My name is Faizan Ahmed, and I was a public forum debater for 4 years. I can understand most arguments made but would like to stress that I cannot flow what you do not articulate or explain well. It is more important to me that you speak clearly and make sound arguments well than speaking fast and not properly making an argument. Remember that it's hard to vote on things that do not make sense to me as a judge even if you think your argument is awesome. I love when people weigh arguments, so make sure to do so.

ABOUT ME

I debated in PF for Poly Prep in Brooklyn NY. I was pretty good.

FLOW NITPICKS

The second rebuttal should respond to all offense on the flow. I prefer second speaking teams also respond to terminal defense/overviews, but defense won't count as dropped until after summary.

Turns not extended into summary become defense, unless your opponent extends through it. In that case, it's offense again.

I don't flow author names. Refer to the arguments.

I default neg on BOP positive statement resolutions.

Overviews.

For second speaker teams; if your overview could easily have been a contention, I already hate it. When flowing on my laptop, I will literally not have a place to flow it - nor will I make one. Second rebuttal case turns should either a) respond within the framework debate or b) signpost to relevant links in case.

First speaking teams; go nuts.

Advocacies, Plans and Fiat Power In PF.

"I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine" - Caspar Arbeeny. Inherency is always better than fiat. Conditional advocacies are bad. "We kick out" never removes a turn, but speech time to de-link yourself from a turn can.

If you have any qualms, questions or concerns about my preferences, please do not hesitate to inform me. There is no penalty for trying to change the way I view debate.

*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.

• I debated Policy in high school, have a degree in economics, a JD and post-graduate studies in Public Policy.   My son has debated Public Forum for the past 7 years.  I have judged PF for the past several years (and judged LD once at the NJFLs).  

• I flow, can handle moderate speed -- if you spread, you will lose me.  

• I try hard to come into the round tabula rasa -- I make no assumptions and carry no preconceieved notions about the resolution into how I view and judge the round.  Even if it is the last tournament on a resoution, and even if I have judged multiple rounds on the topic, I will try to judge your round as though I know no more about the topic than the typical well-informed, reasonably engaged citizen.

• If you are organized (signposts, etc.) I will absorb more of what you are saying. 

• Debates that center on framework are not my favorite -- if you rely on a lot of framework arguments, explain why those matter more than the contentions and impacts in the round.

• I don't flow cross-fire.  If you gain something useful in cx, bring it into your summary/final focus -- raise arguments/responses in final focus without mentioning them in summary at your peril.  

• Evidence is always good -- better even better when paired with sound logic. Explain why the evidence supports your argument, why your evidence is better than your opponent's evidence, and why your evidence supports your impacts.  

• Clash encouraged, logical explanations expected, respect of your opponents demanded.  

I was a high school policy debater back when Ronald Reagan was president. Since 2013, in my "spare time," I have coached public forum. (My day job is working as a law professor.)

Speed doesn't bother me one way or another, but you do need to be clear. I want you to explain to me not just why you win an argument but why the argument wins the round. I'm open to basically any sort of argument, so long as it's not racist, sexist, etc. I try to listen hard to what your evidence actually says; smart analysis of evidence counts for a lot to me, and conclusory evidence doesn't count for much; paraphrased evidence typically counts for even less. Establishing the analytic links in your arguments also matters a lot to me. And weighing is super-important, as early as possible.

I prefer for the second rebuttal to spend some time responding to the first rebuttal and not merely responding to the opponent's case. In particular, if the first rebuttal reads any turns on your case, I will expect the speaker giving the second rebuttal to respond to those turns. If the second rebuttal speaker does not respond to turns, I will consider them dropped. And I don't need the summary speech to extend defense that has not been responded to. I will count defensive arguments for whatever they are worth if they are dropped.

Likes: Depth of analysis, engagement with the other side's strongest arguments.

Dislikes: Cases that are just strings of blippy half-cards, numbers thrown around without context. Don't hammer on particular numbers without telling me what precisely those numbers mean and how they specifically link to your or your opponents' advocacy. (Please don't read impact cards that say things like a two standard-deviation decrease in democracy leads to a three percent rise in infant mortality. What does that even mean?)

