Hello,

I am Asma (pronounced Es-ma). My daughter competes in debate which has inspired me to be a judge.

I have professional experience in public speaking and have participated in debate many many years ago.

I will look for the following as part of my evaluation.

- Please weigh comparatively

- Organizational clarity

- Use of arguments

- use of cross-examination and rebuttal

- Presentation Style

- Skill in Analysis

- Use of evidence

- Validity of Argument

- Make sure that the data and statistics are factual and supported by credible sources

- Only collapse your case if you need to - use as a last resort

- Refrain from speaking aggressively or inappropriately during the round. I will lower your speaking average if you do so.

- And, most importantly, enjoy yourselves and have fun!!!

Speaking points average around 28 and are based on:

- How clearly you communicate your arguments and words is critical to my judging. Please speak clearly. I need to understand and comprehend what you are communicating to persuade and influence me.

- A comprehensive and consistent summary

- Effective delivery

- Clear articulation of words

- Clear rebuttals

- A strong defense case

If you have any questions, please make sure to ask before the round starts.

Good luck!

I'm a PF debater at Lakeland High School.

If you're creating an email chain: jbblue1231@gmail.com

Speeches:

Constructive - Any argument you make should have a clear warrant and impact. Also try to emphasize where each contention or sub point starts so we can all flow better.

Rebuttal - It's easiest to rebut your opponents' arguments by going down their speech line by line. Responses include turns, historical examples, logic, etc. Second rebuttal should respond to the arguments against their case that were made in first rebuttal.

Summary - If you didn't defend your case or weigh in rebuttal, you need to in summary. Be sure to include everything you want me to extend in this speech, such as your arguments and responses.

Final Focus - This speech should be used to clearly paint the picture for the judge of why you won the debate. Include weighing, offense, and defense. Don't make up any new arguments in final focus.

Cross - Please don't spent all 3 minutes on the first question, or turn cross into a shouting match. Take this opportunity to ask clarifying questions or poke holes in your opponents case.

General Things:

Flowing - I will flow the entire round except cross, and will vote off my flow. If you want me to flow something that was said in cross, bring it up in any future speech except final focus.

Time - I usually keep track of speech and prep time but I forget sometimes, so it is encouraged that both teams keep their own time as well.

Extending - When you extend cards, don't just read the author's name. Be sure to at least summarize what the card is saying. Most importantly, if you're going to extend an impact, make sure to extend the warrants and links too.

Calling Evidence - For the team that asks for the card, your prep time starts when you beginning reading it. I also may call a card at the end of the round if it is necessary for my decision.

Framework - If you have a framework, don't forget to relate back to it throughout the round.

Speaker points - Clarity is the most important aspect of speaker points. If you say a good joke or analogy I'll give extra points.

Finally, I completely understand how debate can be sometimes, but please be respectful and have fun! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Good luck :)

Debated for six years, qualled to TOC three times

*****General*****

Yes I will disclose give me like a minute. I also default to oral rfds, so let me know if you want me to type it out. Also add me on the chain at anika.bastin@gmail.com

I am massively tech > truth. HOWEVER this does not mean that I will weigh your one unspecific muddled link at 100% probability because there was no ink on the flow over someone’s well warranted argument which has some responses which were well weighed

Bad evidence ethics are probably one of the biggest icks for me. Contextualize and warrant your arguments. I don’t want a random card. I want an explanation as to why it’s going to happen. Please just cut good evidence so you don’t hear my rant on how bad ev ethics are ruining debate :(

If you’re second rebuttal frontline turns from first rebuttal.

Please have good case extensions in summary. Like good warrant extensions, otherwise you have no case offense going into final. If it's not in summary, it's not in final focus.

If I look confused, it's cause I am. It means clarify. I’m also fine with p much any level of speed, so it’s probably not that (but if you’re going to spread fr, just save time and send the doc. I’ll yell clear three times before I stop flowing).

WEIGH. Thanks. (By weighing I don’t mean yelling WE OUTWEIGH ON SCOPE MAGNITUDE TIMEFRAME AND PROBABILITY. Tell me why) Metaweigh and i will be so happy :))))

I'm fine with aggression just don’t be crazy rude. Any kind of discriminatory behavior will get you dropped w 25.

