Hello PF Competitors,

My name is Janene Adu. Here is everything you need to know about how to get high speaks and the ballot if I am your judge.

First and foremost I expect a respectful and accepting debate environment. If you are disrespectful or hurtful to your opponent’s inround especially if it is on the grounds of their identity, do not expect to win the round. This also applies to cases if you run a case that is predicated on racist, sexist, ect notions, you can also expect to lose the round.

My primary voter in any round is going to be evidence. What this means is that I prefer cases with only one or two contentions with strong link chains. I prefer these arguments over cases with many contentions with weaker link chains or extremely niche arguments with overly complex link chains (that’s not to say I don’t like unique contentions, just have the evidence to back it up). One way you can help yourself satisfy this preference is by running a strong narrative case and doing a lot of link weighing in summary and final focus.

One of my secondary voters is the flow. While I am a parent judge, I will be keeping a flow of the round and it can be a deciding factor should I favor neither team on the basis of evidence. The best way to have a favorable flow is to speak clearly and to signpost your arguments.

Another one of my secondary voters is standard weighing (IE scope, magnitude, timeframe, ect). As long as you explain both why you win each weighing framework and why I should value each weighing framework you should be fine with this voter.

Thank you and I look forward to being your judge. :)

Hi!! My name is Mimansa Bhargava and I am currently a senior at Lexington High School. I have debated in Policy Debate for 4 years now (Varsity for 3 years). I have written out brief descriptions of my ideas on different components in a debate that I keep in mind while judging. My email is 21bhargava@lexingtonma.org so you can add me to the email chain and/or if you have any additional questions after the round.

K:

I have always preferred debating in policy. That being said, if you run K arguments (either aff or off case) I will need you to clearly lay out the story of your K argument (impact, alt, what the world looks like post-alt, etc.). That doesn't mean you shouldn't/can't run K arguments. I want you to debate with the arguments that are your strengths and that you most enjoy debating about (after all the point is to have fun and learn). But just clearly explain it to me.

Policy:

I think to debate well in policy a team needs to advocate for a course of plan that would better solve a specific issue within the resolution or prove that a team is non-topical which has its own impacts within debate rounds. Even within policy, you need to articulate the story of the plan and the impacts that you are trying to sell. As long as you are coherently presenting your arguments, answering key arguments, and going for beneficial strats (which depend on the round), you would be in a good shape.

In any type of debate, there has to be clash for the round to be enjoyable and educational.

General:

I know debate is a competitive activity and often times the debate community can be toxic because of this. But please be kind and respectful to each other in and outside of a round. I will take speaker points off if I witness debaters being disrespectful in any way. Kindess only :)

Experience - Competitive HS: Mostly LD with some other events. Judging: I have been judging LD and PF for the past three years.

Style and Speed - I debated primarily on a traditional circuit, so I prefer traditional LD but I wont automatically drop you for progressive debate. Don't just throw debate terms at me - explain them, I will probably already understand them but you opponent and future judges may not. DO NOT SPREAD (online tournaments and spreading don't mix). I can follow if you speak quickly, but if you start spreading I will probably miss things. If I put down my pen it means you are speaking too quickly. I don't need a road map before speeches (you can give one if you want) but signposting throughout your speeches helps me with following your speech and flowing. I would like to hear KVIs from both the AFF and NEG.

For PF: all of the same as LD as far as speed (obviously KVIs aren't necessary) and I prefer clearly laid out and numbered arguments.

Evidence - I consider evidence to be a key part of an argument - it provides legitimacy for your claim. That being said, do not just throw a piece of evidence in with out a warrant. Don't treat cards like the end all be all of debate, cards support arguments they are not arguments themselves.

Drops - I hate debaters saying that their opponent dropped a card - you don't drop cards you drop arguments/contentions. If there are actual argument drops make sure you explain why those drops are important.

Framework - I think framework is important in LD as well as framework debate; please don't collapse or kick FW unless its strategic. Make sure your framework is clearly and logically explained so that everyone can follow; especially if it is detailed philosophy. Your arguments need to link back to your framework, if it doesn't its hard for me to prefer it.