I've noticed that a couple of my preferences differ from those of many other judges I've encountered on the national circuit, and you should probably know that. First, and probably of greatest significance, I am far more skeptical of quantitative impacts than are many national-circuit judges. You should expect me to discount any large number that appears in an impact card unless you present evidence of each link that is logically necessary to the occurrence of that impact. That doesn't mean I won't vote on quantitative impacts -- I vote on them all the time -- but when weighing them I am unlikely to take large numbers in impact cards at face value. Correlatively, I am far more open to voting on qualitative arguments than are many national-circuit judges. But do actually make an argument; don't just give me some conclusory tag. Second, I am more open to theory arguments than are many national-circuit PF judges. But you have to actually make the argument. Don't just tell me your opponents are doing something unfair; explain why it violates something that should be a norm of debate and why the proper remedy is to drop them, disregard an argument they're making, or whatever.

Please speak at a conversational pace. If I can't understand your argument, I can't flow your argument.

Prefer quality over quantity. One solid argument will persuade me more than a dozen undeveloped arguments.

When speaking, please introduce evidence with the author’s full name, qualifications, publication, and publication date. This information is essential to evaluating the strength of your evidence. While last name/year may be the minimum requirement per NSDA rules, it is not sufficient to win the ballot. Each piece of evidence should be introduced with a brief pause or by saying “quote/unquote.” This is necessary to distinguish between evidence and analysis.

Please signpost with arguments, not authors.

Please ensure that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Disconnects between claims and evidence will seriously damage your credibility.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

General Paradigm

If you have questions about my decision/want feedback or want to complain about what a terrible judge I am

email me: benlbrazelton@gmail.com

(If there are any issues I need to know before the round regarding physical/non-physical accessibility, shoot me an email.)

Experience

Competed for Madison West High School. Public Forum, Extemp, and limited Congress experience in High School. I coach a few schools privately now, and teach at camps.

Personal Info

I study Education with an emphasis on critical race/queer theories. I'm further left than liberal, so I especially respond to well-constructed Critical Race, Gender or Queer Theory arguments. Equity is the name of the game, but I'll accept any criteria that is well-warranted.

As a Judge, I am...

- Pretty Flow. I will be flowing on excel or paper or whatever else.

- A little lay. Teams that speak clearly and persuasively have an innate advantage over those that don't.

- Very lazy. Do the work for me, because I hate the mental gymnastics for teams that don't weigh, signpost, etc.

- Kind of Tabula Rasa. I'll drop my individual opinions, and technical knowledge, etc. and be as close to a blank slate as I feel comfortable being. That said, I'm not going to pretend like people aren't incorrect or lying. Also, see the next section for when I stop being tabs.

What you MUST DO when I am judge:

- If you choose to make arguments that concern sexual assault, racialized/gendered violence, stuff like that, and either a. do not offer some sort of warning ahead of time or b. do it without the delicacy it deserves, I will almost categorically drop the argument. These arguments are almost always personal to someone (whether they be in the room or at the tournament), so that needs to be respected.

- Don't be blatantly (or subtly) racist, sexist, classist, etc. It's obvious to put in a paradigm, not so obvious in round. I will call you out, and (based on the magnitude of what you said/did) drop you. Tabs come off.

- Don't be a jerk. Gendered and racialized dynamics are everywhere, and if I get a whiff of exploitation therein, tabs are off.

What you CAN do:

I'm a big fan of including theory and Kritikal debate-- if we are talking about debate, any kinds of arguments (no matter how 'accessible' they may be) should be fair game. If you want to run K's or theory, whatever, that's fine by me, so long as you give me clear reasons to vote for them.

What I look for in argumentation:

- Be smart. This seems obvious, but you aren't going to win the round by obfuscating arguments, or trying to convince me that basic facts aren't true. This is one of the most cliche things to put in a paradigm, but smart analytics beat a lot of cards. Having an appreciation for what the world is like when the debate round is over helps everything. Teams that can find contradictions in opponents' cases can cross out contentions without every dropping a carded response.

- Claims, Warrants, and Impacts. Please extend the later two into summary, and absolutely in Final Focus. If it isn't in both I won't vote for them. Please refrain from extending through ink, or resurrecting dead arguments.

- WEIGHING. Please weigh for me, because I get really frustrated having to weigh myself. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the room.

- Teams that tell a consistent story will do much better than teams that stretch themselves out. Paint me a picture of what the world will look like, aff or neg, and stick to that. Framework and overviews help.

What I look for in Cross-X:

- I don't flow CX, but I will sit patiently and wait for it to end.

- If you get any strong concessions, they should be in your speeches too. If they aren't, they didn't happen.