I presume neg if aff has no offense, presume 1st speaking team if both teams are equal.

I probably won't listen to crossfire. If something important comes up in crossfire, bring it up in speech

*****PROG*****

I did debate prog and have run theory and k’s before, so I’m pretty familiar with the arguments and the lit surrounding it in general.

Ok look. I get that Theory and K’s are seen as the whole new thing sweeping the circuit, but they were created for specific reasons, and I think that’s really important to understand. Please don’t run them to commodify the ballot. If you don’t understand the lit and you’re reading it for the sake of winning, it won’t go great.

I would consider it a fair prog round if your opponent is familiar with prog or you’re in a high bracket/elims at a circuit tournament. If they have not, I will have a lower threshold for how they answer. If it’s not fair for everyone, it’s not educational no matter how much you argue. HOWEVER if you’re running the prog for a specific purpose (e.g. a well established K or a clear in round abuse), I’ll go looser on this.

1. Theory

1. I believe that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is bad. Wild takes on the circuit ig but I can explain my norms if y’all actually want to hear why in round.

2. All in all though, I’m flow so I’ll evaluate what you say. It’s just if you’re reading wild things (like bracket theory or something) I will be very sad and the threshold for answer will be super low.

2. K’s

1. Ok look so this is another rant I can give y’all in round if you want, but please be careful with how you read K’s. They were created to do something specific, and reading them for the sake of winning is just not going to fly with me,

2. DO NOT READ IDENTITY K’S IF YOU/YOUR PARTNER IS NOT OF THAT IDENTITY. That will be an instant drop from me, I don’t care how valid your take is. It’s not your place to comment for that community. If you’re curious whether I qualify something as an identity K, please just ask before reading it. I will drop without hesitation, so better safe than sorry.

3. Tricks

1. Tricks are not for kids :(

*****Speaks*****

I default btw 28-29 and go up and down depending. No one's going to get super low speaks (like 27's) unless you were rude or offensive.

Ways to boost speaks

1. Weigh and Extend, signpost and offtime roadmaps. Basically just do your job.

2. just say everyone ready, don't go jUDge ReADy, oPpOnenTS ReaDY, ParTnER REadY, oKaY!

3. Strategic drops and kicks. I love seeing a perfectly timed kick.

4. Boba (passion fruit green tea is so good fr)

Ways to drop your speaks

1. problematic rhetoric

2. Making the round inaccessible/toxic

~~haha you say "they dropped all of our arguments"(when they didn't) and i drop your speaks big time.~~

about me:

• first year out
• did pf for six years/competed under St Francis BC
• I now do APDA at Stanford, but I'm very much a beginner at parli so please bear with me if I'm your judge for it.

email chain: alexchas@stanford.edu

**General**

Tech > Truth, but my barrier for overlooking your evidence that says that the moon is made of cheese is low if you don’t support it with well substantiated warranting when faced with a response or evidence challenge.

My view of a good strategy/performance is simple:

1. Warranting is your friend: whether you’re reading a turn, weighing, extending, or reading framework, warrant warrant warrant. Teams that read concise, well intentioned, and well substantiated warranting have never in my eyes been hurt by it.

But Alex if I warrant that aggressively I can’t read my blippy contentions, turns, and weighing anymore :(

Haha so true bestie, that’s the point

1. Towards the back half of the round, I want to see both teams collapse and weigh to make it clear to me what your narrative is, why I should vote for your case/link/turn specifically, and how it interacts with the round as a whole.

2. #1 also implies that speeches between partners will share a common vision and strategy, which definitely ain’t happening if your FF doesn’t mirror your Summary.

3. This is a preference but I prefer cohesive and nuanced cases over spamming multiple contentions with subpoints, because in my experience, #1 and #2 of my views of a good strategy don’t often happen with the latter.

4. This doesn’t happen in all rounds, but doing things like kicking case for turns (when done well) are quite impressive for me and fall under what I would deem “good performance”

5. If you plan on reading a framework, actually understand the literature behind each of your framework’s warrants and use that to your advantage to weigh against other arguments.

What I mean by good weighing:

Good weighing is not me voting for you because your number is bigger than theirs. It’s giving me an understanding why I should turn to your arguments first. That also implies that you will be comparing weighing mechanisms as well. Because telling me you win on one metric while the other team wins on another brings me back to square one, where I’m back to being forced to pick and choose based on what I personally think.

