If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

PF: I did PF for the last year and a half in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you warrant it. I won't do any work for you so be clean with your extensions and weigh for me. 

LD: I did LD for the first 2 and a half years in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you sufficiently warrant it. I won't down you for running any argument, I try to be as Tab as I can. If it comes down to it I evaluate framework over contention level debate. That being said just because you win framework doesn't mean you automatically win the round. 

Speed: Don't spread. 

Background: I'm a junior at UC Berkeley; did PF and lay LD in high school (qualled to TOC in PF); coached/judged for the first two years of college; haven't done anything debate-related in a year

Arguments: I DON'T EVALUATE THEORY and am not comfortable with kritiks but will try my best to evaluate them; more experience with util debate i.e. plans/counterplans/disads.

Framework: As long as the framework is well explained, I should be fine evaluating it. If you're going to go for framework, make sure you explain clearly why I should prefer your framework over your opponents.

Speed: I can handle a decent amount and if you flash me the case anything is fine. I’ve never been uncomfortable flowing a round before. If you’re going too fast or being unclear, I’ll tell you.

Things to Do: 1) Off-time road maps are great, but don't make them excessively long. Just give me the order of flows. 2) Crystallization. 2NRs and 2ARs should collapse.

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.

TL;DR

You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

• Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
• Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
• Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
• Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
• Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
• Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
• Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
• Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
• Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg83oD0s3NU&feature=youtu.be&t=1253
• Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
• Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
• Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
• Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
• Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

• One team tells me to.
• I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
• I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
• I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.

RFDs

I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Tab judge. I have coached, or actively coach events, on local UIL, TFA and national circuit for over a decade. For Debate, please ask specific preference/style questions before round and in the presence of your opponent(s).

Interpretation: Very open to community standards and performer specific interpretations of literature. I try not to bring any preconceived understanding of literature into the round. I do prefer a teaser of some length before the introduction. Blocking and vocal characterization should be as distinct and clearly separate throughout performance.

INFO: I do prefer the use of a visual aid throughout the speech. Topics that are creative and challenging, or inspiring, are most intriguing and tend to separate themselves in a section. Sources are not as important in quantity, but the information should be presented in a fresh and relevant manner.

Extemporaneous: I prefer a balance of information and speech fluidity and personality. Clearly answer the question with a unified answer and give enough background/context in the introduction. Sources should be used significantly throughout the speech, but do not sacrifice a personable delivery simply to provide facts/analysis.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

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

A few items to share with you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC 2018

Judge: Don Currey

School Affiliation: Chagrin Falls High School (Ohio)

I have judged PF for 4 years. I am a parent judge and had no previous debate experience. I have had the privilege to judge well over 100 rounds at the local, state and national levels. My educational background is mechanical engineering and business administration and I work as an engineering manager. As an engineer, I tend to value substance over style.

My preferences during a debate round are as follows:

Speed

I don't mind a fast-paced speaking style. However, I do flow rounds and if I miss a key point while trying to keep up with a very fast speaker, it may hurt their team's final outcome.

Crossfires

I enjoy lively crossfire rounds as long as things don't get too out of hand.

Summary / Final Focus

My view is that teams should extend arguments into summary speeches if they want them to be considered in my final decision. I think it's important for a final focus speaker to concentrate on key arguments. They should tell me why they won the round and why their opponent did not. However, I don't discount an argument if it is not mentioned in final focus. Finally, I will ignore new arguments that is introduced after summary speeches.

Plans and Kritiks

If a team presents a plan as an argument, I will count that against them. Kritiks are acceptable, although I've found them to be generally confusing. While I won't automatically vote against it, a kritik is very difficult to judge.

Evidence vs. Logic

While I believe that arguments and rebuttals should be supported with valid, relevant and substantive pieces of evidence, I tend to vote for teams who present their arguments logically and demonstrate that they understand the topic.

Lay judge/teacher chaperone

-enjoy a civil flow not too fast.

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

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

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

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

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

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

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

Tom Dunlap

Monte Vista High School, Danville, CA

Ten years judging Lincoln Douglas

Eight years judging other events

I'm an assistant speech and debate coach, a former English teacher with 18 years of experience, a substitute teacher, and a tutor.

I favor a moderate, measured speed of delivery--I detest spreading. I value an eloquent, coherent, well-supported argument over stylistic flash. I prefer the big picture to line-by-line analysis in summary speeches. Conventional arguments are more persuasive to me than kritiks, many of which seem contrived. I flow during the debate.

Argumentation/debate teacher and Assistant Speech Coach at Cornell University. I previously ran Public Forum and taught full-time at Delbarton School in New Jersey. I have six years of coaching experience, four years of competitive high school experience in PF on the Missouri circuit, and three years of competitive limited prep/public address experience with Seton Hall University on the AFA individual events circuit. This "clashing of worlds" lends itself to a demanding paradigm: wins come from winning arguments, speaker points from SPEAKING WELL. Forensics is an activity rooted in the communication arts; thus, I have a few deep-seated preferences:

• Spreading is punishable by death. A saliva-filled gasp for breath is unlikely to persuade a jury during closing arguments.
• Debate jargon should be limited.
• Crossfire is annoying. I would rather swim in lava than listen to Grand Crossfire.
• I am not opposed to low point wins.

The route to my ballot is winning the flow as per the winning framework. The route to a speaker award is arguing like a PFer while speaking like an extemper. Plain and simple. I am a somewhat traditional PF judge, but I appreciate a (VERY) well-linked critical argument. Complaints about a legitimate pre-fiat issue will be dismissed quickly if you simply don't understand its nuances. Similarly, fiat can only exist when the resolution involves a policy or a political pivot.