- Don't be a jerk. I don't just consider it rude, I think the predatory, aggressive debater really exploits a lot to get there. Assertion should not trespass into aggression, and if it does, I will wreak havoc on your speaker points.

Speaking Points:

Points are evaluated based on the tournament (TOC will be tougher to get 30s than a local).

- 30s = you are a flawless debater. J. Scott Wunn himself would fall to his knees and praise you.

- 29.5s = you are a very, very good debater. J. Scott Wunn would likely shake your hand after the round.

- 29s = Very good debater. Maybe you make a few mistakes, but overall gave a very high-quality performance. J. Scott Wunn would likely call you "buddy."

- 28s = Exactly average. J. Scott Wunn probably would not remember you.

- 27s = Quite a bit of room for improvement. J. Scott Wunn would be concerned.

- 26s = you either have a lot to work on, or you messed up big.

26> = Uh oh. You must've said something very offensive.

Evidence Ethics

It is the responsibility of the other team to call for evidence, unless I absolutely know it to be miscut, or there is so little weighing in the round that I need to evaluate the strength of link/impact myself.

If someone miscut/misinterpreted evidence, call for it and let me know in your speeches. If you are accused of miscutting, offer something more substantive than "no it's not"-- either apologize and drop it from the round, or defend your interpretation.

My vengeful judging fury:

- I'm a very spiteful judge, so if you are acting like jerks, or making stupid arguments, I will earnestly want to drop you. I've picked up teams very begrudgingly, and that is typically reflected in speaker points. Consider yourselves warned.

"Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime."

- My Coach in High School

Policy Paradigm

K's and Performance

If they run T and don't engage with the warrants, they've conceded them. Please extend warrants and don't just make it a Framework debate.

I'm a big fan of K's if they have something important to say. That said, if y'all just wanna win spreading Baudrillard and try and trick people out, I'm less convinced. I see K's as a kind of necessary resistance to the oppressive structures of debate––if you're going to reject the resolution, make sure it's for a good reason and not just to be tricky.

I'm a big fan of intellectual clarity in your K's, so don't run sources that don't agree with each other (i.e. Afropessimism and Marxism shouldn't be in the same speech without clarifying those ideological differences).

Spreading

After however many years of debate, I'm pretty good at flwoing. That said, I shouldn't have to read the round to understand it. If you are speaking in a way that I don't understand and can't follow the round, I won't flow. That means heavy tech debaters who do double-breaths will probably be disappointed. Speak clearly––if your card is read so fast you don't care if I catch it, it's probably not valuable enough to be in your speech.

Policy-making

I'm far more convinced by a strong link (high probability/timeframe) than a big impact (magnitude and scope). I tend to weigh based on how real the arguments sound and if it sounds like you're making a stretch I'm less interested. That is to say, I'm far more likely to vote for a well-warranted regional impact than global nuclear extinction. I'll almost never vote for global nuclear extinction if I'm presented with a clear alternative impact.

Please feel free to run evidence indicts in justifying the strength of the link––if somebody is justifying nuclear war impacts with a Krauthammer card, just indict.

Public Forum Paradigm

See general paradigm

As of Harvard 2018: no off-time roadmaps; evidence indicts should be a part of strategy.

Weighing, collapsing on issues, cross fire - that's usually where I see great debaters separate themselves from good debaters. I haven't debated in a while so signposting will help me out a lot with staying on top of the flow.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

My name is Michael Buck and I have been a speech and debate coach for the last six years. Currently, I coach Lincoln-Douglas and Congressional Debate at Munster High School in Indiana. I have coached Congressional Debate for the last four years and Lincoln-Douglas for the last three. I began my coaching career as a speech coach, working mainly with students in public address events. I have had experience judging Public Forum for the last six years. I am currently employed as a high school English teacher.

I prefer slow and clear presentation in debate rounds. I do not like spreading and find it difficult to interpret arguments when delivery is too fast. In Public Forum debate, I believe Summary and Final Focus speeches should clarify argumentation and be persuasive. The Final Focus should not introduce new arguments, but solidify key points from constructive speeches. I am a more traditional judge in that the presentation should follow the rules of the event. I do not like plans or Kritiks in Public Forum. I tend to take notes throughout the round, focusing on key arguments made in constructive speeches. I believe that argument and style are equally important in the round. Competitors should offer strong arguments in a logically persuasive manner.