For PF: I don't expect a detailed FW but you need to provide some mechanism for weighing the round

Cross-X - Be civil, there is a difference between assertive and aggressive. Cross-examine, know that the cross-examiner can cut you off; Cross-examiner, don't abuse that power. I don't like PF yelling matches. I do not flow cross, if an important point is made you need to bring it up in a speech.

I will not base the round off decorum, there may be a penalty in speaker points. I like clean, engaging debates filled with clash. Debate the resolution and areas relevant to the resolution, kritiks are generally not relevant.

Don't be problematic/make problematic arguments.

If you have any questions or clarifications, please ask me before your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

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.

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

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

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

Prefers to hear all sides and great if speaks clearly and thanks you and good luck!

tl:dr: flay

-

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

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

quick bio:

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

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

I am currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania. I competed on my high school's varsity debate. I was elected co-captain my senior year and was one of the highest-ranked debate duos in the Philadelphia public league. I do not have much experience with Public Forum debate, but I have done some research on the style and conventions.

I value respectful and factual debating. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, don't interrupt or talk over your opponents during any part of the debate. I prefer coherent and clear speeches over speeches that are fast and attempt to fit in as many words as possible in the allocated time. I tend to reject false dichotomies and logical fallacies. Keep your arguments straightforward, if you can focus on one central argument and really support it throughout the entire debate, that will serve you better than half-supporting several different arguments.

I don't usually keep track of time, but with the new online format we can play it by ear.

I expect all competitors to know the rules of their format, be respectful to each other and the judges, and follow the order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate when the competitors interact with their opponents with polite respect and assistance. Though I am OK with fast speech, I am challenged when the debate moves at lighting fast speed.

I am a parent judge and have only judged a few tournaments before.

Content over presentation, but I am new so slow down. No new arguments too late in the round, it's not fair to all debaters. Signposting is very important, be clear where your starting, road maps are appreciated.

Do not be rude during cross, when you ask a question you need give your opponents time to answer it.

Good day debaters,

I have volunteered as a parent judge for past 2 years. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed. if you are going to use acronyms or technical terms, please take your time to explain as much as possible. Please be respectful and polite to your opponents. I love to see the argument viewed from multiple angles and positions substantiated with facts and figures. good luck!

I am a lay parent judge. Please go slow. I will try my best to take notes of your speeches and write down comments on the online ballot after the debate.

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

Email: caseyglymph@ufl.edu

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

Personal Notes

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

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

*Notes specific for virtual debate tournaments*

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

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

Summary of my judging style

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

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

Other notes

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

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

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

I did PF for four years in high school and competed at multiple tournaments, so I recognize typical debate jargon.

Haven’t debated in a while though, so most likely not too familiar with the topic.

I expect your arguments to be supported by data and statistics.

Don’t spread, this is Public Forum.

Don’t be rude.

If anything important comes up in crossfire, restate it in a later speech.

Signpost and weigh, always.

I am a parent volunteer judge. I am here to listen to both teams, learn, understand, and analyze the topic on hand with a clean slate. I am looking for clear, realistic, and thouroughly articulated arguments presented with evidence, and delivered without spreading. I will likely not buy large scale impacts such as extinction due to the minimal probability. However, I am not here to interpret, so I will interpret your arguments as you tell me to. If you are able to prove extinction to the extent that your opponent's refutations are inadequate, I might buy it.

Be respectful, I encourage passionate debate but any attitude or rude behaviour would result in a deduction of speaker points. Extreme circumstances will result in a loss for the guilty team. If I cannot hear your points, I cannot count them, so please do not spread. Crossfire is for asking questions and finding holes in your opponent's arguments, not reading evidence or going off topic.

I will be flowing the round so make sure to extend your arguments and impacts throughout the round. Good luck to all competitors, I look forward to judging your debate rounds!

Hello I am a parent judge my daughter goes to Brooklyn Technical High school. No spreading please, theory is ok. In general I flow rounds very closely and make my decision off the flow.

Hello! I am Reece and I am with Upward Bound.

