UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Nicole Burdette: I'm a novice public forum judge (11/14/20 is my second tournament). I'll flow (other than during cross fire), but will flow more accurately if you prioritize and speak slowly. Very much appreciate signposting, and on rebuttals -- as much clarity as possible regarding what you are rebutting. While I'm not as able to judge on technical approach as a more experienced judge can, I will judge based on the strength and clarity of the argument, and the impact you demonstrate -- both in terms of probability and magnitude. If you believe you win on a point based on evidence or other, tell me why. I appreciate creative arguments as long as you demonstrate clear relevancy.

I'm fine with speed as long as it's clear and understandable.

Please be civil during cross-fires - I know that debate tends to get heated when there's direct clash, but I prefer things to be as respectful as possible.

While cases and rebuttals are important, the thing I will be mostly voting off of is summary + final focus. If you make a point in summary, try to extend it through final focus so I really know why I should vote for your side. What convinces me the most is clear warranting that leads into impacts; if I don't know why the argument makes sense, I can't vote on its impacts.

Off-time road maps are fine, but not necessary. If I see one team being discriminatory towards the other in any way, including being racist or sexist, I'll automatically drop them.

Good luck to both sides; I'm looking forward to a great debate!

I am a lay judge, and I will vote based off of who can support their argument with stats, facts, evidence, and reasoning. I would prefer if you talked at a reasonable pace so I can understand the points being made and can write everything down. I love competition, but I want mutual respect between opponents and I do not approve of being rude during the round. Most importantly, have fun and learn from your own experiences.

I am professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State. I have 20+ years of experience teaching rhetoric and argumentation. In evaluating your debate performance, I am looking for the following:

1. Content:

are you able to formulate clear contentions in response to the resolution?

are you able to substantiate your claims with relevant and credible evidence?

do your arguments show good reasoning (are your warrants sound? do you avoid fallacious reasoning?)

are your questions during cross-examination helpful to your case rather than random? are you able to use the results of cross-examination to your advantage later in the debate?

are you able to respond effectively to all the contentions and rebuttals of the other side?

2. Organization:

are you able to structure your contentions in a way that supports your proposition?

are you clear in your statement of claims and support?

do you use clear signposting and transitions?

in rebuttals, do you clearly introduce the opponent's claims and how you refute them?

are you able to summarize your own and your opponent's cases side by side when you argue the relative strength of your case?

3. Communication and professionalism:

do you communicate in clear, uncluttered sentences?

are you speaking at an appropriate rate and volume to be clearly understood?

do you articulate/pronounce your words clearly?

are you polite and respectful your the opponents?

About myself: I'm a biology and environmental science teacher, while also an assistant speech/debate coach.

Email Chain: lizjames2010@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional style of argumentation that is well supported with evidence. Please try to speak at a pace that allows me to understand you and take notes about your case (quality of cards over quantity). Please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow.

Good luck and have fun!

Online Debate: Please turn your camera on for speeches (if possible). I don't care if you have your cams off when you're not talking.

Decorum: Be kind and respectful. I will immediately drop teams for any racist, sexist, homophobic, and other discriminatory actions.

Content Warnings: If you are reading a case regarding sexual assault, human trafficking, mental health, etc. you must have a content warning before the round starts and provide your phone number for anonymous contact. Failing to do so will cause me to drop you.

+++PF+++

Tech vs Truth: I am tech over truth unless you make arguments that are racist/homophobic/ableist/etc..

Evidence: Warranting every argument is the easiest way to win my ballot. I don't care that Mark 18 tells you that the world will explode in 5 years due to gun control unless you explain to me logically why that card makes sense. In a similar vein, if you contest evidence you must explain why I should prefer your evidence logically, don't just tell me "X card is more recent so prefer it."

Speed: I would prefer you speak at a reasonable pace (~250 wpm), but if you go fast (300+ wpm) I would like a copy of your case so I can follow along (I also expect you and your opponent to exchange cases for fairness). If you spread, slow for tags and warrant.

Off-Time Roadmaps: Don't care if you do it or not, you don't need to ask me.

Weighing: Weighing should start early in the round. I appreciate metaweighing and framing debate (ex. I like structural violence framing).

Summary/FF: Extend warrants over cards. If you tell me to extend a specific card without explaining 1) what that card is and 2) the logic of how that supports your argument I probably won't evaluate it since there's a good chance I'll have no clue what you're talking about. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Absolutely no new arguments after 1st summary!