FLOW

• My sympathies to the first rebuttal speaker. Your life sucks. I do not expect you to make every correct extension from your case, partly because you speak before your opponent responds to the case. I will accept a first-speaking team extending evidence case to summary. Do not abuse this privilege. Extensions can just be author name/what author said.
• I don't flow CX. Mention any occurance of note in another speech.
• If you don't signpost well enough, I will be looking for where you are on the flow. I will miss things you say. Those things might decide the round.
• I'm an open book. If I grimace rudely at you, it means I think your argument is non-responsive and wrote N/R on my flow. Adapt to me both before and during the round, or go for the other two judges on a panel.
• As your lowly judge, I require strict instructions. I won't do ink-work for you. "Extend ____". "Turn _____". "Stop playing ________ during our crossfire".
• I won't weigh for you. If you don't specifically tell me why your argument is more important than your opponent's, I will play argument roulette.
• My mind is usually made up by final focus. Do not wait until then to say important things.

CROSS

I hate it. It's the part of the round where two and sometimes (gulp) four competitors shout about things like warrants and net benefit without accomplishing anything. More often than not, everyone in the room is rude. It's when I check my text messages and the score of the Knicks game. You can convince me not to ignore crossfire simply by being calm and respectful to one another.

SPEAKS

• Below 25 ----- You did something that offended me.
• 25-25.5 ------- You were an ineffective speaker with vocal fillers all over the place. You struggled to get through your speeches. The speech performance was a distraction to your content.
• 26-26.5 --------You showed developing speaking skills, but still lacked the tools employed by an effective speaker. The speech performance was sometimes a distraction to your content.
• 27-27.5 --------You were an average speaker.
• 28 -------------- You were a good speaker who shows developing mastery of speaking skills. The speech performance sometimes supplemented your content.
• 28.5 ------------ You were the same as a 28, but did something else to make me want you to break even more.
• 29 --------------- You were a great speaker who has mostly mastered speaking skills. The speech performance unquestionably added to your content.
• 29.5 ------------ You were the same as a 29, but did something else to make me want you to break even more.
• 30 -------------- I believe you are one of the best speakers on the national circuit.

PET PEEVES

• Harvard didn't write the study. Someone affiliated with Harvard did. Use the author name.
• Metaphors which turn into solliloquies and equally absurd responses to them. Analogies should take no more than 20 words to explain. Do not ask someone in crossfire if it's okay to kill a baby.
• Talking during your opponent's speeches. You have notepads. Write each other notes like you do in class.
• Asking me how much prep time you have. If you're not prepped for prep time, it won't do you any good.

That's about it. Ask me pre-round if I didn't cover something here.

As a former public forum debater, I am accustomed to seeing structured debate that uses warranted evidence and prefers the use of warrants along with impacts over the use of numbers themselves. Numbers are cool and all, but explain why the numbers make sense in the context of the round.

Defense doesn't need to be extended in summary.

Weigh please.

Any questions? Ask me! Happy to answer them.

Thanks.

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

I prefer that teams send cases before constructive and speech docs before rebuttal.

About Me

I competed on the PF national circuit from 2010 to 2012. I coached on and off from 2012 to 2016, when I became the PF coach at Hackley School in NY until June 2019. After being out of debate for 4.5 years, I judged two tournaments in February 2024. I'm not coaching, so don't assume I know anything about the March topic.

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

If you want me to vote off your argument, extend the link and impact in summary and FF, and frontline defense. (If there is some muddled defense on your argument, I can resolve that if your weighing is much better and/or the other team's argument is also muddled.)

Give me comparative weighing. Don't just say, "We outweigh on scope." Tell me why you're outweighing the other impact(s). Most teams I vote for are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing or providing me with metaweighing arguments that compel me to vote for them.

If you say something offensive, I will lower your speaks and might drop you.

Specific Preferences

1. Second rebuttal should cover all turns, and address defense on the argument(s) you go for in summary and FF. If it doesn't cover defense, that's not a deal breaker – just makes it harder for me to vote off.

2. Extend defense in summary and FF. For example, if second rebuttal didn't cover some defense on the argument(s) extended, first summary should extend that defense. Obviously, If second rebuttal didn't frontline an argument, then first summary doesn't need to extend relevant defense.

3. Collapse and weigh in summary and FF. The best teams I've judged typically go for one argument in the second half of the round because collapsing allows them to do thorough line-by-line link and impact extensions, frontline defense, and weigh.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I care quite a bit about why X is true. I prefer warrants over unexplained empirics.

5. Do not give me a roadmap – tell me where you're starting and signpost. Make sure you're clear in signposting. I don't want to look all over my flow to figure out where to write.

6. I have some experience judging theory. If you run it, make sure it's actually checking abuse. I'll be less inclined to vote off the shell if you read it because of a relatively minor offense.

7. I've never judged a K. At the very least, it should be topical, and you'll have to accept that I'll determine how to adjudicate it.

8. If you are arguing about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, Supreme Court, etc.), please have very good warranting as to why your argument is probable. I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments because I strongly believe that most debate resolutions are unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can say specific legislation or electoral results likely do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case about why your politics argument is likely, please do not read it or go for it.

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.

Note that the below was written in a parliamentary debate context, where I spend the vast majority of my time judging. I've judged LD, PF, CX, WS in the past, but not for several years, so I may not be as familiar with the conventions as I used to be. All the below should still apply.

ABOUT ME:

I competed for Ridge in extemp for four years, and for Rutgers on APDA for four years. I've coached (lay) policy, PF, extemp, Congress, and parli for Ridge (on and off) since 2016, and I coached North Star Academy in policy for one academic year. I served as NPDL Reporting Director in the 2022-2023 season. I have degrees in political science and accounting. I work in analytics for an insurance carrier in Connecticut. I use he/him pronouns. I really love debate.