Second speaking teams should rebut the first speakers and tell me why their case is superior.

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.***

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

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.

PF:

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 6-7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.

LD:
So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Both:
Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

- State your framework clearly

- Substantiate your contention with impact

- Cross-fire  and rebuttals is where I watch very closely. I want to hear the teams trying to challenge and effectively defend.

- Final Focus should be relevant to what happened during the debate

This is an updated paradigm.

EXPERIENCE

A long time ago (in college at Swarthmore), I was a WUDC finalist, APDA National Champion (team and 1st speaker), and TOTY.  Then I taught high school and coached debate at St. Paul's School.  And then, while in law school at the University of Chicago, I coached the parliamentary team.  This is my fourth year of judging public forum debate.

CRITERIA

At the end of the round, I decide which side has done the better debating.  To me, that's a combination of quality of argument, persuasive use of evidence, and presentation (including style and speed).  I approach the round as if I know nothing (so I am willing to vote on the basis of something that I don't believe / know to be untrue), but not as if I am not smart (I will not vote on the basis of repeated misstatements of evidence or dishonest efforts to turn/discount evidence).  I'll say a few words about each of my criteria.

Quality of Argument -- Good arguments are logical and develop across the course of a round.  They also have a certain coherence.  I am in favor of a thematic approach to a resolution and of both sides actually grappling with it.  Said differently, I take seriously any argument and welcome arguments that call out efforts to avoid or inappropriately shape the resolution.  I also am willing to consider abstract arguments.  And I will vote on these issues to the extent a team takes them seriously and explains why the are appropriate voting issues.  I look less favorably on the argument buried on the flow that suddenly becomes the whole round in Final Focus.  A high quality argument is easily understood and then extended through each speech.  

When I vote at the end of the round, I look at the flow through this lens -- how did the case evolve?  How did the themes of the case inform the response to the other side?  How clearly did each team explain why I should vote for them?  One more word here -- I do not think that the second rebuttal need to respond to the first rebuttal.  That is not to say that it cannot -- although if it does, it must be effective and it must not be done at the expense of responding to the other side's case.  Another -- the rebuttal should not extend or expand upon a case to which the other side has not responded.  This is literally a waste of time and there should not be time to waste.

Also, with regard to extensions, turns and cross-application -- all these are good, but shorthand is dangerous.  When you put a turn on the flow, make clear why it is a turn and not a response; when your cross-apply, explain the impact of the cross-application; when you extend in final focus, tell me why the argument you extend makes a difference.  With that in mind, I can see on my flow when an argument is dropped.  Be sure it is when you claim it is and if your opponents have dropped something inconsequential and you don't pull it in your final focus, I will not vote on it or revive it for them.  A dropped argument is a dead argument to the team that abandoned it.

One more word about arguments -- if they are good, I am fine with them.  I do not enter the round committed to democracy or believing that our system of government is somehow beyond question or reproach.  Although I will say that the debater who chooses to take on some settled piece of our geopolitical structure had better be well prepared to take it down.  If you take aim, you best not miss.

Persuasive use of evidence -- It goes without saying (but I will say it) that evidence needs to buttress the kind of argument I described in the last paragraph.  Even more so, evidence should help the judge understand more fully the reasons for or against a particular point.  In order for this to happen, the debaters need not only to read the evidence, but understand it.  Moreover, they need to believe (and be able to explain why they believe) that the evidence is worthy of credence.  Too often, I have heard debaters resort to "well that's what the quote says" rather than being able to explain why the evidence says what it says and why it is right.  Less often, but sometimes, I have heard debaters claim that evidence says something it does not say.  This is very bad.  I will call evidence if I doubt that it has been appropriately represented and I will not vote for a team that misrepresents evidence and asks me to rely on it as misrepresented.  Integrity is a critical component of debate, and nowhere is it more directly tested than in the use and abuse of evidence.

Presentation -- part of how you win an argument is to present it effectively.  This includes word choice, appropriate use of emotion / passion, and interaction with the other side.  Speed is a factor here too.   I can and will keep up with you no matter how fast you go, but I find excessive speed to be closely linked to poor presentation.  I will cut points for it and I do not approve of the use of speed to avoid actual clash by simply putting so many arguments on the flow that you claim that one is dropped and that you therefore win.  Effective presentation includes effectively responding to your opponent's contentions (reflecting both an understanding of them and an ability to put them in a context that makes clear that they should not be persuasive).