I’ll always look at weighing first, then any offense connected to that weighing, then all other offense (if there is no other weighing, which would make me sad)

Speed:

1. Speed is fine with me, and I’ll yell clear if I need to. But, note that as the months go by I’ll be less in tune with high school forensics, so it might be to your advantage to not go too crazy. (Crazy means speech doc levels)
   
   

2. Slow down for tags
   
   

3. I don’t like flowing off docs
   
   

Tiny rant about extinction framing:

This is not an excuse to avoid any meaningful weighing by simply reading your 100 trillion deaths card over and over again. Still weigh. Also actually read the lit behind your links because some cards I’ve seen have been so outrageous and not in the good way.

**Random Things**

Cross is binding. I won’t be flowing, but I’ll be paying attention so don’t pull anything morally ambiguous.

If you want me to read evidence, tell me to call for it. With that said, if it's irrelevant to the bigger picture of the debate, I won’t be reading it, and I’ll explain why in relation to the round in my rfd.

Postrounding is ok, I make mistakes. But note that my decision was also impacted by what has happened in the round, so ideally we could avoid this situation. If there was a game changing piece of weighing or delink that should’ve given you the win, you should’ve been making it clear in the backhalf.

**Prog**

Theory: I’ve run and debated against theory a decent number of times, and I’ve got to say it isn’t my favorite. Most rounds turn into the same thing over and over again with similar-ish standards that just end up going in favor of the team that has the most experience with theory to begin with. It’s also frankly quite clear that a majority of teams that run theory don’t do it for the sake of “spreading norms” or “prioritizing education,” rather they see it as a way to pick up rounds, so forgive me if my eyes roll to the back of my skull.

In addition, the notion that theory checks back against ad hominem, in-round abuse is absurd. If someone says something problematic and offensive about me in a round, the last thing I’m thinking about is how to format their violation into a shell and taking prep time to prepare an off for my next speech.

With that said, if you feel uncomfortable in the round, don’t hesitate to email me with my email above, and I will stop the round.

No Friv theory

Kritiks: I only ran two kritiks (neo-colonialism/intersectional queer futurity) in my time debating, and although they were quite fun to learn about and read, I will be the first to acknowledge that I barely knew what I was doing. I know about kritiks in concept and understand their function and format, but in practice, the lines become blurred for me. With that said, I find that critical literature raises a lot of interesting questions, especially if they discuss a cause you are particularly passionate about, so be my guest if you want to run it, I’d love to engage with you on the subject matter, just note that I might not evaluate the round as formally as someone proficient on the matter.

I competed in CNDF and PF for four years in high school, and I have been coaching and judging debate since then.

Judging Criteria:

- Clear Organization (Signposting is preferred).

- Use evidence and logical analysis to support your arguments.

- Present clear impacts and weigh them.

- Have your evidence ready.

- Speak with clarity.

- Listen and respect your opponents.

Qualification:

I've debated for around 5 years. I've competed in PF, CNDF, Lincoln, and Public Speaking.

Paradigm:

1. Make sure to have a framework in your first speech for your side so that I know what you are following throughout the round and what you need to prove on your side.

2. Make all your points (contentions; crossfire; rebuttals; summaries; final focus) clear and straightforward for me.

3. Use valid cards to prove your points but you have to tell me the impacts, don’t throw cards that have no warrants at me. (Those will be dropped)

4. Weigh the points that have been mentioned by you and your opponents, tell me why yours overweigh theirs. I will drop any arguments that you do not carry further through your speeches.

5. I do flow speeches but only things that stand out to me so make sure to extend important points throughout the entire round. I do not flow crossfires so if you want to mention anything that happened in a crossfire, make that clear to me.

6. I look for proper timing in each speech so make sure that you fill in but don't go over the time limit.

7. Speed is alright for me as long as everything can be properly heard and makes sense.

8. I will vote on what is said and what happens in this round of debate without adding my own opinions about the topic.

9. Being polite and respectful to everyone and never be sexist, racist, ableist, etc.

I am a parent judge who is fairly new to PF Debate.

Please avoid speaking too fast so that I can follow you.