GENERAL/OVERVIEW:

Debate is collaborative, adversarial truth seeking. I like all kinds of arguments (but I like good arguments best). Be kind to each other! Rounds should be safe spaces, I will drop you for bigotry.

SPEED:

I don’t have any issue with speed in principle. Personally, I’m not great at understanding circuit-level speed, but I’m happy to say clear as often as needed. If your opponent makes a good-faith request that you slow down, you should slow down. If you don’t do so, I’ll almost certainly drop you.

STRUCTURE:

Framework debate is very important. I think that everything said in a round, including framework, is an argument, and arguments shouldn’t simply be asserted. Why should I prefer your weighing mechanism? Why is your actor the correct one?

Please signpost very cleanly. I never want to wonder what argument/subpoint/section of your speech you are on.

I very, very strongly prefer rebuttals that are almost entirely off-flow. PMR and LOR are opportunities for you to write my ballot for me. These speeches should weigh impacts, crystallize, and show me why you won the round.

Unless directed otherwise by tab policy, I will consider all new arguments in rebuttal speeches if they are not called out in points of order. Even if tab policy directs me to protect the flow, if I'm unsure if a point is new or not, I will likely default to assuming the argument is not new. All of this is to say: if you think a point is new, call a point of order!

If you go over time, I will stop flowing at the end of grace (for formats with a grace period). I will cut you off if it gets to be particularly egregious.

For virtual tournaments, if you're running a plan or counterplan, I would appreciate it if you paste the plan text in the chat function.

COUNTERPLANS:

I don’t have any issue with CPs, but I dislike plan inclusive counterplans and counterplans that are very minor modifications to the plan (eg, do the plan but do it two weeks later). I don’t dislike them enough to intervene against them, and I have voted for them in the past, but I think they’re probably bad for debate and will be amenable to arguments to that effect. In any case please put your CP text in the chat for virtual tournaments.

THEORY/K/TOPICALITY:
I like all three! I like K affs! I like well done theory in response to Ks! But see above: I like all arguments. You should run these if you think they are appropriate for the situation. I was not a K debater, and I am not especially familiar with any of the kritikal literature, but I am happy to listen to whatever you read. In any case, with any of these arguments, please make sure the critical components (eg alt, ROB, interp, violations, etc) are highlighted and easy to flow.

Post 2023 NPDL TOC note: I find myself voting for K teams relatively often because they often give me really clear roles of the ballot, while teams responding to a K are often a little less clear about the ROB. My aim is to intervene as little as possible, and where one team tells me what my ballot is for and the other team doesn't, I'm very often voting for the former. So, if you're responding to a K: don't just tell me why the K is bad, tell me what my ballot is for, and why I should vote for you. It's perfectly fine if your answer to that is the ROB is to vote for the team that proves the resolution true/false! I really can't stress enough how important this is.

You should not read my paradigm to mean that I am not amenable to Ks bad arguments: I am perfectly willing to vote for Ks bad, and am open to RVIs deployed to that effect. That said if your standard response to Ks is disclosure theory it's probably best to ask the team if they're planning on running one.

I do not especially like frivolous theory (tropicality, note the r, makes me sad) and will do my best not to vote for it.

TECH vs. TRUTH:

I guess I’m slightly on the tech side of things? I don’t think I have ever judged a round where I thought “since I’m a tech judge, I will vote x, but if I were a truth judge, I would have voted y.” I think arguments need to be warranted to have any weight in my decision, though.

I will always adhere to tab/tournament policy re: evidence.

POIs:

I think you should take one, I don’t care if you take more than that (I would actually encourage you not to take more than that).

ENDNOTES:
I’m always happy to answer any questions before the round, or about my RFD/feedback after the round. I love judging and I’m very excited to be judging your round.

Jim Hanson

Judging Philosophy 2017

Executive Director

Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Foundation

jim@climbthemountain.us

President

West Coast Publishing

jim@wcdebate.com

I have coached and judged NDT-CEDA, NPTE-NPDA, Policy-CX, LD, and Public Forum Debate at the regional and national circuit levels including national champions and major national tournament champions. I debated high school policy and college CEDA and NDT debate long ago. I have been involved in the speech and debate community since 1976 as a frosh in high school and continue that tradition by helping new speech and debate programs as well as existing ones to succeed with my work with Climb the Mountain and West Coast.

My Default Decision-making: I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative/pro advocacy versus those of the competing negative/con advocacy.

EVERYONE: STYLE ISSUES

1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning.

2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the last speeches.

3. Please extend evidence by the tag with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer).

4. I dislike 1) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”), 2) rudeness, 3) “They are stupid” comments. I really dislike personal attacks on opponents and usually results in loss of speaker points and if carried too far could be the cause of a loss.

5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one card turn that turns into 5 minutes of additional links and impacts in later speeches. I am lenient about new arguments until the very last speaker in the debate. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue because of the new argument and why that was so critical.

6. Good cross-examination/crossfire matters a great deal to me. Questioners should ask questions to expose holes in their opponents’ cases and use followup questions to answers to gain an advantage and ask questions in a way that is clear but tough for the opponents to answer. Respondents should directly answer the question or talk about good arguments they have made related to the question. Citing sources and specific warrants in your answers is a bonus—as is answering right away without delays because you are trying to figure out an answer.

7. Speed:

--Open Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA: National Circuit style is fine for me although I prefer a rate at about 80% of high speed debates.

--In Novice/JV divisions of Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA and in ALL divisions of public forum debate: I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATERS MAINLY: KEY TO MY DECISION

Cases should provide quality evidence with warrants and impacts and should address key arguments about the topic—those arguments can be creative and unusual but since it is public forum they should be real ones that experts/the public are discussing.