In the end, I balance these components in deciding on the substance of the round. 

A word on speaker points -- I view them as a the measure of all that I have set out above.  In my mind, 27s and 28s are good scores.  29s and 30s suggest I have seen something great.  And 26 is the fate of the debater who violates or ignores the various maxims with which I approach a round.

4 years of public forum for Bronx Science (2011-2015).

3.5 years coaching public forum at Walt Whitman (2015-present).

2 years coaching public forum at debate camp (2015, 2016).

Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak. However, I will always prefer quality over quantity and will clock you heavily for blips. The debaters make the evidence good, not the other way around.

Evidence: If it's not an out round, and you don't ask me to do so, I will probably not call for evidence. Don't be shady and DO NOT miscut your cards.

How I evaluate the round: Develop clash as the round progresses. Weigh clearly and convincingly. I'm fine with extending terminal defense, but I need offense to be clearly extended throughout the entire round. Signposting is your friend. I appreciate a well-executed logical response.

Speaks: I will clock you for rudeness and arrogance. You can get a 29.5/30 by building a strong narrative. RuPaul references get you extra speaker points

Let's Get it Started - Black Eyed Peas

Let's get it started in here...

And the bass keeps runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin',
And runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and...

In this context, there's no disrespect, so, when I bust my rhyme, you break your necks.
We got five minutes for us to disconnect, from all intellect collect the rhythm effect.
So lose an inhibition, follow your intuition, free your inner soul and break away from tradition.
Cause when we beat out, girl it's pulling without.
You wouldn't believe how we wow shit out.
Burn it till it's burned out.
Turn it till it's turned out.
Act up from north, west, east, south.

Everybody (yeah), everybody (yeah), let's get into it (yeah), get stupid (c'mon)
Get it started (c'mon), get it started (yeah), get it started!
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Yeah.

Lose control, of body and soul.
Don't move too fast, people, just take it slow.
Don't get ahead, just jump into it.
You all hear about it, the Peas'll do it.
Get started, get stupid.
You'll want me body people will walk you through it.
Step by step, like an infant new kid.
Inch by inch with the new solution.
Transmit hits, with no delusion.
The feeling's irresistible and that's how we movin'.
(Yo)

Everybody (yeah), everybody (yeah), let's get into it (yeah), get stupid (c'mon)
Get it started (c'mon), get it started (yeah), get it started!
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Yeah.

The bass keeps runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and running runnin' and...

C'mon y'all, let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here) Ow, ow, ow!
Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

Let's get ill, that's the deal.
At the gate, we'll bring the bud top drill.
(Just) lose your mind this is the time,
Ya'll can't stand still, Just and bang your spine.
(Just) bob your head like me APL de, up inside your club or in your Bentley.
Get messy, loud and sick.
You all mount past slow mo in another head trip.
(So) come down now do, not correct it, let's get ignant let's get hectic.

Everybody (yeah), everybody (yeah), let's get into it (yeah), get stupid (c'mon)
Get it started (c'mon), get it started, get it started!
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started in here.
Let's get it started (ha), let's get it started
(whoa, whoa, whoa) in here.
Yeah.

Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here)
Let's get woohoo!
Let's get woohoo! (in here) Ow, ow, ow!
Ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya...

Runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin', and runnin' runnin'
[Fade]

I try not to intervene as much as possible. This means several things:

1. I will only factor things said in both summary and final focus into my decision. If it is mentioned in only one or not at all, I won't look at it.
2. The exception to the above rule is responses made in rebuttal that were not responded to in summary; i.e., you cannot extend through ink, even if it's some cheese.
3. The exception to the above rule is link turns/disads/any other offensive argumentation made in rebuttal. You have to extend offense.
4. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
5. Extensions must include warrants. Impact extensions won't give you any offense unless you extend links, although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Updated for Harvard HS Tournament, Education Topic

Sequoyah High School (GA) - '11
University of Georgia - '15

I have very little topic knowledge. Explaining how things fit together is extra important.

Substance:

Counterplan/Disad debates are great. Weighing it v plan/perm = good. Net benefits with links/internal links = good. Non-competitive counterplans = bad. I won't kick the counterplan (or the alt) for the 2nr unless you tell me to.

Topicality – should be impacted just like any other piece of paper. The aff should be doing the same in reverse, impacting overlimiting, etc and explanations for why you are reasonable and why that’s enough are normally pretty convincing. T is always a voting issue. Topical affs = good. (I default to thinking the aff should affirm the res unless you tell me otherwise).

