more than a quick statement of facts.

Please keep the debate professional and friendly. I really appreciate punctuality, so please be present on time so that we can have a smooth online debating experience.

I will try my best to give detailed feedback to help you improve. Please take the time to read my feedback notes.

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

I competed in PF for 4 years (2015-2019). Please feel free to ask questions any time on Facebook Messenger.

I presume for the neg.

No new weighing in 2nd FF.

No Ks and use theory only for egregious abuse.

Cross isn't that serious.

L0 if you make any ___ist arguments.

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

Hi y’all my name is Santi, i competed for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, closed out Texas PF State in 2020 and qualified for TOC twice.

TLDR

Just warrant your arguments, carry across summary and i’ll vote for you most rounds. Any speed is fine but if you know for sure you’re going fast just send out a speech doc. All theory is fine and i’m less versed on K’s and tricks but if you explain it I’ll vote for it.

FULL PARADIGM

Please for the love of everything don't say "off the clock roadmap", just tell me what the structure is. Eg their case then my case or starting on the meta then substance or framework then ill signpost from there.

Debate is a game so I will evaluate / vote on (almost) any argument that you read.

I am TECH > TRUTH. If it is conceded it is true. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal then they are conceded :/ You should also respond to terminal defense. it just makes it easier for everyone.

anything over ~225 wpm you should send a speech doc otherwise i prolly wont catch everything especially if im unfamiliar with the topic (that being said I’ve also been out of the activity for 2 years so don’t push it too hard)

I will default to Clarity/Strength of Link + Magnitude weighing. If it is conceded and if it has a large impact, you're prolly gonna win. also i presume squo

I am aight with Theory (despite only running disclosure, bc... PF), and to a much lesser extent Kritiks, just make sure I can understand it. also if theory/Ks are read they should be sent as speech docs before they are read or I'll heavily dock your speaks like 25 type beat. For the most part I’m not familiar with weird stuff and wack philosophy stuff, but norm-settings/in-round rules and parameters are all good.

Also I'm aight with tricks... just flesh them out in the back half for the sake of everyone in the round. They're funny and make rounds more interesting. I won’t automatically drop you for speeding through paragraph theory-style blips, but if you’re called out on it as a voter I’ll consider it if it’s a core part of the round.

IDC if you read offensive overviews in second rebuttal, first summary cannot just say that its abusive and say it doesn't matter, I am very receptive to any theory arg about offensive overviews though even if its just a paragraph theory esque arg. I'm aight with abusive arguments as a response just please warrant responses. Most of the time people will ignore 3+ warrants on abuse responses so it's not a bad strat tbh.

If you read cut cards, I will start you at a 28. If you disclose on the PF wiki I will start you at a 28.5 and if you send a speech doc before each speech that you read carded evidence I will start you at a 29. email me speech docs (or questions) @ santiago.weiland@gmail.com Otherwise, I determine speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability.

If it takes you forever to pull up evidence I will get annoyed and dock your speaks.

please for the love of god signpost PLEASE and weigh

if it isn't in summary then it should not be in final. I will just not evaluate it, like even if you say it I'll write it down and then scribble it out with an overwhelming amount of question marks.

If you concede to defense you need to explicitly say which defense you concede to you cant just say "We concede to the defense on our first contention" like dog come on. You can also read defense against your own case to kick out of turns i think it's funny and strategic.

Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is cool too, just gimme a heads up

if im vibing with an arg then im prolly gonna nod my head. If i am not vibing, then I will not look like I am vibing.

"If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell or a conceded higher level of the debate, you can call TKO. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you an L20." - Cara Day

I will also disclose after round and I will tell you your speaks if you want. You can ask me literally any question on my decision and I'll even show you my flow if you want to see how I came to that conclusion.

and finally, as Anson Fung once said, "Debaters are like big politicians speaking on a big stage."

Side Note:

I am most receptive to narrative style debate and pass none of my personal beliefs. I’ll vote for you even if I hate your argument and think it’s complete BS, it’s up to y’all to make rebuttals so run whatever you want my dudes.