Read evidence (quotations) in the rebuttal speeches and directly answer your opponent’s case arguments—don’t just cross-apply your case contentions.

Summary speakers should primarily/nearly exclusively defend their cases rather than also attacking their opponents’ cases (which was just done by the rebuttalists).

Winning the debate means winning the contentions with the most impact. Explaining how/why your strongest arguments outweigh the opposing teams’ arguments is a good idea.

NPTE-NPDA ONLY: TRADITIONAL VERSUS LINE BY LINE REBUTTALS

NPTE-NPDA debaters: If you are going to debate national circuit line by line style (which is totally fine), then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the last speech. If so, I support in NPDA-NPTE, MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 2 to 4 key answers on each position. If a team splits the block—then deal with it—don’t argue abuse because I am highly unlikely to vote on block splitting is abusive (however, if a tournament's rules ban splitting the block, i will follow the tournament's rules).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: TOPICALITY AND THEORY

1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan” types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical.

2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care).

3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it—don’t waste time arguing theory. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other.

4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative.

5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated in the text of the plan.

6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult/condition counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means.

7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. on the "pressure china topic" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan is probably also not topical).

8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan nor EU nor UN Counterplan.

9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such counterplans.

10. Object Fiat: Probably bad but I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should be ready to defend US action but there's a limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms.

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: DISADS

Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disadvantage—that is by far the most important part of a disad to me (uniqueness and impacts important too but links MORE important).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: KRITIKS

• Negatives should have specific links (links are key!!!), clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms.

• I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the 1NC. If it isn’t, I give the 1AR tons-o-latitude.

• I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter.

• Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Debters: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts.

• “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc.

• Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments.

• Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm uses the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik.

• "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count.

• Negatives that run performativity/project kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the 1NC/LOC speech (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the next negative speeches, I let the affirmative make new responses even if it is the 2AR in LD or PMR in NPTE-NPDA). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative case.

For me arguments are most persuasive when they are offered with a sense of clarity, balance, and an appeal to everyday relatability. I tend to frame it like this: I prefer articulation over information. I've heard many brilliant cases made that unfortunately ended up going over my head because they were delivered at a dizzying pace. The flows that tend to be the most effective are slightly more measured.

For me, ideas and concepts that can be explained to anyone who just happens to take an interest are more effective, in my experience, than overly technical language or abstruse rattling off of sheer data. As a judge, I value transparency and accessibility above anything else. This informs my judicial philosophy and shapes my attitude towards what makes for an effective debate.

Hi! I'm Chase Harrison. I was a national circuit Extemper from Millburn HS in New Jersey, appearing in several NSDA and TOC final rounds. Since graduating, I have weirdly judged a lot of PF and some LD. I've judged finals rounds in PF at state and TOC bid tournaments and outrounds in LD at TOC bid tournaments. Just because I did a speech event, doesn't mean I am not a good debate judge!

I currently compete in college parli debate for UChicago, so I am versed in debate theory and language. I know how to flow a round and judge off the flow. I'm ok with you talking quickly, but I'll let you know after a speech if you went too fast for me (Generally, if you are speaking too fast or not clearly, I'll make a face). Coming from the world of speech, I tend to value speaking style and presentation of arguments more than other judges. You are here to practice your public speaking, so using filler words, not organizing your thoughts well, coming off as condescending, or mumbling are all to be avoided. This will probably be reflected in my speaker points more than my round decision.

I'm not a huge fan of any arguments that are too based on a single source or a single piece of data. I also really hate debates that lack clash. Besides that, I'm good with whatever arguments you want to run!

Good luck and let me know if you have any questions before the round

General notes:

I believe that debate should be an educational activity. Using speed and jargon to exclude your opponent (and frankly your judge) is contrary to this purpose.

How (and not just what) you argue is important. Make eye contact! Don't play with your pen! Don't sigh when your opponent is arguing! Don't make distracting hand gestures when you speak! Yes content is important, but even the best, most technical judges are (at the very least) subconciously influenced by your style. I've done debate long enough to know that most debaters are too concerned with the flow to believe this, but at the end of the day this is important.

Read your judge. If I look bored, I am. If I look confused, I am. If I am not writing anything down you have either begun to beat a dead horse or are speaking to fast. Adjust accordingly. Your judge is way more important than your opponent.

Evidence is important, but it is not the end all be all.

I am open to any argument so long as it is well argued, warranted, and supported. 

PF Specific Paradigm:

I did Public Forum throughout my four years of high school.

Speed: Absolutely no spreading! Speed is OKAY as long as you are signposting clearly and not sacrificing ennuncaition and fluency. If in doubt, go slower. Do not go fast for the purpose of excluding your opponent from the debate. 

Framework: This is important to me. Not only have framework but also support it. Why am I looking to your framework? I use the framework to see which impacts actually matter in the round. A team can win all but one argument and lose if that's what the framework says! 

Evidence: Organize your evidence. If you take over 30 seconds to look for evidence, you are taking to long. Do not just extend card names. Remind me what the card says and why it matters in the round. You should use statistics to support a claim (and explain why the statistic does just that)--don't just through precentages at me! And finally, don't over rely on your evidence. Analysis matters 

LD Specific Paradigm:

I did Public Forum throughout my four years of high school. My only exposure to varsity LD has been the few national tournaments that I've judged at this year. In terms of speaking, I prefer a conversational speed (think a public forum round) or maybe a little faster. I should be able to understand you and write down your arguments with relative ease. Consider me a qualified traditional judge. I am willing to listen to nonconventional arguments (Ks, Theory, etc.) as long as they're clearly explained.