Theory – Definitely a reason to reject the argument, sometimes a reason to reject the team. Conditionality = probably good, I am fairly easily convinced dispo is bad for neg teams, three condo = definitively sketchier than one and maybe bad. I lean towards consult being bad.


Kritiks – should provide a reason that the plan or plan action are bad. Specific links = good. Failure to contextualize generic links = bad. Debating it like a policy debate = good. Philosophy you don't understand = bad. The neg doesn't always have to win the alt to win the round. If the neg loses the alt, they need to win a reason I should still care about the k. Probably the neg gets the k and the aff gets to weigh their impacts. You are almost certainly better read on your authors than I am, so remember to explain things to me.

My soapbox: Don’t cheat. Clipping cards is cheating. Debate doesn't have that many rules. Follow the ones it does. I don’t get to spend a lot of time in debates anymore. I also don’t appreciate when people steal prep.

I don’t like when people are mean to their partners (or the other team, but especially their partners) or interrupt each other constantly.

Clarity is nice.

Hello, I have not judged this semester. Please be kind to each other.

I am old and cannot flow speed particularly well but will do my best to keep up.

Theory is okay if it checks abuse, but I don't like it if it's frivolous. I will always caution that I may not follow Ks as well as you do, so read them at your own risk.

I will call for evidence if it sounds too good to be true and reserve the right to disregard entire arguments if the evidence is particularly miscut.

Have fun!

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

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.

I am a parent judge, and this is my 4th year judging PF. I am also a political scientist, which makes me pretty pretty skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing.

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.

I am a parent from Newton South, where both my kids have been active PF debaters. I have judged 50+ rounds across 12+ tournaments. I will take notes on your arguments but am not a "flow" judge. Please speak clearly, give warranting and weigh your arguments/impact relative to your opponents. I do not look favorably on teams that are rude to their opponents, or misconstrue or misrepresent evidence. I look forward to meeting you, and hope you have fun!

In high school I debated Policy for one year and Public Forum for three. I will flow, but I haven't been very involved in debate since HS so treat me as somewhere between a flow and a lay judge. Signpost and be as clear as possible.

I like it when debaters introduce framework early in the round and weigh using their framework late in the round. That being said, don't waste your time with framework that isn't helping you. Just make sure you're weighing in the later speeches and giving me easy ways I can vote for your team.

If you think your opponent in lying about their evidence, say so and I'll look at it.

I am a current APDA debater and former national circuit PFer. I evaluate off the flow, but will not credit arguments if critical links are missing. I am more sympathetic to analytical claims than most judges. You do not have to extend defense past rebuttal, but if you want me to vote on an offensive claim, please extend it into final focus.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

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.

Read this entire PF paradigm before the round please. It will cover almost every question you might have.

Background:

I competed almost exclusively in Public Forum debate from 2010-2014 at Cypress Bay High School in Florida before going on to debate NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at Texas Tech University. In college I coached PF teams in Florida, namely at Nova High School, West Broward High School, and C. Leon King High School. My first coaching job out of college was at Coral Springs High School. I tend to do more coaching/observing than actual judging at major tournaments. 

Style:

If you have to trade off clarity for speed, don’t go for speed. My ears can only pick through so much mumbling and if I don’t clearly hear it, it won’t be on my flow. Also, keep in mind that you should try to slow down on your taglines and citations as they are crucial to making sure I'm on the same page as you. Especially for online debates, I would highly recommend slowing your pace from your usual speed in front of flow judges. I'm still flowing intensely, but I would prefer if you slowed down just a tad bit as I am growing increasingly concerned with the new trend towards speed. Otherwise, I am open to just about any style you might have. I try not to penalize teams for having a different regional style than what I might be used to. Off-time roadmaps are not only accepted but encouraged. Second speaking rebuttal doesn't have to respond to the first speaking rebuttal but it will certainly help your case and make life easier for your summary speaker.

Speaker Point Scale:

I go by a pretty standard scale moving in increments of .5 points (where applicable). You’ll never win my ballot just by being the better speakers, but I certainly do appreciate everything that goes into a great presentation/speech. Proper eye contact, appropriate hand motions, clarity, good posture, projection of your voice, etc will win you marks. Low-point wins are rare but totally a possibility based on what happens on the flow.

