Hello, I am a parent judge in my 6th year of judging PF. My preferences:

1. Please try not to spread. It makes it difficult to flow and follow your point.

2. If you refer to a card please provide more information than just the name of the author so I can connect the dots effectively and am not guessing.

I am excited to see you in action and giving it your very best. All the best and see you at the tournament.

I am a first-time judge, be courteous, no talking over each other, and speak clearly.

I am a lay judge. This is my second time judging.

Please speak slowly and make sure to signpost.

I am a lay parent judge. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I may ask for cards at the end.

Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!

I'm a lay parent judge. Please go slow. I will try my best to take notes and leave feedback on my online ballot once the round is over. Good luck!

Speak slowly and be respectful. Explain what you are talking about. If you talk too fast, then your argument doesn't matter.

I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge.

Your points and evidence will show how well you are prepared for the round, on top of that, how well you deliver your points and how convincing your speech sounds to the judge is also important.

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

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

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

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

My name is Jian Chen and I’m a parent judge from Princeton that has been judging for a while. I’m comfortable with a lot but I ask that you use logic and reasoning to back your case. Please speak clearly and comprehensively. Overall if you can explain and defend you argument well I can follow it

.

I do not prefer fast talking . I like to understand the points being made. Being new to judging debates, I like to hear meaningful substantive debate focused more on facts and less on rules of debating. In other words, it is safer to make an evidence based argument rather than try to win on technicality.

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.

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

Hi I am a parent judge, English is my second language so speak slow and emphasize your arguments.

Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.

Talk slow: don't spread, it will hurt your speaker points and I might miss an arg.

Be respectful: there's a difference between being assertive and disrespectful; make sure you don't cross that line.

Signpost: my flow will be much cleaner for you if you signpost during your speeches.

Contextualize: I judge several categories; I don't know all the terminology, make sure your speeches clarify them.

Otherwise, have fun!

My name is Lisa Grzywacz and I have been judging for six years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Judith Jeremie

Brooklyn Technical High School - I teach comparative politics and world history.

Me: I am a first-time judge, so please speak clearly and slowly so I can catch all that you say.

LD:

I am a flow judge. Do not spread. I like Cap Ks.

If your opponent has read a utilitarian/on-balance framework, and you agree with it, you do not need to read your own utilitarian framework in your next speech, just say you agree with theirs.

PF:

I am a 'flow' judge, but I am a pro-interventionist. I think judge intervention makes debate better. I'm also pretty traditional.

Don't add me to the email chain.

Truth over Technology. Yet what is true is up to you. Convince me.

General

I will flow the round. Probably not well. I don't really like flowing.

Speak slowly, no spreading.

I won't evaluate/will tank speaks for -ist or problematic arguments.

Read trigger warnings or you lose.

DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY. Reexplain.

I will know if you are new in the two. Don't test me.

Warrants>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Evidence. You will lose if you don't read warrants.

I reserve the right to intervene on stupidity. If I think an argument is dumb, I will not vote off of it. Please explain your arguments to avoid this. Or just don't explain your stupid arguments.

I'll probably vote for whoever has a better understanding in cross of how the round is going.

Collapse by summary (offense and defense) FF should be a second summary, except less line by line.

2nd speaking team needs to respond to all 1st speaking team's offense in rebuttal.

No need to extend impacts.

I have very particular views on weighing/evidence/theory pls read.

Weighing

I evaluate the round through weighing. If you win weighing and offense, you win the round.

However, I don't like all weighing.

Weighing I don't evaluate:

- Probability. If you say that word you will get L26s. If you say '100% probability' you will get L25s.

- Clarity of link/impact: Doesn't mean anything.

- Strength of link: Nobody reads warrants for this stuff. You can't really.

- Urgency: No thank you.

- Timeframe: Also dumb.

- Weighing that involves defense.

- Reversibility: These words are meaningless to me.

- Food/Water/important things FIRST!!!!: It isn't weighing or a pre-req. It's just dumb. Don't read.