Do not just extend card names. Remind me what the card says and why it matters in the round. Remember that a statistic alone is not an argument. Statistics should be use to further a claim that you are making. Explain to me why your statistics further your claim. Finally, a card is not true just because it is a card. Be able to logically defend your card.

I value logical explanations and weighing more than technical jargon and techniques. If your strategy involves using techniques that purposefully exclude your opponent, I am not your judge. You will not get high speaks. I find debate to be a relatively elitist activity, and I think that the main goal of this activity should really focus on being inclusive and educational. Engage your opponent on whatever level of debate is comfortable for both of you.

Most of all, have fun! Debate is an activity meant for education and enjoyment.

Speed
I will try to take notes/flow as you go, but I will not be able to follow your arguments if you go too fast. Try to slow down as much as possible.
Timing
You are welcome to keep your own time, but I will keep official time as well, including prep. Please do not steal prep by talking during the opponent's speech time - I will deduct speaker points.
Evidence
I might read a little literature related to the current topic, but don't assume I know everything that you're talking about.
Arguments
I will listen to anything as long as it makes sense.
Speaker Points
I'm usually not too generous with them, but I'll reward good effort, politeness, and logical argumentation.

Background:

4 years of national circuit public forum at Poly Prep.

Assistant PF Coach for Walt Whitman.

Speaking/Speed

I can flow decently high speeds but don't speak fast just to speak fast. I'd honestly prefer you give me "lay" speaking style with strong flow content. The thing I care about most is that I can understand what you're saying. If you speak fast but are clear and articulate, then I'll be fine. If it's early in the morning or late at night, please go easy me, as I will likely be tired. Strong rhetoric, humor, and civility to your opponents are good ways to get high speaks.

How I Vote

I vote for the team that I perceive has given me the easiest way to vote without any intervention on my behalf. The easiest place to vote, for me, is always an offensive argument [an argument that advances your position and not one that merely disproves your opponents’] that has been completely extended with all of its components into both summary and final focus, and weighed comparatively against your opponent’s impacts. That means you have not only shown why such an argument is important, but why it is more important than any the other team presents.

When neither team has completely done this for me (i.e., you have not weighed, or your full argument is not extended properly, etc.), then I am forced to intervene in order to determine who has won the round. I will try to do so in the way that seems to make the most sense to me and requires the least amount of thought; i.e., if one team’s impacts are much bigger than the other’s and nobody has weighed, I will vote off the bigger impact. However, my interpretation of what may constitute a “bigger impact” is entirely subjective; you do not want to rely on my internal weighing mechanism to decide the round for you. Sometimes when nobody has weighed, I've decided rounds on which team's arguments were extended more thoroughly or warranted better. If nobody has weighed, for example, but Team A didn't extend impacts in summary, that gives me a reason to prefer Team B.

I want you to force my ballot by explaining how one or two issues in the round are where I must vote; almost quite literally, I want you to write my ballot for me in final focus. Even if you think the round is obvious, treat me like an idiot and explain thoroughly how you win.

Offense and Defense Extensions in Summary and Final Focus

First of all, you should never try to cover every single argument made in the cases/rebuttals in the summary and final focus when I’m judging you, or just ever. The shorter speech times simply don’t allow for this. Instead, I expect the summary and final focus to collapse onto a few issues and explain why those issues are the most important and why I must vote for you on those issues.

I do not require the first speaking team to extend defensive responses to your opponents’ case into first summary unless they were frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. This means you should take advantage of this by spending the entire time in first summary front lining, extending, and weighing your case. If you extend defense that the other team hasn't addressed yet, you are literally wasting time and I will simply stare at you.

All offense you want me to vote off of, however, including turns to your opponents’ case, should be in both summaries. I also believe that 2nd summary should extend critical pieces of defense, since they know what the first summary has gone for.

Extensions need to be more than “extend this card.” A full extension includes the argument/response, and all of its components. That includes all the internal logic behind the argument/response and its impacts/implications for the round.

If you extend a response from your partner’s rebuttal without telling me how it matters or what its utility is, for example, then I see it as intervention on my behalf to implicate that response for you. That means I am less inclined to buy it or evaluate it, unless I am in a round where very little has been implicated for me. My paradigm favors a team that gives fewer responses but explains how all of those responses/arguments matter over a team that dumps lots of arguments/responses in their speeches but doesn’t tell me why any of them are important.

In a round where there I can find no offense to vote for by either team in final focus, I still have to make a decision. In this circumstance, I default to the Negative, because I believe that the Affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution to be true, while the Negative doesn’t really have such a burden. That being said, I am totally willing to accept reasons why I should default to the Affirmative in the case of no offense, if they’re given to me by the Aff team. However, this is a really bad/risky strategy to win my ballot. Instead of engaging in a defensive battle, please try to win offense. I am more inclined to vote off of any offense, even a risk of offense, than defense.

Theory

I am willing to accept theory in the case where there is an actual violation present in a round. However, if I perceive that a team is misapplying theory, especially as a cheap copout to win a round against a team that doesn’t understand theory, I will consider intervening and dropping the argument even if the other team doesn’t respond to it properly. While I normally try to intervene as minimally as possible, I believe that the circumstance of abuse of theory in public forum warrants my intervention because I think that misusing theory is really harmful for the activity. Theory can be necessary when there is a seriously abusive round, but when you’re just running some random theory argument to confuse the other team, that furthers the stigma against theory in PF, which means when teams actually need to use it, they might be penalized for it. Ultimately what this means is don’t run theory unless you actually believe the situation you’re in is abusive. If there’s a gray area, then I won’t just drop the theory argument myself and I’ll pay attention to who won it on the flow. But if, for example, one team runs a T shell about how NIBs are bad and the other team isn’t running any NIBs at all, I consider that a pretty blatant and obvious misapplication of theory, so I won’t evaluate the shell even if it’s dropped. In this case, I won’t automatically drop the team who ran the theory, but I won’t evaluate the theory in my decision.