< 26 = You said something incredibly offensive and I'm considering dropping you on face value.

26-26.5 = You definitely have room for improvement.

27-27.5 = You’re an alright speaker and might even break.

28-28.5 = You’re a great speaker and will probably break.

29-29.5 = You might be in contention for a speaker award with speeches that good.

30 = You impressed/entertained me in such a way that I had no choice but to give you the maximum amount of points.

Framework:

If you have a framework then it should be warranted if you want me to take it into account when making my decision. The more clearly defined a framework is, the more likely I am to buy into it. I’m open to just about any type of framework but it’s all about how you use it in the later speeches to win. Absent any framework, I’ll just default to stock-issue impact calculus to figure things out.

Critical or non-traditional arguments:

I predominantly dealt with these arguments in NPDA/NPTE Parli but I'm open to hearing them in all forms of debate. Don't be overly concerned though, 99% of PF rounds that I watch don’t end up being like this at all and I’m perfectly fine with that either way. I think teams that run these types of arguments just to confuse or exclude their opponents ruin the experience for everyone and should be dropped, but otherwise, it is up to the debaters in the round to tell me why they get to run what they want to and why that matters. Likewise, it’s up to the opponents to tell me why they don’t get to and why that matters as well.

Crossfire:

What happens in crossfire doesn’t ever make it onto my flow until you explicitly tell me to refer back to it in one of your speeches. I’ll still be listening so stay on your game and keep things engaging. Be extra mindful of respecting your opponents in crossfire to avoid things getting too heated. This is especially true in Grand Crossfire when most teams are fed up with one another and really start to turn up the heat. It's not life or death, it's just crossfire. Don't use crossfire to make a speech or grandstand, use the time to go back and forth on questions to clarify points of clash in the debate. And don't be rude. I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Additional comments:

I try to refrain from intervening under any circumstance. I try to sign my ballot using the path of least resistance for the relevant issues on the flow. Your best bet of getting there comes from your ability to weigh arguments against one another, starting at the very latest in summary and then again in final focus. If you don’t weigh, you leave things up to my interpretation and we may not have the same interpretation of how the round went. That being said, the summary doesn’t need to perfectly mirror the final focus, just have some consistency in what arguments you go for. I'm going to try and be as laid back as possible primarily because I want everyone to be comfortable. Do whatever has brought you competitive success before or whatever you enjoy the most and I guarantee it’ll make for better rounds. At its core, competitive debate is a subjective activity in persuasion and no matter how long of a paradigm I give you, there will always be a human element to these things. If you want disclosure and comments at the end of the round, I’d be more than happy to offer what I can within a reasonable amount of time (assuming the tournament allows for disclosure). Otherwise, the ballot will be filled out rather extensively (in my atrocious handwriting if we're unfortunately on paper ballots).

If you have a problem with any of this, I recommend you strike me ahead of time. Absent that option, cross your fingers.

I'm an attorney who has been judging speech and debate events for over a decade. Although I was not involved in debate/speech as a student, I was involved in theater all the way through law school and have a long history of public speaking. I have a strong background in economics, am fairly well read on current issues, and I will pay close attention to the date and source of any material used.

In debate events, I prefer a well-reasoned, substantiated argument over pure speaking ability, and I will rely solely on the arguments and evidence offered in the round. I have occasionally awarded a low point win where I felt the strength of the argument overcame any lesser public speaking ability, particularly if the stronger speakers dropped arguments or failed to adequately support their contentions. I am comfortable with speed, as long as points/evidence are clearly enunciated, but please refrain from excessive jargon or shorthand - arguments must be fully articulated. I typically do not disclose my decisions at the end of the round, but will include reasons for my decision on my ballots along with notes for any potential areas of improvement and what I thought was done well.

In speech events, I am interested in diverse and intersectional viewpoints/performances. I typically focus first on the technical aspects of a performance - characterization, enunciation, projection, overall flow of the piece, etc. All performances being equal, I will award higher ranking to pieces that are more challenging, are thought-provoking, or offer a unique perspective. Again, I will include reasons for my decisions/rankings on ballots along with feedback on the performance and piece selected.

Former VPF debater and octa/quarter/semifinalist at various national events, although I prefer that you keep it relatively lay.

I vote off framework, sound logic, and solid argumentation.

Treat me as a PF lay judge during the round. To win the round here are the following things to prioritize:

1) Slow and steady speed

Although I will be able to understand most of your content, make sure to slow down and be clear about what you want me to prioritize in the round (main arguments, pieces of evidence, voter issues).