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

MAIN STUFF

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

Here's how I make decisions

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKING PREFS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

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

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

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

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

PROG STUFF

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

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

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

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Updated for NYCFL Grand Tournament

I was a public forum debater for Bronx Science for 4 years and am currently taking a gap year before attending Washington University in St. Louis as a psychology and sociology major. I was a relatively flow debater, so I will be a flow judge. I'm not super well-informed on the topic, I haven't judged any tournaments on the topic. I don't really have any argument preferences going into the round--I have familiarized myself with the topic but am by no means an expert. That being said, please don't read untrue arguments -- I'm typically tech > truth however if an argument is blatantly false or VERY improbable I won't vote for it. Obviously, on this topic, a lot of the impacts aren't the most probable (nuclear war, extinction, etc.) but try to make them as convincing as possible by flowing through the warranting to FF instead of just saying "vote for us because we save X lives from preventing an all-out nuclear war.

Speech Specific Preferences:

Rebuttal:

- Don't read offensive "second-cases" in rebuttal -- meaning don't come up and read another contention disguised as an overview

- 2nd rebuttal should read frontlines

Summary:

- Consolidate the round -- WEIGH!!!

- Please don't read new arguments/responses in 2nd summary -- it's a bit abusive for the 1st speaking team

- 1st summary needs to respond to turns read in 2nd rebuttal

- Defense is sticky (meaning defense that isn't responded to by the other team gets flowed through the round). However, if you think that the defense is really important to my decision, I would repeat it in FF so it's fresh in my mind.

Final Focus:

- Give me voter points in final focus, I don't want to have to do a lot of work for you on the flow

- This should be a given, but NO NEW arguments in final focus (unless for some reason you're 1st speaking team and your opponent introduced a new argument/response in 2nd summary

- Yes defense is sticky, but if the defense is important (ex. if your opponents go for that contention) remind me of it in FF

Weighing:

- If you don't tell me why I should vote for you and why your argument is still true even after their rebuttal/summary, I'm going to have a hard time voting for that argument

- PLEASE warrant your weighing -- you shouldn't just be saying "we weigh on scope because we save 900 million lives)

General Preferences:

- Please be well-spoken and respectful, I will lower your speaks if you are rude/talk over each other in crossfire. In the new world of virtual debates, please don't call your partner to talk/prep during other during your opponent's speeches (I only mention it because it's happened in my rounds before). Debate should be a safe and educational space.

- Signpost please and I don't mind if you want to give an off-time roadmap

- I expect extensions to include extensions of the link, warranting, and impact, not just a card name or contention title.

- If you think it's important that I look at a specific piece of evidence, tell me to call for it - don't misrepresent your evidence.

- If conflicting evidence is presented on the same issue and neither team tells me how to evaluate them against each other, which to prefer, etc. I will have to intervene when making my decision and analyze the evidence for myself.

- I'm pretty good on speed but just let me know how fast you plan to be speaking before the round. Anything above 250wpm I generally need a speech doc for.

If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible just let me know! If you have any questions about my RFD, feel free to email me at alexandraweiss02@gmail.com.

Have fun!

i debated pf for 4 years in high school and am now a senior at villanova university.

how to win my ballot:

- weigh.

- i'm fine with speed. if you're losing clarity because of it, i'll call "clear".

- collapse!

here is how i think i’m like every other pf judge:

- don't just say that things are true, i want to hear some warrants. i won't vote on an argument i don't understand.

- if your offense is in ff, it should be in summary.

- hit the line-by-line hard.

- i know as close to nothing as possible about kritiks and theory. nonetheless, i'm not ideologically opposed to their use in public forum, so go for it if you can explain it in a way that a person who knows nothing can understand.

- a dropped argument is a true argument, but that doesn't mean it matters. you've still gotta weigh it to win the round on it.

- impact calculus is a waste of time if it isn't comparative and contextualized to your opponents' offense.

here is how i differ from community norms:

- in my rfds, great analytics beat a poorly-cut card 9/10 times. evidence quality matters, but quality argumentation matters a lot more.

- impact turn anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story and it can pay off to advance an uncommon perspective.

- if the off-time roadmap is more than five seconds, i will be very sad

- please don't steal prep!

- there's an over-reliance on stats in pf. tell me a story and explain why it matters.

- i will not drop a team for misconstruing evidence. the most i'll do is choose not to evaluate the evidence as part of the argument *if* it's indicted. if you realize that your opponent is misconstruing evidence, ask me to call for the card and i gladly will before making my decision.

speaker points: this is about what you say, not only how you say it. if you deserve to win rounds, you'll get high speaks.

the best piece of advice i ever heard during my 4 years debating came from my coach, gavin serr (our paradigm preferences are practically identical, so take a look if you'd like to learn more about my judging style):

debate in a way that you can be proud of, and always remember that your integrity is the most valuable thing that can be won or lost in a round.

questions? you can contact me at ngwilliams19@gmail.com.