Evidence

I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible. If you tell me to call for something, I most likely will unless it's really unimportant for my decision. I may also call for evidence if something sounds suspect/too good to be true or if a team changes the way that they cite a card (e.g. a 50% increase becomes 500%), though these are rare occasions. I will dock your speaks if it turns out you're misrepresenting evidence and drop the card/probably the argument from the round depending on the circumstance; I don't drop the debater unless there is a formal evidence challenge or the opposing team wins a theory argument telling me why miscut evidence means I should drop the debater.

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

I am a parent judge from Hunter College High School. I have been judging for a few years now. Please speak slowly and clearly, no jargon. You should concentrate on the 1-2 most relevant arguments at the end of the round and point out to me why I should vote on those. If you want to win off of an argument, please highlight it in the summary and reiterate it in the final focus speeches. Please be civil to your competitors.

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.

I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.

That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

I am a very traditional judge. I do not like speed. Speak at a normal pace.

No K's. Debate the topic.

Crystalize. Tell me why you won the debate. If you write out my RFD, you stand a better chance of winning.

Make sure that you bring up any cross-ex points in your next speech. Connect them to what you have said.

Overall, I want to know why you should win the round. Spell it out. If you leave it up to me, don't be surprised if I had a different takeaway than you wanted.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education and disability care.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity- this goes for any day, any round, any tournament. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it.

I don't care about email chains/documents... unless you're running an extremely """progressive""" case. No harm in asking, though.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)

That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. You know what the difference is. If I have to call for clarity/speed more than 3 times in a round then I'm going to really be harsh on your speaker points.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

You're gonna find it very hard to run some form of Disability Pessimism with me and win- this is one of the only biases that I can't ever seen to get past- I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told).

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Role of the Ballot arguments usually make me cringe. "Education" based arguments also make my brain explode- running these with me unless heavily contextualized will usually go nowhere.

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

Disclosure (or even time skew, for that matter) theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive and whacky.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

Truth > Tech, but Tech isn't a bad thing. If there's no base for you to ground your argument in truth, you can't access technical arguments. Extend tech off of truth.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

i do deb8

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

I am the head coach at Coral Springs High School. I have extensive experience with Public Forum, but I also judge LD from time to time as well. I've been involved with speech and debate since 2009, and I've been coaching/judging since 2012.

Here are a few things to consider when debating in front of me.

Speed: I can flow speed pretty well. That being said, I prefer rounds that can be flowed on paper rather than rounds where the speed is so excessive that I am reading off of a word document or email chain.

Off-time roadmaps: Please do not do them - if you need to organize your speech, do so on the clock.

Evidence ethics: Ethics can be a voting issue for me. If you believe your opponent is misconstruing a card, tell me to ask for it after the round. I will not arbitrarily call for cards that I personally find fishy, you need to tell me what evidence should be reviewed. If your evidence is being challenged, please retrieve it in a timely fashion. Speaks will be docked if you take an excessive amount of time retrieving evidence.

Decorum: Please be nice in debate rounds - while I ultimately make my decision based upon the arguments on my flow, I have no problem tanking somebody's speaker points if they are rude, offensive, judgmental, or otherwise unkind in a debate.

Updated December 2015

EXPERIENCE:

4 years of national circuit PF for Ridge High School in NJ.  Coach at Poly Prep in NYC.  Taught at CBI, NDF, and will be teaching at Millenial Speech and Debate Institute.

SPEED:

I was on the faster side of the PF circuit, anything short of spreading should be fine so long as it's signposted clearly on the flow and clear and anunciated.

EVIDENCE:

I will only call for a piece of evidence in one of two situations.  

1 - I am explicitly told to by someone in the round.  

2 - I am utterly unable to make a decision without seeing it.  Hint hint, if this is happening, someone was doing something wrong.  

For an evidence call I'll just make everyone put their pens down while the team looks for it.  If you just read an indict and they drop it I'll drop the evidence in the round.  If you think it's a gross enough violation for a loss or a disqualification, tell me to call for it and I'll make that call.  The only exception to this rule is that if I cannot make a decision for the round without incorporating that piece of evidence, then I'll ask to see it.

HOW I JUDGE:

Step #1: I look at the framework that's left after the clash in the round.  This means the framework that is warranted and weighed over whichever opposing framework is provided.  

Step #2: I look at the impacts that are left standing on the flow.  This means link level and impact level extension that is implicated as offense by the debaters.  *****Any offense needs to be in summary and final focus, this includes turns (this doesn't include defense, rebuttal to FF extension is fine on that)*****

Step #3: I look to see how the impacts left for each side fit into the framework provided for me.  This is where, in the event that you haven't established a framework or weighed your impacts, things start to go badly for you because I use my personal calculus to decide which impacts I want more.  *****I AM WEIRD, YOU DO NOT WANT ME MAKING THIS DECISION****SO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS*****

MISC:

I don't flow Cross and usually use it to write on the ballot.  If something important happens in Cross, it needs to be mentioned in the next speech or it does nothing on the flow.  

I buy any argument so long as the evidence is there and the responses are dealt with.  If you want to run an aliens case, go for it.

I'm also down for other weird stuff.  Want to read one contention and start responses in the case? Go for it.  Want to skip case and go straight to defense? Godspeed.  Want to use a hipster moral theory? Warrant it and you're good. 

I am receptive to theory and kritiks, so long as they are implicated and warranted.  If you tell me your opponent's discourse is a voter, I'll go for it.  