Weighing I evaluate:

- Magnitude/Scope/My impact is bigger: It's true. But don't say the word magnitude, or I will not be happy. Explain why. Numbers mean nothing to me.

- Pre-req/Short-circuit: Read this before second summary. It should make sense.

If you read weighing I have said I don't evaluate, I won't, and I'll intervene.

I evaluate framing arguments, but they need warrants.

I like meta-weighing.

Evidence

Debate is not about evidence. In fact, I don't evaluate evidence. Evidence is bad for debate.

No need to read evidence in rebuttal or extend evidence. Honestly, no need to read evidence in case.

I don't evaluate evidence clash. I don't care.

If your offense in the round boils down to whether or not a piece of evidence is good, you'll probably lose (if your opponents have warrants)

I don't care if your evidence is miscut. Whatever. In fact, I will give .0005 speaker points for every completely miscut card in your case - please have a list ready before the round so that I can do the math quickly.

I will NEVER call for cards. Even if you beg me to. It's bad intervention. If you ask to show me evidence after the round you will lose speaks.

Don't extend card names, I don't flow them anyways.

Progressive Args

Theory

I think most theory is stupid. I don't want to judge a theory debate.

Paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad. I don't want to evaluate either of those shells. But if both sides make it clear that they want to have that type of debate, I won't stop you.

If you run theory against a team that doesn't understand what is going on/are being exclusionary, I won't evaluate it and you will probably lose.

Even if they understand what theory is, all they need to do is interrupt you and say 'theory bad' and I won't evaluate theory in the round. Seriously.

I'll evaluate joke stuff like shoe theory, but not if your opponents don't know what's happening.

I don't know what Reasonability or Competing interpretations means and I don't want to know.

The K

I don't know much about Ks.

But I will vote for a Cap K.

CP

Under certain circumstances, I may be convinced to consult in a certain extraterrestrial.

DA

meh

Tricks

Yes please. Have fun.

MISC

I will try hard not to presume. If I have to presume, I presume to whichever team lost the coin toss.

Flex prep is fine.

No need to do GCX, prepping instead is fine.

I care about first cross, but not about the other 2.

Speaks do not exist.

I literally could not care less whether an impact is quantified or not.

You can be rude in crossfire if you are both being rude. If only one person is being rude, I will deduct .5 speaks for every 30 seconds that you are rude.

I always disclose.

I refuse to adjudicate an evidence challenge. If you try to start one, you will get L0s.

Anyone can talk during any cross.

No TKOs.

Postround as much as you want, but NO THIRD FINAL FOCUS. If you do so, I will give L26s.

If you nod or shake your head vigorously while your partner/opponent is talking, you are losing speaks.

DO NOT laugh at your opponents in the round. I'm serious. Unless they say something really stupid, or you are both messing around/joking. Laughing at something that isn't actually stupid is mean and demeaning. Especially since you are probably saying things that are just as stupid. Speaks are in play.

I am a lay judge without a lot of debate experience. I am mostly going to pick the team that best convinced me of their argument rather than technical debate points.

I prefer that you don't speak too quickly so i can follow your arguments. I like structure - off time roadmaps, use outlines/number your points, tell me why your team won the debate, etc.

I am a business/finance guy with a general interest in politics and world events.

I participated in high school debate from 2006-2010. I was involved in Policy Debate for pretty much 4 years and dabbled in Public Forum my senior year. I graduated from UCSD with a degree in Political Science. Since then I have been judging debate tournaments for the Golden Desert Speech & Debate League and now judging virtual tournaments for Millburn HS. I guess you could call me a flay judge?

You can add me to the e-mail chain: ko.christine35@gmail.com

Overall, I am open to any type of argument as long as it is well executed. Debate what you know and do well with. If I had to make a list of my preferences, it would most likely be:
1) LARP because of my policy background
1.5) Ks
2) T/FW
3) Theory
4) Phil/Tricks

I am also comfortable with speed. I will call "clear" once, and if there continues to be a problem, I will verbally tell you. I would suggest not going full speed because there can be delays in audio and mic problems with debates online. Overall, have fun and be courteous!