Please back up your claims and rebuttals with evidence from reputable sources. Claims without evidence tend to be ignored.

It is a good idea to develop your arguments with depths while rebutting opponent's arguments and counter-arguments with evidence.

Most of the times one well developed argument is much better than many arguments that are not well supported/developed or dropped during debate.

Please treat opponents with respect!

Have fun in debating!

I have debated public forum for 4 years and was captain of my debate team at Paramus High School.

I am currently a senior in college at the Stevens Institute of Technology studying computer science & quantitative finance

Qualifications: 2 Public Forum Gold Bids (Princeton & UPenn), ToC qualified (2019), and 2x States Qualifier. Now I spend my time in debate through coaching

Both summaries must extend important defense, if you don't its not a huge issue, I'll probably have it on the flow.

Final focus should be offense centered / reiterations of your own frontlines and weighing on your part.

Idc what happens in cross, just be respectful

Rebuttal line by line / dropping a ton of responses is nice, just make sure the responses are well warranted / warranted in the first place. I hate blippy responses where I have to make the connection to the argument you're responding to, I won't do that for you. Any responses w/o warranting gets automatically dropped from my flow.

if you have any other questions, email cavingada@gmail.com

I'm a freshman at Fordham University studying finance and law. I've debated public forum for four years; it's now my third year coaching. In the past, I've received two gold bids.

Preferences:

- second speaker must frontline

- pls don't just read impacts. I care about the links getting you to that impact, regardless of how dramatic you make the impact sound

- summary must extend (don't just say extend, reexplain the arg)

- use voters in FF

- I don't flow cross but make cross fun and aggressive for speaker pts

- If you take too long to get a card, I deduct prep time and speaker pts 

don't stress, have fun!

email: cherygada@gmail.com

Hi! I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm the average 'flow judge' and would also describe my (previous) debate style as an average 'flay' debater. For background, I qualified to TFA State thrice and TOC/NSDAs twice. In short, I would suggest you focus on persuasion and quality of arguments, rather than quantity and jargon. Do not put me on the email chain and please go at a very slow speed.

Read this above all: "I will not evaluate any Ks, theory (particularly disclosure theory), or other forms of technical argumentation from Policy/LD that are not common in PF. Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible. If your opponent is racist, sexist, ableist, etc. I will intervene as necessary." -Jacqueline Wei

1. Exercise PF style judgment. Collapse, full frontline in second rebuttal, and extend defense in summary. DO tell me explicitly to call for evidence and signpost clearly. DON'T tag team speeches, flex prep, or spread. Speaker points are based on the above mentioned strategy but also decorum.

2. Present a cohesive narrative. Speeches throughout the round should mirror each other and have a strong central idea. As such, developed arguments and smart analytics always trump blips. I find myself not voting for arguments with little work done on them when they don't fit a story. By the end of the round, each argument should have extended evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact.

3. Weighing decides rounds. Weighing and meta-weighing should be done early and throughout the round, but with quality over quantity. This means implicating your weighing to engage with your opponent's arguments. I encourage you to create a lens to view the round by weighing turns, evidence, and case arguments in novel ways.

Ask any questions to me if necessary (feel free to contact me at nilaygandhi@utexas.edu) , and remember to enjoy each round!

I'm a policy debater at Gulliver Prep.

If you want to add me to email chains, use this email: Jacobgelrud@gmail.com

General things:

- I'm fine with spreading -- just do it clearly and loud enough to hear online.

- I will not flow crossex unless it is brought up later in the round. Do not turn crossex into a shouting match.

- Do not just extend names. You need to extend the warrants and claims. Narrative is a must.

- Tech > Truth

- signposting // roadmaps are a must.

- Last speeches should start by telling me exactly what should be on my ballot.

- Don't read racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments. If you're reading anything that needs a trigger warning, let the other team know in advance.

kritikal // progressive arguments

- I feel like PF was designed to have a lower barrier of entry, and as such, I will probably give more leeway to smaller schools who have low experience with these arguments. I'm pretty familiar with anti-blackness, setcol, cap K, and security K. Anything else that is super high theory will have to be explained very well in order for me to vote on it.

TL;DR -- I vote off of my flows

I am a parent judge and I have judged on national circuit for four years.

General Preferences

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself and for your opponents.