I am looking forward to my first experience as a lay judge. I recommend that you speak clearly and slowly so that the judges can understand everything you are saying. Also, please use your own logic as frequently as possible. I think it will be a more productive debate if it's fueled by critical thinking and logic, rather than statistics and analyses that can be found online.

yes add me to the email chain Caroline.a.wohl@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years at Summit HS on the National Circuit. I broke at TOC and advanced to late out-rounds on the circuit, am fine with speed, but that speed should serve a purpose.

- an argument without warrants is not an argument. Tech > Truth, but my bright line for sufficient defense against likely untrue arguments is much lower. The later offense comes into the round, the lower my bright line for defense will be.

- weigh or I will for your FF should write my ballot.

- I debated when summaries were two minutes, I wouldn't use the additional minute as an opportunity to extend blippy arguments or more arguments, you should still be collapsing.

- If you are using an overview in rebuttal or introducing a weighing mechanism, please tell me where to flow it- a third sheet of paper is fine. That being said I will be pretty annoyed if overviews are functionally additional contentions, my bright line for responding will be pretty low. Please also tell me where to flow weighing.

- I understand theory/Ks and other forms of progressive argumentation. They should be used sparingly and when they serve a legitimate purpose in the round, rather than as something strategic against debaters not experienced with prog. My bright line for responding is also pretty low and I need to be given a really clear reason as to why the violation warrants dropping the debater.

I have limited experience judging LD; however, I have significant experience judging PF and parliamentary style debates. Since I have not judged LD, I consider myself a lay judge; however, I am efficient at flowing so will also be looking for how well you clash and address your opponent’s points.

I am open to all arguments that are clear and supported. I do not vote based on theory. I prefer the quality of arguments, over a long list of them. As much as possible, I keep my own bias out of the debate. A strong argument with effective analysis can sway me either way.

A few specific points:

I start at the average for speaker points and go up and down from there. I am not a judge who inflates speaker scores.

I award clear, concise speech. Does not have to be slow, but make it reasonable, especially since we are in a virtual environment.

Emphasize your key points. Highlight your arguments so I get what is important.

Do not try to “trick” me by talking fast or using a bunch of jargon.

Assume I do not know what you are talking about. I am well read and very aware of current events; however, this is your argument. I may not know what you are going for, and I will not make assumptions.

Debate is an open discourse between opposing sides. Listen to each other. Ask questions. Have a discussion. I expect to see clash and refutes on both sides.

Be kind and respectful to each other. No rude or insensitive comments will be tolerated.

Finally, and most importantly, have fun and learn from each other.

please start an email chain: syadavdebate@gmail.com

----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge who started debate judging from last year. Please consider me as a lay person who needs convincing by your arguments. I promise to be open minded.

• Be respectful

• No spreading please. If I cannot follow you, I will not be able to score you well

• Be passionate about arguments

• I would score teams higher when both members contribute equally well

• I am not technical, but I do care key arguments are responded to

I am a parent judge new to the national circuit. I'd like to see debaters debate in a civil and professional manner demonstrating sound logical reasoning while building a strong case. Please pay attention to your warrants, link chains, and questions you may ask during crossfires. Please speak clearly and do not spread or speak too fast, so I can fully understand you. Please do not use too many technical jargon but treat me as someone who had minimal knowledge on the topic, so please explain your logic and convince me fully why I should vote for you. I am looking forward to seeing you in rounds. I wish you all the best!

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.

" Last changed 11 January 2024 2:17 PM EST" - Tabroom 2024 ):

Lay Judge. Speak slowly, enunciate clearly. Speaker points will be allocated by fluency, 27-28 very good.The debate should be respectful. Crossfire shouldn't have people talking over each other.

I like Medicare-for-All to talk about US but I will consider developing world arguments.

I will not disclose unless it is mandatory.

I am a first-time parent judge.

1. Speak slowly and clearly. If you speak too quickly I won't be able to understand what you are saying.

2. Please signpost and frame your arguments in a logical flow.

3. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents.

I am a parent judge. Make sure you:

1. Speak slowly and clearly.

2. I'll be able to evaluate your arguments better if you make your links clear.

3. Please signpost and frame your arguments in a logical flow.

4. Don't extend your arguments through ink.

5. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents. Crossfire is meant to ask strategic questions; if crossfire gets messy, I won't evaluate what is said.