Any and all questions are more than welcomed, I want you to have total knowledge of who you're debating in front of.

Good luck and have fun.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

As a former CX Debater/coach,  I generally start with framework and observations and weigh them throughout the round, and I do not automatically count drops unless they are actually outlined. I don't mind a sense of humor. I always enjoy good clash in a debate round. Spreading is not encouraged, as what cannot be heard will not be flowed I love PF, and I have judged hundreds of rounds at every major tournament in the country including semi-finals at TOC's.  
Here are a few basic rules:
*Old policy habits die hard:  Framework, Framework, Framework,
*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive
*I don't intervene on the flow; you must make the argument. 
*Be careful with evidence; I probably know the card as well as you do.
*If you have a winning argument; I need to hear it before final focus; It must run throughout the round.
*Never lie about what the other team dropped.  

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

I am an Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at Montville Township High School. In high school I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I've been involved in speech & debate for over ten years as a competitor, judge, and now coach.

My debate paradigm is simple. I ask that you provide me a clear explanation for why your side is winning based upon the resolution. I prefer topical cases. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity and I value the educational experience above all else.

That being said, I will certainly listen to whatever framework, paradigm, or theory you plan to throw at me so as long as it is well articulated, warranted, and explained. Context is critical for me to evaluate your arguments and understand why your side is winning in the round based upon the stated resolution. Assume that I have not researched the resolution at hand.

I prefer clear overviews that explain what you plan to do in the round and how you plan to win. I want this to continue throughout the round. How and why you are winning? Interaction with your opponent is a must. The more clash that exists in a round, the easier it is for me to adjudicate. I'm not interested in inserting myself into the round as the judge. I need weighing mechanisms.

Word economy is a valuable asset. Speed is not. I will not yell clear, even if I cannot understand you. The communication aspect of this activity is not dead. So why take the risk and spread?

Please let me know if you have any questions before a round. Good luck!

Yes, I am a parent judge, yet travelled with my son's team for three years and judged at every tournament. I want you to convince me with your arguments, not with a bunch of PF lingo.  I do not like speed for speeds sake, as I can't flow. If I can't understand what is coming out of your mouth, I can't follow you. If I can't follow you,  I can't vote for you. I originally came from a speech background, I care about speaking technique. Quality of argument over quantity. 

Be clear:

Public Forum's roots are based in "one" going before the general public, persons of diverse education, intellect and knowledge.  I expect the presentation of your arguments to reflect that. Please don't dumb down because I am a "parent" judge.

Be clean: Please do not play dirty, the world is dirty enough. Be clean.

Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending.  There is no room for that.

Use:

Your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story.

Your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.

Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled. 

Your final focus to make me vote for you. 

Thank you!

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

All Debate

Tech > truth

Please learn2framework (presumption is filter not layer unless specified)

as tab as I can possibly be

cool with: speed, k, t (boring), theory, performance, bribes

not cool with: you wasting my time to pre flow, in round abuse, equity violations, the USA

I don’t care what’s real outside the round, I’ll only vote on things said in round. Something is true until you tell me it isn’t true. Don’t be boring and also don’t be bad thank you

Public Forum

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Do all of your weighing for me. I will not weigh anything on my own.

If its not in summary I wont evaluate it in final focus.

2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline/case defense, definitely still can though

Presumption is neg in any instance that demands intervention, risk of solvency arguments fair game for the aff.

signposting saves lives

Picky about extensions:

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭

Revolutionary Vanguard

Only god, in her infinite wisdom, can forgive me now.

In memory of those radicalized:

B. SHAHAR

G. TARPERING

J. NAHAS

tech > truth

tech tech tech tech tech tech tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

tech

***Updated Berkeley Day 2*****

Y'all have really pushed me to my limits ): and now I'm not even feeling entirely tab as a paradigm because no weighing is being done for me. I WILL GO NEG ON PRESUMPTION IF PRO DOESN'T DO ANY WORK. IM TIRED OF HAVING TO DO YOUR WEIGHING FOR YOU.

An extension is NOT reading an authors last name. An extension is NOT telling me your opponents drop something. Telling my hand what to do on a piece of paper does not equal you winning an argument- much less analyzing, crystallizing, or in any way convincing me to vote for you.

An extension is:

Extend Author 97 who our opponents fail to respond to

->What author 97 tells you is warrant/analysis

->What this means is we access Impact 1, which wins us the round because of X.

If you don't really get this by now you're probably gonna lose the round.

Like many judges I try my best to be tabula rasa, like all of them, however, I fail. I'm comfortable with just about any argument at any speed. I like good K debates and long walks on the beach. Tech comes before truth for me until I'm told otherwise.

Thats like 2 or 3 years old^

In reality nowadays I'll probably beg you to spread or read something kritikal or perform or do anything (fun).

^Thats old too now

Tech > truth

Tech tech tech tech tech tech tech

THANKS TO ALLEN ABBOTT I WONT EVEN CALL FOR CARDS TO AVOID ANY INTERVENTION

I ONLY INTERVENE IN ONE WAY: IF I DONT SEE IT IN MY FLOW FOR THE SUMMARY I WONT VOTE ON THE EXTENSION IN FINAL FOCUS REGARDLESS OF WHO TELLS ME TO DO IT OR WHY I SHOULD DO IT

UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME WILD THEORY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY I SHOULD ALLOW IT OR NOT INTERVENE ON IT IN WHICH CASE PLEASE HMU WITH THAT ID LOVE TO HEAR IT.

As a traditional LD judge, I consider value framework very important. And please don't just throw a value and criterion out there and never talk about them again! Give me reasons for prefering your framework over your opponent's and show me how each of your contentions upholds your framework.

