I have judged Public Forum, extemporaneous speaking, interpretation, and original oratory for 3 years, associated with Dougherty Valley.

I may not flow like you but I do take copious notes. I will only vote off of arguments I can understand(so explain your warrants and link your impacts well).

You may use an appropriate number of cards in your case but be sure to explain them well in order them to count. I won't call out unsubstantiated or analytical arguments unless your opponents do.

Medium speed is ok, I won't vote off arguments that I can't follow.

I will not vote off of theory, I like clean, clear debates about the resolution.

I will only vote off of arguments that are extended through both summary and final focus.

I like impact calculus, contentions that are impacted will be voted off of.

Tech before truth, if your opponents don't call for the card, I won't call for it.

I will give speaker points based on comprehensibility and poise, so don't stutter or speak excessively fast and look somewhat presentable in round.

Good luck!

It’d be great if you can spend a little time establishing your framework and structure in the beginning to let me know what’s important and what to expect. Please don’t drop the key arguments during the crossfire. In the final focus please show how your arguments outweigh the opponent’s.

The need to speak, even if one has nothing to say, becomes more pressing when one has nothing to say, just as the will to live becomes more urgent when life has lost its meaning.

My actual paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCHII3qVhIbGtqdos6dUGkuGa0WZZzw-L305yb8_43U/edit?usp=sharing

This is a bunny. It's full of fluff.

_(\-/)

(='.'=)

(")-(")o

This is a whale. It weighs more.

><(((.______)

Be a whale.

人◕ ‿‿ ◕人

~~~art credits to wikihow.com, japaneseemoticons.me, and fastemoji.com

If you feel there's anything the above message didn't cover, feel free to read on.

~~~

Updated 4/25/18.

Will Cozadd—The Nueva School

Background: I debated public forum for four years while at Nueva, and judged public forum over the last two of those years. I’m currently a college student at Williams.

Overall: I'll look for the path of least resistance for my ballot - that means giving me proper extensions of arguments (i.e. warrant and impact extension in both the summary and final focus) as well as a framework under which I can evaluate them. If you want more specific information, see below.

Summary/FF consistency:

I will only vote off offense from case/turns from rebuttal that was in *both* final focus and summary. This means that the link, warrant, and impact were extended in both speeches. There are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from rebuttal to final focus, although I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and strongly prefer the second speaking team to have all defensive responses extended in summary. Second, the first final focus can make new responses to new arguments in second summary, but please be reasonable about it.

How I evaluate the round:

I start by crossing things out that didn't follow the aforementioned Summary/FF consistency guidelines. I then look at the remaining offense of each team. This is when weighing is important. Please weigh as much as possible. I flow the weighing of arguments and you should extend them as cleanly extended analysis if your opponents don't respond to your weighing in rebuttal/summary. When weighing, please fully explain why your arguments outweigh theirs and not just resort to quick buzzword-filled soundbytes like "we outweigh on timeframe." Good weighing will tell me why I should still affirm/negate the resolution even if your opponents win all of their points, and the team with better weighing will almost always win you the round. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and pick which competing argument I vote on, which will make one of you unhappy.

Speed:

I can flow up to 200 words/minute comfortably, but after that I start to miss stuff—primarily due to corresponding lack of clarity and signposting. Please signpost. If you aren’t telling me what piece of analysis you’re extending/responding to I can miss things, and that could make me vote in a way you don't like.

Speaker Points:

I will give high speaks to debaters for clarity, skill, persuasion, knowledge, and humor. I will give low speaks for misconstruing evidence, being offensive, or being rude to your opponents.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics in PF are lacking. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me to call for it, and they will lose the round because of it. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence tell me to call for it, and I'll likely disregard the evidence. During the round, I don't care how many times teams call for evidence, but if a team calls for a piece of your evidence, you should be able to provide it in a time-efficient manner. If a team can't provide a piece of evidence that was called for, I'll drop it. I will call for evidence if any of the following criteria are met:

A) A debater tells me to call for a specific piece of evidence in their speech,

B) I've personally read the evidence and believe that it is being blatantly misrepresented,

C) If the evidence is obviously false (e.g. if it says the sky is red), or

D) If there are two pieces of contradictory evidence that haven't been weighed and I cannot properly evaluate the round without seeing them.