Theory: I'll evaluate it, but I generally dislike theory unless it's extremely obvious your opponent made a huge abuse.

K: K is fine with me, but make sure you explain thoroughly if it's a more niche K. I will not vote on K if you are using it to get an easy win against a team that has no clue what you're talking about (I'll still vote on your other arguments, but if the K is the only offence you have you will end up losing).

Disclosure: I will disclose as long as the tournament allows me to.

Evidence: If a specific piece of evidence is highly contested throughout the round, I will call for it and make a decision off of what I see. Paraphrased evidence makes me sad so please don't do it.

Speaker Points: I give speaks starting from 28. You will get <28 for being excessively rude, sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, etc.

Timing: Time yourself. I'm pretty bad at remembering to set my timer. Do not hold your timer up during your opponent's speech if they go over time, it's pretty obnoxious.

+++LD+++

Email: kueyoungkim@gmail.com

I'm not an LD debater, so all the morality stuff is foreign to me. I have a general understanding of value/criterion debate, but please try to explain all the morality framing you bring up. K/T/Theory is fine, I will vote off of an RVI. No spikes or tricks.

+++Policy+++

Email: kueyoungkim@gmail.com

General: I have a basic understanding of Policy and should be able to follow most basic arguments (will vote on pretty much anything). Just explain everything to me thoroughly and I'm happy.

DA: I prefer good DA debate over K/T/etc.

K: I'm not super familiar with a lot of K literature so explain it thoroughly. Aff K/Planless affs are fine by me but you should have a really clear explanation why I should vote for you/why it's necessary.

Spreading: Slow for tags and warrant when spreading. Off-time roadmaps are a must.

Spikes/Tricks: I won't vote on any spikes or tricks.

Performative cases: Make sure you explain framework well.

Hi I'm Marie! I did pf for 4 years in high school, I'm currently a freshman in college.

I'll flow the round-make sure to explain everything clearly, collapse, and weigh. I won't flow cross, so if anything important happens tell me in a speech.

Other:

1. Keep your own time.

2. Extend your arguments. If you want me to vote on an argument, explain it clearly in summary and final focus.

3. Frontline in second rebuttal. If you're the second speaking team, defend any arguments you want to extend in second rebuttal.

4. Please collapse!!!!! Please please please don't extend more than 1 (maybe 2) arguments in summary. It's better to clearly explain 1 contention than speed through 3.

5. Weigh, tell me why your argument is more important than your oppenents'.

6. Be nice is crossfire. Don't interrupt or talk over your opponents. If you do, I'll drop speaks.

Most importantly be nice and have fun!

Hi!! I did PF in high school, currently a junior in college. Here are some of my preferences/things I like to see in rounds:

1. If you want me to vote on an argument, explain it clearly in summary and final focus.

2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you're the second speaking team, defend any arguments you want to extend in second rebuttal.

3. Collapse! Please don't extend more than 1 (maybe 2) argument in summary. It's better to clearly explain 1 contention than speed through 3.

4. Weigh! Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.

5. Be nice in cross! Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponents. If you do, I'll drop speaks. I'm not flowing cross, so if something important happens that you want me to consider, tell me in a speech.

I'll flow the round– please make sure to explain everything clearly, collapse, and weigh

Most importantly, please be nice and have fun!

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

Piper Meloche [she/her, last name rhymes with "josh" not "brioche"]

Groves + MSU

pipermeloche@gmail.com [all email chains, questions]

grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com [high school only]

What I expect from you

1. Non-negotiables - Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated. Nor will cheating. Unless the tournament rules tell me otherwise, I will not let an ethics challenge be "debated out." If there is an instance of discrimination in a round I am judging, I will allow the impacted person to decide whether the debate continues. I cannot adjudicate what I did not directly witness.

2. Strong preferences - flow, keep your own time, and frame my ballot at the top of the late rebuttals. Whenever possible, prioritize evidence quality - good cards and smart re-highlights will be rewarded with high speaks.

3. Be nice to each other and have fun - the people we meet and the ideas we learn in debate are far more important than the result of any individual round, tournament, season, or career. I am very sensitive to condescending and rude cross-ex questions - especially when the two students have a power imbalance.