Updated for states '23:

I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago

Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu

Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)

Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.

Background:

I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.

The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.

*********

novpol:

tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.

impact calc is also super important to me!

please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.

use analytics - don't just rely on cards.

extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.

extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!

stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.

i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.

GFW!

jvpol:

tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.

long:

general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!

one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.

speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.

CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.

case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!

especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).

also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.

do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.

disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.

counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!

kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!

k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.

framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.

theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!

overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!

nLD/nPF:

i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!

so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:

note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.

28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.

+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.

+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke

+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)

+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.

+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.

+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.

-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.

-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.

-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.

-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.

***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!

Hello, I am a parent judge and I have a son who does PF debate. Please don't talk too fast and try to signpost. Make sure you read the dates of your cards and weigh the arguments! Don't speak over your opponents in cross-fire and be respectful. See you soon!

I am a parent judge, speak slowly and clearly and explain all your arguments efficiently. Avoid using debate jargon.

For starters, I am a parent judge who has judged before a public forum for High School. I am excited to be here amongst you excellent debaters, and Spar format judging will be new to me.

Please note the following -

1. I don't want too much speed. I can follow a reasonable pace but please don't "spread".

2. I want to be persuaded. It won't mean much if you read lots of responses but don't tell me why it's important, or why it wins you the round.

3. I will vote on logical arguments that are explained and weighed well. I'm new to judging, but that doesn't mean that there doesn't need to be warranting for your claims. I will try my best not to intervene, but please don't make outlandish claims/arguments without a. evidence b. warranting to support it.

4- I don't like opponents interrupting each other during cross, let your opponent finish his thoughts/dialogue. If he/she is taking more time its okay to show timer on screen, however I also keep track of time taken, and it will go against them if they take more time than allocated.

Hey everyone! I'm a current VPF debater and senior at Hunter College High School in New York City and have been debating for three years.

I am tech > truth, but don't make factually incorrect claims. I will vote entirely off of the flow, so be sure to be extremely clear with signposting and weighing; it is your responsibility to tell me what the most important points in the round are and how they compare.

Extend your offense (warrants, evidence, impacts) through summary and final focus. I will not be flowing cross, so if you make important points, bring them up in your speeches or they won't count.

I do not tolerate any heckling, disrespect, sexism, racism, etc. and will give you low speaks and drop you if you make such comments. Additionally, I discourage spreading; debate requires speaking quickly to a degree, but going too fast only hurts your case. Have fun!

email: abhiram.masam@gmail.com

standard tech judge. generally look to weighing first, so please weigh and make my decision as simple and easy as possible. signpost so I can follow you pls! wont evaluate theory at all. defense is only sticky if second rebuttal doesn't frontline. any offensive behavior is rewarded with an L 20, and if the round is made unsafe the round ends there and I'll respond appropriately to the situation at hand. please preflow before the round and please do not argue any debater math in front of me. tysm!

•  
• special things for nsd:

• running theory/prog on lambda and kappa kids will result in an L 20
• the threshold for responses to progressive debate is super low if you read prog on a team that is very very clearly unprepared to respond
• no need to shake my hand! seriously all good! ily all
• do not read gentrification good in front of me, it will be rewarded with an L 25! You can ask me questions about why I feel this way if you want but j don't read it. 

Hello. I am a parent judge, and I have quite a bit of experience judging Novice, JV and Varsity PF.

Important things to note:

1) No spreading please. (I am helping my dad write this, and I can assure you he cannot keep up if you spread. If you spread, there is a good chance that even if you have a great argument, it won't make it onto his flow, and you might lose.) :( That being said, some speed is fine (he's not that old).

2) You need clear warranting, and this includes in rebuttal. Also, please explain link chains.

3) Please provide off-time roadmaps and do signpost.

4) Second rebuttal must respond to the first rebuttal. Rebuttals should be linear and respond to your opponents' points in the order they were said.

5) Extend your arguments.