While this makes it look as if I will always call for evidence, I'm actually outlining these so that I don't call for cards in seemingly erratic fashions. If when I call for evidence I see that it is doctored (meaning that you wrote your own evidence, deleted the word "not", added the word "not," etc...) I'll drop the team that read it. If the evidence is misconstrued (meaning that the article contradicts your statement in the next line or you're citing a line as saying something it doesn't), I'll simply ignore the evidence in the round (and give the offending team much lower speaks), which will likely make me less comfortable voting on the argument built around it.

As for my thoughts on Topicality/Framework/Theory/Kritiks, I completely agree with my former debate partner Alex and have thus copied+pasted his words below:

“Topicality/Framework:

These are fine but most of the time in PF just winning that an argument is not topical does not mean that you win the round, it just takes out one (or multiple pieces) of their offense. Don't forget to extend offense too. Also, if you are going to run a framework, you have to tell me why your opponents arguments don't fit under that framework and why you do (in addition to why I should pref the framework over util, which is what I will default to).

Theory and Ks:

I am open to these and will vote on them. However, I do think that PFers often read theory when the interp is invalid/the violation didn't really happen because they want to run "cool progressive" arguments. Also, running theory just because you know your opponents won't understand it technically and you can get an easy win is a really terrible thing to do. If it is clear this is the reason you are running the theory, you will get 0 speaks. That said, I love interesting rounds and progressive argumentation so as long as your not forcing it to pick up an easy ballot, go ahead!”

That’s it for me. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask before the round begins—if you’re truly unsure, it’s probably wise that you do.

Hello,

To start off with, I am mainly a flay judge. First off, if you want to start an email chain, then feel free to at anil_dixit@yahoo.com. I would appreciate it if you don't spread in round. Please speak in a clear speed and tone with enunciation. Also try not to run theory. Ks, or any types of tricks or other circuit positions. I will have a hard time understanding them and it may result in me interpreting your positions in the wrong way. However, if you do choose to run circuit positions, spend a little more time explaining them. For example, in theory, clearly explain your opponent's violations in round and explain the voters thoroughly. In general, I am fine with you running circuit positions and I will not vote you down for it solely, but you should spend some more time explaining them.

Try to go with your traditional lay positions and cases that you have (Framework + Contentions). The only circuit positions that I am comfortable with are advantages and disadvantages.

I vote based on framework, impact calculus/weighing, speaking style/speed, and argumentation/articulation. Prove to me how your impacts outweigh your opponents and how they follow with the framework debate. Connect your voting issues with the framework, as it is the criterion towards which the judge evaluates the round.

Finally, please don't go about personally insulting your opponents or swearing in round. This will result in an automatic loss if done.

Thank you and good luck with your rounds. Have fun!

Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.

I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.

Hello, I am Sudhakar Jilla and I have judged for various schools over the last 5-6 years. I'm an average lay judge with no significant biases. nor am I ideologically opposed to voting for any argument. I think there's a side to be heard on everything - no hard and fast rules.

I am not a flow judge and I try to weigh arguments in terms of how convincing they are, do they back up with concrete evidence, defend their point of view and so on. Speed talking, being rude, condescending attitude, lack of clarity, not being respectful are definite turn-offs. If I can't hear or understand something important, it is your loss. I also don't appreciate misconstruing of evidence; if the card does not make sense to me, I will call for it and check to see if it states what you claim it says. I also expect opponents to call for evidence as well.

I don't understand all the debate jargon and would appreciate if you create clear link chains and explain them clearly. Interact with your opponents argument and tell me why I should prefer your argument over theirs.

Happy Debating !

Hi,

I am a flow judge and I judge purely based on participants arguments.

Here are few things that will get you winning points

- Clearly state the framework.

- I encourage creative cases. However, if someone is presenting an overreaching argument (or absurd), I expect the other side to call it out.

- Do not email your cases. This is a debate and we are not here to read documents.

- Do not spread. You need to articulate your case in a clear manner.

- Be courteous to your opponents. Argue the case and not the person. Any personal aggression will lead to loss of points.