Please do NOT spread. Keeping the word count less than 180 words per minute would be great.

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. Roadmaps are helpful as well.

Be civil and respond logically. Don't be over-aggressive.

Coach for SA Harlem North Central. Approach to policy debate is stock issues and policymaker. Don't mind spreading but prefer e-disclosure for rapid readers. Prefer a few well-developed arguments rather than many shallow arguments. Prefer resolution of substantive issues over communication. I will vote on Topicality if Aff fails to properly respond. CPs and generic DAs acceptable. Debate theory arguments acceptable. Don't love conditional neg positions but will vote if done correctly. K's are acceptable but want links to stock issues to still prevail, don't want case to go completely ignored by the Neg. I have not found a performative compelling enough to vote on. Will ALMOST ALWAYS vote against problematic language; 100% of the time when opposition team makes it a voting issues.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

Hello everyone! I am currently a Political Science student at the University of British Columbia. I have debate experience in a wide range of styles such as pf, bp, worlds, and cndf.

Things to keep in mind:

1. Please signpost so I can clearly understand the flow of your argument.

2. Please be civil and respectful during crossfire. Do not talk over one another and share the time as evenly as possible.

3. Please be as clear as possible in your speaking. Although I can handle fast-paced speaking, it often isn't the best fit for everyone. I value individual's who can present their points with comfort and pizzazz.

4. I dislike off-topic arguments that try and catch the other team off guard. Please stick to the main argument as much as possible.

Good luck to all the competitors!

Hey everyone!

I am a graduate of Fordham University in the Bronx, and am very excited to be judging! I attended Nova High where, senior year, I founded and coached our Lincoln Douglas team, so I have a very extensive, but not completely exhaustive, understanding of LD. I am very well versed in debate events- freshman & sophomore year I competed in congress and junior year in PF. So I'm great at following logic- if you are going to run something tricky I'm totally capable to judge it, just make sure you explain it well.

Clear warrants and weighing mechanisms are extremely important to me. Please give me a means to evaluate what you are arguing. Keep my flow clean. Signpost.

I'm pretty much open to anything you wanna throw at me. With a few limitations of course. If you are at all sexist, racist, homophobic, or rude to your opponent, expect me to call you out and don't expect speaks higher than 25. I'm fine with speed to an extent- if you want to spread that's completely fine, just don't expect me to get every word down. If it's important, you better bring it up in your later speeches. I love to hear out of the box arguments - in high school, I ran a rage fem K - so I love to hear new and progressive ideas.

I'm sure I left out some things here so I'll be posting updates, but feel free to email me with any questions!

-Julia Kennedy

juliakennedy97@gmail.com

I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.

All the best!

Flow judge

PLEASE SIGN POST.

DON'T FORGET TO EXTEND.

WEIGH.

*I'm ok with speed but a little slower after not debating for a while so just keep that in mind*

Top-level

Yes, on email chain: isaacliu.ludebate [at] gmail.com. Also, please briefly off-time roadmap. I have not judged on the policy topic this year (both policy and Lincoln-Douglas), so I am a blank slate on that front.

Debated 2 years of policy for Liberty University and did LD and PF in high school. I am fine with spreading if clarity is not sacrificed but will default to tournament norms (and there is a chance I will miss arguments if your case is unorganized). Tell me how to vote; I will vote for anything if articulated well, provided it does not cause in-round violence (i.e. arguing for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.).

I expect you to time yourself and your opponent—I try keep time as well but sometimes forget to start the timer. If you go overtime and I don't catch it and your opponents don't catch it, good for you. If someone points it out, I will dock speaks.

Kritiks

I am down with them. I lack familiarity with high-theory post-modernism arguments. I have some familiarity with criticism of anti-blackness and settler colonialism and am quite familiar with kritiks of capitalism and security. Regarding PF and LD, I will default to tournament norms regarding non-traditional affirmatives. For policy, I am 100% down with them, but also find framework persuasive (fairness can be an impact).

Theory

More favorable for the affirmative regarding negative counterplans; more favorable for the negative regarding affirmative plans. I tend to find arguments to reject arguments rather than the team more persuasive.

Event-specific things (Skip if policy debate)

Please, please, please don't take too long asking for evidence. If you share evidence in a speech doc like policy does, I will give 0.5 higher speaks (unless the tournament expects everyone to share evidence).