6) WEIGH. You can start weighing as early as you want, but you MUST weigh in summary and in final focus. If you aren't telling me how I should judge this round, then I will have to decide for myself.

7) I don't flow crossfires, so if you want something in crossfire to make it onto my flow, you must bring it up in a speech.

8) Especially if your case has more than two contentions, please consider collapsing in summary.

9) Tech > truth... to an extent. If you say something blatantly false, I won't vote off of it.

please no theory

By way of background, I am a finance professional focused on healthcare.

As always, please be considerate of each other.

Have fun, and good luck! :)

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

TL;DR: Don't spread, for the love of all things debate signpost, weigh WELL, I won't flow after time for speech is up. I'm not well-versed in theory or K's; you're welcome to run it but I can't guarantee I'll understand it. Won't drop you for misconstrued ev but I won't consider it in my eval of the round.

Timing: I will time the round myself. I won't tell you when time is up as you should be able to time yourself and know that, but I will stop flowing as soon as the allotted time for the speech is up, regardless of whether you are still speaking.

Speed: Speak as fast as you would like as long as you aren't spreading. Take that to LD or some other form of debate where spreading is welcome. I'll accept a speech doc if you want to spread, but if you spread without one I'll dock your speaks significantly.

Theory/Kritiks: I am not well-versed in either. Disclosure theory is fine, the rest are up to you. I don't know theory jargon/terms so please make sure to explain them. I can't guarantee I will understand how to incorporate theory and/or K's into my evaluation of the round but run it at your own risk. I really dislike theory run against opponents who aren't familiar with it - imo that's mean and an abusive way to pick up wins, I'll likely drop you if you do this. I'm generally not a fan and think this stuff belongs in other forms of debate unless you are genuinely trying to change the debate space and not just trying to use it to win.

Signposting: Hopefully the following reminder should only apply to novices - PLEASE SIGNPOST! (AKA, "In my opponents' contention 1, [tagline], they say xyz. In response, we say zyx.") In the words of my favorite debater, Dorothea Newman, signpost so much that I feel like I'm driving in a construction zone. My biggest pet peeve is not signposting. I also appreciate numbered responses and if you do this I'll give you decently high speaks. I will subtract -1 speaks if you fail to ever signpost in the round.

Weighing: Make sure to do a good job weighing, I would rather vote off of who does a better job weighing than my own personal view of impacts. Additionally - you can't just say "we win off of probability and magnitude (insert other weighing buzzwords)", you must tell me why your argument is more probable/has a greater magnitude. Something I appreciate that will bump your speaks: metaweighing.

Reasons for drops: I can and will drop you if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Xoxo. Maybe if you run really abusive theory against opponents who are not familiar with theory.

Misconstrued evidence: As disclosure becomes more common within debate, we're seeing less of this, but that being said I won't drop a team for misconstrued evidence, but I will consider that piece of evidence null. It's up to me to decide if the evidence is misconstrued or not so don't automatically assume the evidence is null and void just because you claim cutting one word is misconstruing.

Extra: Make the debate interesting!! Don't just read in a monotone. Make cx lively (I don't flow it or weigh it in round at all but I do listen). A pet peeve of mine - making statement questions in crossfire. Such questions include "[insert evidence] so what do you think of that", "are you aware...", "isn't it true that...", etc. These questions are a waste of time and please try to come up with a more creative way to bring up your points.

Anyway, good luck and you're welcome to postround me if you so desire. Also more than happy to email you a picture of my annotated flows if you don't find the RFD sufficient.

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and explain your points.

I'm a college Senior who did Public Forum debate in high school. As such, I'm familiar with the rules and proper technique (though I am a bit rusty), and comfortable with spreading (within reason). I do allow roadmaps off-time, provided that they are sufficiently succinct. I judge pretty strictly off the flow, and prefer technical and data-driven points to more rhetorically-driven or emotional ones. Please be prepared as I may call for cards after the round.

3 years of PF at Oakton

22karap@gmail.com

she/her

let me know if you have questions before the round!