Additionally, while reading cards is certainly fine (evidence is important, after all!), LD debate is about so much more. If you do nothing but read cards the entire round, without explaining in your own words how that evidence supports your case, then you will be hard pressed to win the round. Show me the impact of each of your contentions, and weigh the round for me.... Why should you win? 

Regarding speed, I am fine with a brisk pace within reason. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are hyperventilating, I will have a hard time weighing your evidence. High school forensics is about effective public speaking - Slow down and think about what you want to say. Research, logic, and effective communication win debates; speed-reading does not. 

Most of my experience is in PF but I have judged everything in both debate and speech at one point or another.

For debate:

If something is important to your case or argument do not be afraid to repeat it. Despite my best efforts there are always going to be times where a stat, date, figure, name, or card is mentioned but missed in the heat of the round. It never hurts to repeat what matters, especially if you believe you are winning on that point.

You may time yourselves, but if I call for time you should end what you're doing. You may finish a thought/sentence after time ends but do not abuse this by adding multiple sentences or thoughts.

My preference is a debate that argues the assigned topic in good faith, I would prefer not to hear K Cases. Speed in speaking is fine, spreading is less fine but understandable.

In the interest of keeping rounds moving, I do not disclose after round unless specifically instructed by the tournament directors. If you want feedback later I will gladly discuss the debate with you between rounds.

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

I did PF and LD for three years in high school. I'm fine with everything; ask for specifics in the round.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

I am a parent judge from West Windsor Plainsboro High School South.  Here are some of the most points about my judging philosophy. Don’t spread, if I can’t understand your arguments I can’t vote for you so slow down or take something out of your case. I am a strong believer in speaking well and making logical arguments, if you can explain your position with clarity you will get high speaker points and more than likely win.

Evidence

I will not call for evidence unless you ask me to. All I care about evidence is that you don’t lie or alter the author’s purpose. If the evidence is doctored and your opponents tell me that, you lose.

Flowing

I write down all your arguments during your first speech and see how they play out during the debate. Convince me that your arguments stand at the end of the debate and if I see that they were emphasized at the beginning then you will win.

Cross-fire

This is one aspect of debate that I find really important. I pay attention to every cross because it shows me how strong of a debater you are. Reading from paper is a lot different than on the feet thinking. I don’t want cross to be a shouting battle, but more of an opportunity to show your skills. If you get something good in cross make sure you bring it up in your speeches and I will definitely weigh that heavily.

Jargon

I don't care for it so keep it to a minimum. 

Etiquette

Please debate with respect. I will disclose my decision at the end of the round and provide all debaters with feedback. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me.

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

I do not have any particular preferences in judging Public Forum Debate. I ask that all students keep their own time both for speeches and prep time

Former coach, more often in tab rooms than at the back of the room with a ballot, electronic or otherwise. As a judge, I’m probably considered a very traditional flow judge. I’m likely not as well-read on the resolution as you are, haven’t taught LD in any camp or class, and don’t judge LD especially often. To me, a good LD round involves a debate between two individuals using logic, reason, and clarity around the resolution at hand; if I find myself open to critical approaches to the resolution I’ll update my paradigm accordingly.

No exhaustive list of my thoughts on different arguments, though these 3 are pretty representative of my general thoughts on LD:

1. Disclosure theory is a non-starter. Use it if you want, but I will not vote on the basis of whose case is or isn’t on the wiki so in front of me it’s a waste of time.

2. I’m not interested in time skew. I trust that you were aware of the structure of an LD round before walking into the tournament.

3. Debate is an educational activity. The role of the ballot is to communicate to you, your opponent, and your coach(es) observations about how effective your argumentation was in a given round and offer suggestions for improvement. The ballot may be an opportunity for me to learn and grow as well, but my ballot will not affect grand societal change no matter how hard we try.

I ultimately want to vote for something at the end of the round. To accomplish this, take the following into account:

1. Like I said, I don’t judge often which means I likely won’t be able to keep up at the rate many circuit debaters prefer. About half as fast as your maximum is probably acceptable for me to flow and think (but no faster).

2. I don’t want cases flashed to me or share a Google Doc during the round. If I wanted to read argumentation I would pursue competitive essay-grading.

3. Your ideas and those of your opponent should engage with one another. Trying to cram as many responses against each point made by your opponent doesn’t do this and won’t help you win my ballot or earn very high speaker points. Neither will ignoring your opponent’s case and insisting that yours is the only thing that matters in the round.

4. Effective crystallization is critical. For me to vote for you I need to know specifically what arguments you won, why, and how.

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

yes add me to the email chain Caroline.a.wohl@gmail.com

I debated for 4 years at Summit HS on the National Circuit. I broke at TOC and advanced to late out-rounds on the circuit, am fine with speed, but that speed should serve a purpose.

- an argument without warrants is not an argument. Tech > Truth, but my bright line for sufficient defense against likely untrue arguments is much lower. The later offense comes into the round, the lower my bright line for defense will be.

- weigh or I will for your FF should write my ballot.

- I debated when summaries were two minutes, I wouldn't use the additional minute as an opportunity to extend blippy arguments or more arguments, you should still be collapsing.

- If you are using an overview in rebuttal or introducing a weighing mechanism, please tell me where to flow it- a third sheet of paper is fine. That being said I will be pretty annoyed if overviews are functionally additional contentions, my bright line for responding will be pretty low. Please also tell me where to flow weighing.

- I understand theory/Ks and other forms of progressive argumentation. They should be used sparingly and when they serve a legitimate purpose in the round, rather than as something strategic against debaters not experienced with prog. My bright line for responding is also pretty low and I need to be given a really clear reason as to why the violation warrants dropping the debater.