- Present your arguments confidently and clearly. You need to believe in your arguments.

- Present multiple pieces of evidence to back up your arguments. If it is not provided, the opponent should call it out and I will drop your argument.

- Stick to the allotted time and do not run over time. However, you may finish your sentence that you started already without me dropping that argument. Arguments made after the clock will be ignored and will lower your score.

I will not disclose and all feedback will be provided in the ballot.

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2 years, Public Forum

Speaker Points: I award speaker points for clarity, confidence, and the ability to cite evidence (date is preferable if possible). Grand cross can greatly impact your points as it is the last point of direct interaction between the two teams (a.k.a. make sure to participate, do not let your partner do everything)

How to win: Speak clearly and at a comfortable pace so that I can understand your arguments and evaluate them. Take advantage of crossfire. Make sure to prove to me why exactly you are winning the round, especially in the later speeches. Cite all sources used for evidence.

Notes: I try my best to take notes, but I may not write everything down, especially if you go too fast. If something is extremely important (and you want to ensure that I write it down or remember it), make it very clear.

How much I consider certain aspects of the debate (1 is not at all, 5 is somewhat, 10 is considered heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 9

Real world impacts: 5

Cross Examination: 9

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 8

I mainly care about how you are able to prove your points in a certain round, not which arguments they are (I vote based on debater skill). With that being said, the arguments you read should be corroborated with evidence.

Occupation: Computer Engineer

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: I do not consider myself an experienced judge, but I have judge Public Forum, Parli, and Policy at a few tournaments over the past two years.

Speaker Points: I understand things only when spoken clearly and at an understandable speed. I will award speaker points based on how well I understand what you are saying,

Voters: I will vote off of things that you clearly depict to me that you have won in your last few speeches. Make everything as clear as possible please!

Flowing: I try my best to note down what I can. I cannot promise an organized flow, but I do take notes.

Clothing/Appearance: Just dress appropriately!

Real World Impacts: I will often weigh impacts based on what I think has a bigger magnitude, but please don't run things that are out of proportion as I will view them as having close to no probability of occurring.

Cross Examination: Be respectful! I do not like when people don't let others finish talking or talk over them.

If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.

Talking Speed:

- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.

- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.

Arguments and Cards:

- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.

- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

- All cards should be tagged.

Theory/T:

- I do not like theory debates.

- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.

Plans:

- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...

- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.

Framework:

- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.

- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.

- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.

However you want to debate in front of me is fine.

I won't require defense in first summary, unless second rebuttal frontlines.

Don't forget to have fun!

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

I've been judging for 3 years. I will be flowing your evidence and arguments. Speak at a reasonable pace and be respectful during crossfire. Arguments brought up during summary and after will be dropped. Clearly weigh the round and state why I should vote for your side.

LD/Parli: Check the wiki

PF Paradigm: 

TL;DR–Do whatever, but if you’re going to do it, do it right. Full citations and impeccable evidence ethics are mandatory. If it ain’t in summary, then it shouldn’t be in final focus. Speed is fine as long as you’re clear and not monotonous. I’ll always disclose unless the tournament has rules against it, in which case I will make it clear that the creators of such rules are jackasses.

Public Forum is very simple compared to LD, which is my event. I debated at some local PF tournaments my freshman year and am happy to say that I have not done so since. If I’m judging you in PF, I’ll adjudicate any argument (including non-PF ones, such as T, theory, conditional advocacies, off-cases, plans, counterplans, kritiks, etc…), though I suggest, as always, that you stick to what you’re comfortable with. I don’t want to see a PFer try to run theory if they have no clue as to how the argument functions. Just because it’s PF doesn’t give you free license to hijack and pervert policy/LD arguments. If you’re going to do it, do it right.