What to expect from me

1. Tech over truth - but the two are far more interwoven than many debaters think. I often grow frustrated when teams give their opponents' best arguments the same attention as their opponents' worst arguments. Truth exists and should determine how you execute tech. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant - death good, oppression good count as morally repugnant, and hot take, global warming good is pushing it. All below preferences assume equal debating.

2. Much better for policy arguments - I was a K debater in high school, but my research now exclusively focuses on the policy side of college and high school topics. The purpose of this paradigm is not to constrain what you do in front of me but to give you the most accurate understanding of my predispositions and how I try to judge debates.

Topic Things

College --

1. D4/5 will be my first time judging this semester. If some community norm about the coolest cards to read or the worst advantages has developed since then, please take the time to explain that to me.

2. Many debates on the college topic will be an assurance or deterrence disad against an aff claiming to solve these impacts. Love that for y'all, but you need to do more link comparison. Asserting that you clearly solve prolif, but your opponent clearly doesn't without warrants gives the same vibes as "I know you are, but what am I?" and almost forces me to intervene.

High School --

1. FSPEC...I don’t get it. SPEC arguments are likely only true if dropped unless you can convince me I’m missing something.

Whatever happened to strategically vague plan texts?! Funding mechanism advantages are whatever, but you are opening yourself up to annoying PICs and process counterplans that change one tiny thing about that funding mech you specified in your plan text or in cross ex! “Normal means” is the best answer to “how is the aff funded” because “Perm: do the counterplan” is the best answer to counterplans that change funding in a way that still results in a JG, BI, or social security expansion.

2. Love that people are going for T, but I think there are more convincing options than “taxes and transfers.” I am unconvinced that the word “and” can never mean “or.” Piper likes to eat chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Did you read that as I like to put ice cream on my chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic? I sure hope not. In this instance, “and” does mean “or.”

Policy v. Policy

1. The politics disad is good, actually. It's only "bad" if you're bad at storytelling. Know the major political figures and forces involved in the disad.

2. A smartly constructed advantage counterplan can solve most affs.

3. Counterplans should compete. Creative permutations can and should check counterplans that do not compete.

4. Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue.

Clash

I'm far more familiar with identity Ks than Baudrillard and friends.

K affs v. Topicality --

1. Neg teams should answer case.

2. K affs should have a substantial tie to the topic.

3. Creative TVAs are an underrated part of the T debate - they should be something you actively research, not an afterthought.

4. I would prefer that aff teams provide and defend a clear counter-interpretation for the topic.

5. Everyone should avoid making gross exaggerations on the topicality page. K affs, for example, will not cause everyone to quit the activity.

Policy affs v. K --

1. Aff teams are most successful in these debates when they invest time in link comparison and flesh out the perm.

2. Neg teams are usually in a better spot when they prove that the aff is worse than the status quo and invest a substantial amount of time into the alternative.

K v. K

I have not judged enough of these rounds to give insight into how I evaluate them. Please prefer and provide judge instruction accordingly.

Random Hot Takes

1. The state of the high school and college wikis is disheartening. If you are scared that your entire strategy will collapse if others have your evidence, your evidence is probably not that good to begin with.

I think posting cites instead of Open Source is perfectly fine. BUT you have to check that you’re uploading complete cites! That includes the full tag, author, date, qualifications, a link to where we can access the text if available, and the first and last 3 words of your card.

2. Inserting rehighlights is *usually* good practice - read better evidence if this makes you sad. Rehighligted evidence will only be considered to the extent that it is explained. "Meloche goes neg" is not an explanation. At some point, introducing excessive rehighlights makes the level of explanation I need impossible.

3. A phenomenal 2AR cannot make up for a 2AC with sloppy mistakes - taking a few seconds of 2AC prep to make sure everything is in order is more valuable than saving those 15 seconds for the 2AR.

4. Your breath control sucks - easiest way to fix it is to try and take breaths at the end of sentences like we do in normal conversations. You'll sound and feel better.

5. After each tournament, I check how the points I gave compared to those received by the teams I judge throughout the weekend. This is my attempt to keep up with point inflation, but it doesn't always work.

6. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a fantastic Taylor Swift song - it is a mediocre neg strategy.

7. I am judging how easy to read, quickly sent, and aesthetically pleasing your judge doc is. Not in a win/loss way, but in a "I'm keeping a mental tier-list" way.