I would consider myself a flay but lean more towards lay, I will flow but I'm unfamiliar with the topic and I'm out of practice.

general

resolve clash and collapse

comparatively weigh and warrant

With speed, send a speech doc if you're going fast (but I still prob won't catch everything)

speech specifics

no new offense in the second half (summary+ff)

second reb needs to frontline

write my RFD for me in FF! Show me all the places I should care about and why you're winning them

presumption

unless given warrants otherwise, I'll presume the team that lost flip.

If it's side locked I'll presume neg.

prog

I have a very basic understanding of theory but there needs to be a clear abuse in the round and it must be clearly explained and extended for me to vote off of it and even still there are no guarantees. I will not vote off of friv theory. I don't know/remember anything about tricks or Ks so unless you think you can explain it really well please don't.

speaks

I give high speaks unless you're rude

L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

other important things

Use content warnings when necessary

let me know if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

Have fun!

I am generally a traditional judge. Speed is not such a big issue for me, but if you start spreading or speak erratically, I won’t flow. Just make you can articulate your words clearly and your argument itself is clear as well. However, I will most likely not flow if you start spreading.

Please respect your opponents. Just make sure you do clear signposting and show why you are winning the round over your opponent. The addition of new arguments where they should not be present is grounds for both speaker point reduction and won't be flowed towards any progressive argumentation of contentions that mention your new argument. I will vote off of the flow. Lastly, slow down at taglines/plans, and I focus on the quality of the argument rather than the number of your arguments. Overall, this debate is about having fun and gaining knowledge, so make sure that every round is focused on this.

For BQCFL:

I am only aware of the LD topic, I have not judged any rounds for it

For PF, I previously judged for Yale, so I know a few of the arguments for this topic

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed (please no spreading). Use signposting - it will help me remember and understand your argument. Do not use debate jargon and keep your own time. Be civil and show respect for your opponents. Good luck!

This is my first time judging debates and very new to debate tournaments.
I work as a mental health therapist and I value clarity of speech, persuasive, logical and evidence based arguments, as well as courteous manner to the opponents.

I expect you to time yourselves and hold each other accountable.

I will do my best to serve you as judge and I will also look forward to learn more about the topic!

I debated Public Forum for Edgemont Debate for five years.

My biggest pet peeve is when debaters say they are going to weigh and then don't give a comparative analysis. The point of weighing is to give me a couple sentences I can put on my RFD and vote off of. Please don't give me blanket statements such as we win on magnitude, that doesn't do anything for me. Tell me why your higher magnitude impact matters more than their higher scope impact.

Warrant. Please. Cards without warrants don't mean anything, and every argument does not need a card. I am much more likely to buy an argument with logical warranting than a card that just gives me a statistic.

Collapsing is good. Winning more offense doesn't make you more likely to win the round. I'll be much happier if I get one piece of offense with great warranting and weighing as opposed to getting three impacts and four turns with minimal warranting and rushed weighing.

I'm good with speed so long as you are articulate. If you mumble or slur your words while going really fast I will most likely end up flowing something wrong. That's on you.

I base my speaks predominately on how strategically affective your speeches were (how the speech helps you win the round/did you flow through ink etc). If you win the round for your team in rebuttal I'm giving you a 30.

I reserve the right to drop speaker points, or drop your team entirely, based off of any unsportsmanlike conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, misconstruing evidence and offensive behavior. Just be nice people.

For LD:

I have debated exactly 0 LD rounds, so please keep that in mind. I get the basics of LD and I have judged a few rounds, but if you are running something nuanced that you think I might not grasp, I'd rather you over explain it than under explain it.

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.

hi! i'm a senior at hunter and i do pf :-)

i'm putting this at the top because it's the most important: please warrant and weigh! good warrants >> evidence, evidence + analytics >> evidence. i don't want to intervene, so weighing is important.

i'm tech > truth, but don't use that as an excuse to make outlandish or incorrect claims.

extend your offense (including warrants and impacts) through summary and final focus.

i will not be paying attention in cross, so please bring it up in the round if it's important; let me know if you want to skip cross for prep, i'm happy to do that if both teams agree.

not super well-versed in progressive argumentation but will do my best to evaluate it; make sure your opponent is comfortable with it & run it in an accessible way.

don't read anything racist/sexist/otherwise offensive — i will drop you and give you low speaks.

have fun and feel free to email me (sandhyasethuraman@hunterschools.org) if you have any questions!