Public forum – full disclosure: my voting record has been favorable to whoever gives the last speech. That doesn't mean always pick second speaker; that means collapse the debate in the final focus and be aware of what your opponents might go for in their final focus. As I believe the second-to-last final focus is inherently more difficult, I will give higher speaks when it is executed well.

TLDR;

Votes off the flow and how you tell me to vote. Kritiks on the neg or aff* are cool. Don't run abusive affs or neg strats. Spread your heart out*.

*will default to tournament norms for LD and PF

I am a parent judge. I have been “coached” by my MS debater on the structure of the debate and main ideas of the topic. So, I am somewhat familiar with it.

I understand that in some cases you must speak fast to cover as much information about your case as possible. As far as it is organized and you give pointers throughout the speech that I can follow and connect, I am OK with speed.

I also understand that you are passionate about your arguments. Maintaining respect is very important.

I will be tracking each point in your case, how you defend them and how you negate your opponent’s case. As far as you do it convincingly, you should be good!

Best wishes!

Anju.

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

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

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

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

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

Hello. I am a lay/parent judge, although I have a bit of experience judging. I will not write down arguments so if you want something to stick in my head, be sure to repeat it each speech. I will not tolerate any vulgar language or actions in-round. I would prefer it if you speak at a talking pace. I wish all teams luck in the round and if you have any questions, please feel free to let me know in-round. Send any evidence asked for in chat.

I'm a parent judge and I have only judged a few debates. I work as an engineer. I prefer to have a clear communication round with no speed.

Hello,

My name is Sejal Shah. This is what I am looking for in a round:

Speaking: Please speak clearly and not to fast so that I can understand what you say.

Weighing: Please weigh as it will help me make my decision.

***TOC '22: The activity has evolved to a point where it will be difficult for me to follow and give best decision unless speech docs and cases are sent to me via email so I can follow along. <alexthesherer@gmail.com>

Some notes about my style:

If the round is getting super messy/hard to follow, I tend to default to whoever is being the most truthful. Debates do not happen in a bubble insulated from reality, and I am NOT a tech > truth ideologue. That being said, I only intervene on the side of blatant mistruths/exaggerations. This is not necessary in good rounds.

Calm and collected debaters get the highest speaks from me. Let your opponents talk and don't yell over each other in cross pls.

Hi, I am a former policy debater: 4 years at Emory and 3 in HS. I have worked with Urban Debate Leagues in Atlanta, Chicago, and NYC. I have recently been teaching philosophy, so I am very familiar with ethics. Please discuss as much theory and critique as you want. Also, speed is not an issue if clear. I am also interested in science and religion (and the relationship between the two), but argue about what you are passionate about.

Debate experience:

I am a "parent judge" but a former debater. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a debater for USC (NDT). Was away from debate for about 15 years, but the over last 5 years, I've been frequently judging PF and LD rounds (with several TOC-bid tournaments the last couple of years for LD).

Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: ptapia217@gmail.com

Me Likey / Me No Likey:

LARP - 1

K's - 2

Phil / Theory - 3

Tricks - not unless it's Halloween

Speed:

I can handle a reasonable amount of speed. College debate is pretty fast. However, I dislike super blippy rebuttals full of analytics read from a doc. While I will probably flow most if not all of it, I'd prefer you to slow down a bit to articulate warrants of arguments you feel will be critical for you to win.

Kritiks:

I am reasonably familiar with most generics (setcol, cap, afropess) and a few postmodernist positions, but it might be safe to assume that I may not be as familiar with the literature base as you might be.

K Affs:

I have tended to vote close to 50/50 for and against K affs, so I tend to be fairly open-minded about these positions, but I am more persuaded when you can articulate a clear and compelling reason as to why you need my ballot. However, I also enjoy a good framework debate that's clearly contextualized for the aff (and the round) rather than something mechanically just read from premade blocks.

Speaker Points:

I tend to be reasonably generous and won't give anything below a 28.5 in a bid tournament. If I think you're strong enough to break, I won't give you less than a 29.5. I won't disclose speaker points, however.

Hello Everyone! My name is Phani and I am very excited to be your judge today!

I am relatively new to todays topic and I am lay judge.