8. https://twitter.com/mcfuhrmann/status/1362452482165768193/photo/1

----

1. I've been trying to delete this numbered list for like 20 mins and gave up :(

As a judge, either in PFD or LD , I am looking for a good respectful debate, and please note I am traditionalist - yes circuit competitors you hate seeing this. However, the structure and format is set for a reason. Please make sure you use sound evidence and impacts should be clear, like in LD your Value should win out, please do not make this a policy round. Thank you and have a great tournament

I am a college student who debated in high school. I like when debaters fully engage with each other's arguments; I am impressed when you can situate your opponent's arguments and evidence in the landscape of your own. (i.e., Beyond just saying that they are wrong, explain to me why your arguments/evidence are better.)

I don't have a preference about your speaking speed, but I do think it's impolite to speak much faster than your opponent if that hinders your opponent's understanding of your arguments. This should make sense given that I want you to engage with each other.

Heads up: I am not very good at timing or giving time signals, but I will do my best. You may find it helpful to time yourself. Not required of course; only time yourself if you think that would be helpful.

For Debate:

1. No spreading and no off-time roadmapping: speaking quickly and fluently does not have to be spreading and you should have enough time to say everything you want to say within the clocked time (you can run a speaking speed test with me).

2. Balance evidence with fluid expression: arguments are only as good as how you make them, so don't just cram in lots of things and expect that, if the other side can't refute every single one of them, then I'll automatically award you the win (because I won't!).

3. If the other side introduces an argument when they shouldn't, then it's your responsibility to say that out loud when appropriate: I will not treat this violation the same way whether or not the non-offending side raises the issue.

4. You can agree with each other, but be careful: a lot of talented sides lose when they concede a point and then it becomes a stick wielded by their opponents the rest of the round, so don't put yourself on the back foot here.

5. Be respectful and error on the side of formality: it is rarely effective to be disrespectful, but more importantly there is a difference between being assertive and being pushy.

Balancing all of these factors is tough, but if you consider them closely you will begin to see what kind of comments you can anticipate for your performance in a round. Good luck and have fun!

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

Speaks:

1. I'm fine with any speed as long as you are clear and understandable.

2. If you're going to spread (not preferred), let me and your opponents know beforehand.

3. Don't be racist, sexist, or discriminatory, I will give you extremely low speaks and possibly drop you.

4. Don't be rude :)

Argumentation:

1. I vote off the flow.

2. Signposting is very helpful.

3. Crossfire: doesn't largely impact my decision, though please be civil, take turns, and give your opponents a chance to respond.

4. Summaries and final focus: mainly vote off of these, weighing is very important, also extend things through the round.

5. I like logic and strong warranting. You will not persuade me to your side with false links and logical fallacies.

Other:

1. Time yourselves (I'll also keep time)

2. If I look confused that means I either don't know what you're talking about or it doesn't make sense. I'll probably be nodding if I like what you're saying.

3. Good luck to everyone, I look forward to some awesome debates!!

In high school, I competed in public forum from 2019-2021. Now I compete in parliamentary debate (APDA/BP) for UChicago

1. Evidence: Arguments must be warranted & weighed. I will vote on a well warranted argument over a random card or statistic. No assertions, please provide well mechanized internal links before impacting. Paraphrasing is fine.
2. Voting: I vote on the flow but not on blippy extensions. Please give me clear voters, weighing, and comparative analysis in Summary or FF to avoid judge intervention. No new args past rebuttal, new responses fine.
3. Speed: It's fine, but usually not necessary. I prefer teams that speak clearly with word efficiency
4. Theory: Yes I understand theory. Please debate the resolution. I don't want to hear theory at nats unless there's a strongly justified reason. I won't drop theory, but your speaks will reflect my mood (bad).

If you make me laugh, you will get bonus points

Feel free to ask me for feedback or questions at helenwu@uchicago. Check out chicagodebateacademy.org , we're running a pretty dope debate camp.

I am a volunteer and new to judging. I have read some information about this topic and watched some videos on PFD. I appreciate slow delivery and clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Drawing my academic experience, I plan to look at the following aspects:

* Structured arguments. I believe that a better way to support a position is to make arguments with a clear and easy to follow structure, rather than just to stack lots of evidences (e.g., quotes or numbers).

* Depth. I believe that a few focused arguments with reasonable depth are more convincing than a collection of overwhelming, but shallow arguments.

* Good manner. I believe that debate is won by argument and manner. I do not tolerate those behaviors or words that are regarded as disrespect, rudeness, racism, sexism, etc.

Good Luck!