Other than that, I have no real paradigmatic issues for PF. Though I’m known as “slow-ish” in LD, I’ve never seen a PF round that I cannot follow, so speed shouldn’t be a problem for me. BUT SLOW THE HELL DOWN FOR AUTHOR NAMES! YOU PFers DUMP TEN CARDS IN ONE SPEECH AND NEVER ONCE ENNUNCIATE OR DISTINGUISH A NAME FROM THE REST OF THE SENTENCE. STOP. DOING. THAT. As always, full MLA/APA citations are necessary for a card to warrant the ballot. (Update: I hold varsity debaters to this standard, but in Novice/JV, I can probably entertain a degree of flexibility). You don’t have to include them in the speech doc as is done in LD and policy, but if I call for a card, I want to see the citation as well. In the speech, last name and date is fine, but that’s the bare minimum. I will not evaluate any cards that are not read initially with a last name and a date, nor will I evaluate any cards that are given to me without an actual citation. I don’t care how well you debated, and I don’t care if it’s just an honest mistake. No citation means no evidence. You can paraphrase all you want (but don’t invoke any “creative licenses” or other such liberties) but you still need to have actual evidence, prefix your paraphrasing with the author name and date, and provide the actual card and citations when asked. I’m aware that PF evidence ethics are terrible, so I’ll always call for cards that have come into question, and might even call for some cards on my own accord. If you screw up the evidence (i.e., don’t read the word “not,” fabricate it, try and pass some study of two counties off as a “national metastudy,” or otherwise majorly misconstrue it), you lose and the guy who read it gets zero speaker points, while his partner gets 20. Academic dishonesty is a cancer that must be irradiated, quashed, and disposed of.   

You don’t have to extend your case through your rebuttal, but if you want to win off of something, it needs to be in final focus, and if you want to say something in final focus, you need to have mentioned it in summary. I’d like it if your second speaker at least pays lip service to his team’s constructive, but I understand that rebuttals are supposed to be straight-ref speeches, so no biggie if you don’t get around to it. Bonus points (literally) if you get around to extending your case and taking out turns and defense. I guess that only really applies to the round’s fourth speaker, though. Oh well.

I’m aware that PF crossfires are complete and utter jokes, especially grand crossfire, so you’re welcome to use that as prep. I really don’t care. In LD, we have something called “flex prep,” and I don’t know if that concept exists in PF. But I’m willing to pretend that it does because I believe that the flexibility it entails allows for better debates, especially against dense, tricky, or odd arguments.

I give low speaker points. 27.5 is about average, and I am more than happy to throw out 26s 25s, and even single-digits if a) the quality of your argumentation, b) the integrity of your evidence, or c) your speaking style and verbal fluency are adequately low. That said, you don’t get below 25 without doing something that really pisses me off. 30s don’t really happen, unless you do something really crafty or cool, or if you bring me a Monster Ultra Zero (yellow, please, but I’ll drink any color except black) before the round.

Though I’m apt to criticize and berate PF for being overly simplistic, the fact of the matter is that a small part of me recognizes that high-level PF rounds include mind-boggling amounts of empirical data and technical comparisons, even more so than in LD. Thus, I’d very much appreciate it if you’d be so gracious as to slow down for twenty seconds at the beginning of summary and final focus and give me a specific yet satisfyingly broad and general overview. “We win because they drop the Johnston card” is not an overview. However, “We win because they drop the Johnston card from our rebuttal, which 1: de-links their turn on our second contention, 2: is terminal defense on their first contention, and 3: means that their defense on our third contention is meaningless. The warrant for the Johnston card is _______. Extend and cross-apply the weighing arguments from our summary speech; the third contention outweighs their case on magnitude and reversibility. Game over.” That’s the kind of overview I’m looking for. I can’t guarantee the accuracy of my decisions sans overviews, so your ballot will thank you for giving them.

One last thing: I strongly believe in disclosing the ballot and speaker points. It makes for better debate if the winners of a round know how they won and what to repeat, and if the losers know what they should’ve, would’ve, and could’ve done. If I can’t disclose, then I’ll just have to “accidentally” show you the ballot or use some clandestine hand gestures. Hehehe.

- I did PF in high school and now coach

- Run any arguments you want

- Not down for spreading or speaking fast

- Be clear with your arguments and tell me where to vote

Lay Judge. Speak slowly, enunciate clearly. Speaker points will be allocated by fluency, 27-28 very good.The debate should be respectful. Crossfire shouldn't have people talking over each other.

I like Medicare-for-All to talk about US but I will consider developing world arguments.

I will not disclose unless it is mandatory.