In order to win my ballot, please do the following:

1) Speak Slowly and Clearly! I need to be able to understand your arguments clearly and you should also be as concise as possible when explaining them.

2) Remember that you are trying to convince me. Thus, I need you to tell me exactly why I should prefer your impacts/links over your opponents impacts/links.

3) Everyone should be respectful throughout the round!

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me during the round and remember to have fun!

Please articulate arguments clearly. I value quality over quantity.

I consider how well you do the following - Make your stance clear. Support your position with sound reasoning and evidence. Defend your claims when challenged by your opponents. Be alert to holes in your opponents' arguments.

Please respect your opponents. Absolutely no belittling. Have fun!

I am a PF debater at Lakeland high school

put me on the email chain webbl2016@gmail.com

I am a flow judge, if it's not in my flow I won't weigh it

plz tell me what to weigh because you don't want me to be the one to choose what to weigh

with all arguments I want evidence to back it up, you should be able to produce that evidence because I card call.

I do not flow on crossfires

In terms of speaker points if I can understand you, and you're not being a jerk to me and your opponents, I won't redact many speaker points.

Talk at whatever speed you're comfortable with, as long as I can flow it

any kind of hate speech which includes homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism, etc. will immediately result in a loss 25 speaks

I'm a Public Forum debater at Lakeland High School in Yorktown Heights, NY.

If you still have any questions after reading this, please feel free to ask.

Email if you need an email chain or questions after the round: izabella.wid@gmail.com

And if you don't have time to read this - TLDR; I flow, explain arguments, have evidence, keep time, and have fun!

Flowing

I will be flowing everything except crossfire. Use crossfire as a way to clear confusion or build upon what will be in an actual speech. Emphasize what you really want to have flowed.

Signposting, and telling me what you are addressing, does help.

Speed

In terms of speed, I do not care anymore. Keep in mind, it becomes difficult to understand what you're saying for not only me but for your opponents. I will struggle flowing it. Make sure to emphasize and enunciate appropriately.

Types of Arguments

I generally prefer well-warranted impacts.

As long as you explain well I can handle obscure arguments, but nothing major. I am not all-knowing, sometimes things do not make sense.

Dates

I prefer you read the year for your cards.

Evidence

Evidence is not everything but I find it important.

If you misinterpret evidence, read from authors or sources that are clearly unreliable, or make an argument that isn’t backed up by evidence at all, that lowers the traction of the argument, especially if the other team calls you out on it.

Please explain your arguments in a sensible way that I can vote on.

Summary and Final Focus

You don't have to extend your defense from the rebuttal into your Summary but if your opponent has made massive turns, you should put up some defense. In Final Focus, please weigh. You should be the ones telling me throughout and prominently in final, my reason for decision.

No new arguments in Final Focus.

Decorum

Funny jokes and witty puns are welcomed, but be chill about it. Getting heated is fine but keep things civil, intelligent, and respectful.

If you say "judge" I will look at you with anticipation for something you want on the flow above all.

Prep

I can keep your prep time or speech time if necessary but I would prefer you do that yourselves.

Further, if you go overtime I am fine with finishing a sentence or two but I won't flow evidence over time.

Miscellaneous

I couldn't care less about what you do before the round. You could throw a chair out the window and I won't take off speaks (but I will testify against you in court).

How you debate means more to me than what you wear.

It is your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote.

Feel free to ask me anything about your individual performance, or for any debate-related advice. At the end of the round, I would not mind if you showed me your own perspective of the round, I would want to help you guys improve as debaters but I also want to improve as your judge. If you think I did something unfair feel free to let me know.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, have fun. You guys are doing something that takes a lot of effort and willpower, so just enjoy yourselves and hopefully, you'll remember these times fondly.

Public forum

1. don't extend through ink

2. weigh weigh COMPARATIVE WEIGHING

3. highly encourage frontlining in second rebuttal

4. paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't misconstrue evidence

5. crossfire: I'll listen to it but won't impact the debate unless you bring it up in speech

6. summary and final focus must mirror each other; I like voting issues--> explicitly say it

7. I'm a flow/lay judge. Just do what you think personally that will win you the round.

8. you need to signpost; will deduct speaker points if you don't (either before or during speech)

Most importantly, have fun and good luck!