To keep it short and simple, the things I look for during the debate are:

1) Team balance from both partners

2) Carefully explained/emphasized impact of each contention

3) Direct response to any major holes pointed out by the opposing team

4) Diplomacy/respectfulness during the round, no direct attacks/try to avoid talking directly over one another

Speed doesn't impact my decision, as long as your argument is coherent, your contentions are identified, and you're not jumping back and forth from one contention/point to another. I do prefer when people identify the organization/a roadmap to their speeches prior to speaking during each round. Try to not spend too much time on any singular piece of evidence, especially if it takes time away from the stronger parts of your argument/is not entirely relevant to the bigger picture.

I am a parent judge.

During the round, please speak clearly and slowly so that I can understand your arguments. Please refrain from using debate jargon and explain your arguments thoroughly; anything that goes unexplained might not be taken into account. Make sure to signpost and clarify if you drop any points. I will prioritize clarity. Also, make sure to time yourselves, and please put evidence in the chat so I can see it as well.

Weighing is vital. Tell me why you believe you won the debate and on what points specifically.

Finally, please be courteous to all participants and have fun.

I am a parent judge, and I appreciate well thought out, intelligent arguments & logic. I will vote for the team who presents the stronger arguments supported by clear logic. I would request you to not use too many technical debate terms or speak too fast, I will be able to follow a medium-speed. I am a good listener, and I am eager to judge your debates!

I am a first time parent judge. Please do not go fast. I will try and take notes on the debate and leave comments on the online ballot.

I am a parent judge. Please do not use debate-technical terminology unless you adequately define it. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Rose's are red

Violets are blue

Ask me my prefs

Otherwise good luck to you

PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

meow

I expect all competitors to be respectful to each other with good understanding of the format and order of debate. I judge based on logic, flow, and strength of evidence provided. I aim to be fair and respectful towards all teams and competitors.

New(ish) Judge.

No specific preferences.

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

Please speak at a reasonable speed, not too fast to make comprehension difficult. Also, have cut cards ready when opponents ask for them. Please use a respectful tone in speech and body language.

Things i look for in debaters:

-eye contact

-don’t speak too fast

-Try to speak to the audience rather than looking at the screen/paper

- card checking is not most important in the round

Hi! I'm a parent judge, and what you call a lay judge.

Please speak at a moderate, fairly slow pace and explain your arguments thoroughly.

Please remain polite to each other, or else I'll have to take speaker points off.

I will not evaluate new arguments brought up in the final speeches. I will also not evaluate arguments that I don't understand at the end of the debate.

I really like it if you tell me what to vote on in the final focus and why I should vote for that.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing your arguments!

Hi! I am Jenny and I am with Temple University's Upward Bound Program. A good debate team does the following things:

1. Have strong contentions with clear impacts

2. Ask purposeful questions during crossfire to undermine your opponent

3. Address any holes your opponent may have noted about your argument and explain why they are not valid

Try to avoid asking about sources unless necessary as many debaters have valid sources and many times, this has not shown to be useful or effective in the past. A good debate should have meaningful crossfires and this is your time to really poke holes in your opponent so be sure to develop questions that will interrogate the validity of your opponent's arguments. Lastly, be sure to stay respectful and polite during the rounds and stay within the time limits.

Hi! My name is Hannah Wang and I am a current college student at NYU Stern. My pronouns are she/her. In the past, I have competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate, Duo Interpretation, and Original Oratory on the regional and statewide level for all 4 years of high school. FLAY Judge with experience in speech and LD debate.

Public Forum

-As I have not competed in PF, I would suggest you slow down and be clear and concise with your argument

-There is no need to extend your defense in summary

-No spread, no theory, no progressive arguments

- I don't keep track of time, please keep track of your own time

- No new arguments in final

- Please be civil, no cursing, be mindful of your language and volume

- Don't interrupt

Lincoln Douglas

-Please be civil, no cursing, be mindful of your language

-I was a Traditional LD debater, open to progressive debate but I am very new so please be clear and concise

-No new arguments in the Affirmative summary

-Speak clearly

Extra: sw4880@stern.nyu.edu

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Explain technical terms. Don't use debate jargon.

I am a parent judge, please be clear and speak slowly for me!

I am a parent judge. Be respectful during crossfires. Speak slowly and clearly. Please explain your arguments. Good luck.