I am a lay judge.

To win the round, the best think you can do is speak at a slow to moderate pace.

Make sure to extend your link chains and impacts throughout the round.

Parent Judge. Third Judging. Speak slowly and clearly.

I debate for ridge- I do PF right now, have done Policy and LD in past.

flow judge.

i have copied this from my friend Rajan Gupta:

"Never re-gift to someone who knows the original gifter. It's incredibly uncomfortable to get busted ditching something that was clearly meant for you, whether it's an ugly sweater, or, worse case scenario, an engagement ring."

- John Oliver

About Me:

i did pf for all 4 years of high school. i'm a junior in college atm and i've been coaching around since i graduated.

The Basics:

1. i'm tech over truth
2. i try to minimize intervention; if i have to intervene because nobody weighed, i default to strength of link
3. i'm fine with most speed, but if you're gonna spread please add me to the email chain: (amansinghdallas.03@gmail.com)
4. all offense has to be in summary and final focus; extend the warrant, not just the tag
5. first summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal), second summary does
6. i don't flow cx, so anything relevant should be mentioned in the next speech
6. don't read progressive arguments; i think they're good for pf but i'm not good at evaluating them
7. signpost constantly, it makes my life easier and helps me give you a better rfd at the end of the round
8. i'll generally call for evidence if you tell me to or if i think it's sketchy
8. i don't care too much about "debate attire", wear whatever you're comfortable in

if you have any other questions, just ask before the round starts

me again:

I like food, I also like jokes, allow that to influence how you debate

my rfd will be oral

Debated 4 years of PF in high school. Consider me a flow judge.

Couple of things to keep in mind for me:

1) Tech >= Truth. I usually vote solely off of the flow, but if you make a wild argument that is unsubstantiated and makes no sense to me, I'm not voting for it. (e.g. Don't say the sky is purple)

2) Key pieces of offense should be extended throughout every speech since they were first introduced. This means important turns should be extended throughout every speech since rebuttal, and case extensions should carry through rebuttal and into summary/ff. This means I want the first rebuttal to at least cross-apply case (e.g. a weighing overview) and the second rebuttal to frontline.

3) I have a basic understanding of the topic, but don't expect me to be a subject master. It's your job to explain clearly why your arguments are valid. This ties back with point 1. If I don't understand your warrant, no matter how cataclysmically large your impact is, I'm not voting for your argument.

4) Weigh!! If your impact and your opponents' are the same, weigh the warrants.

5) Every card should also come with an analytic. Don't just tell me that poverty increases x%, make sure to also tell me why. Card analytics/warrants must come in summary extensions. I'm more chill with this expectation in final focus.

6) Don't expect me to evaluate progressive arguments. I personally don't think Ks and CPs have any place in Public Forum. If the violation is egregious (hint: not disclosure/paraphrase theory), I might buy your theory shell.

7) Misconstrued evidence will be dropped. It doesn't matter how well your card is extended. If your card doesn't say what you portrayed it to say, I'm not evaluating it.

Hi,

I'm Mr. Stephenson, a high school lit and journalism teacher from New York City. In high school I did Lincoln-Douglass debate and I'm a lay judge.

Hello, I am Venkataramana Suggula.

In short, you can call me Rama

I have only participated at as a judge for about 3 years in several competitions(Speech and Debate), yet I assure you that I do my best to help debaters out. All I request is that the kids should feel free to speak at an average pace, clearly, and properly. Moreover, I won't flow too much, only if I need to remember something to tell later or on any important points. Also, please be sure to give logical and valid claims or pieces of evidence because there is nothing more that throws me off when someone does this. However, feel free to ask me for advice, tips, and any other sorts of feedback, for I am open.

Past PF debater