2) Make sure to extend your arguments (the arguments you want me to vote on) to the final focus.

3) Be respectful to your opponents and everyone else in the round

Treat me as a PF lay judge during the round. To win the round here are the following things to prioritize:

1) Slow and steady speed

Although I will be able to understand most of your content, make sure to slow down and be clear about what you want me to prioritize in the round (main arguments, pieces of evidence, voter issues).

2) Make sure to extend your arguments (the arguments you want me to vote on) to the final focus.

3) Be respectful to your opponents and everyone else in the round

If the round's not lit... I'm not there.

I competed in Public Forum in high school for four years and coached for two year for Colleyville Heritage High School. I'm currently a fourth year at the University of Chicago and a concurrent Master's student in IR.

I'm open to any argument but have a few preferences with argumentation:

Framework: Super important! I think framework is incredibly useful in contextualizing all arguments in the round. Linking your arguments through your framework and then proving why I should buy the framework is the clearest path to my ballot. But also make sure to engage in a framework debate, not simply read different frameworks against each other. Weighing arguments under your framework = critical to my ballot.

Summary/Final Focus: Make sure to set up arguments in Summary that will be weighed in Final. Extend offense from turns or disadvantages made in rebuttal, and don't simply tell me 'extend' things for you, do the weighing to convince me of the argument. Collapsing is key here, and your approach to Summary can't be to go for everything in the round-if you go explicitly line by line you lose a lot of valuable time that can be spent weighing.

Impact framing: You need to frame and weigh impacts in the last speeches for it to count as a voter. Simply repeating an impact from your constructive is not enough to win it; you need to weigh it against other impacts in the round and frame why we should be prioritizing those impacts first.

Defense: Answer it! I will weigh extended defense that goes unresponded to if your opponents do the work in weighing it. If you simply repeat your arguments without interacting with your opponent's responses, I'll be hesitant to buy it.

Evidence: I wil call for evidence that either 1) I know it is being misrepresented or miscut, 2) your opponents advocate is being misrepresented, or 3)sound exceptionally sketchy. Even if I think a piece of evidence might be untrue or unconvincing, I put the onus on the opposing team to call for the card and for me to evaluate it if they think it is critical to my decision in the round.

Speed: Don't debate at the speed where you have to do that weird breathing thing with your voice. I really dislike that sound.

Keep the debate space inclusive and accessible to all. I'm highly sensitive to racist, sexist, or misogynistic behavior, actions, or speech, and will intervene in exceptionally egregious circumstances.

I debated for four years for Timothy Christian School and graduated in 2014.

**NEW: PLEASE READ**

What makes me really happy and engaged in rounds: Cases with a strong, unique framework, and that tell a story or paint a picture that appeals to emotion, logic, and intuition. Debaters who extend their frameworks, actively impact arguments back to them, and use their frameworks to exclude their opponents arguments when possible.

What makes me really sad and bored in rounds: Generic util frameworks like "maximizing well-being", "maximizing happiness", "societal well-being", which lead to debaters to try to cover too much in the round and then eventually mutually agree implicitly or explicitly that whoever achieves X wins the round.

**LD**

I value substance and clash (engaging with and actually addressing the warrant of your opponent's argument, weighing, etc.)
I'll evaluate any argument or position as long as it's well-warranted and you give me a working method of evaluation.

Theory is fine as long as you prove that there is actual abuse in the round.

I don't want a line-by-line off-time roadmap. Give me a general roadmap (e.g. "Framework, AC, NC") then signpost (e.g. "Contention 1 subpoint A", "the Neg f/w", "their second contention", etc.) as you debate.

Please confirm with your opponent that you're both okay with flex-prep, evidence sharing, etc. before the round starts.

**Varsity LD**

I have not judged varsity much in the past couple years. It is safe to assume that I have little to no familiarity with circuit arguments. If you run circuit-type arguments, I will do my best to evaluate your position, but it is your burden to be absolutely clear about what is happening in the round. I can evaluate new information, but I don't know all the technicalities associated with circuit arguments.

**All LD**

Please give me a method of evaluation for the round, and link contention level arguments into whichever method you think is winning in the round. Please weigh arguments. I'll flow new arguments and analyses in second rebuttal speeches but I won't vote on them. I generally accept new cross applications, since those involve pre-existing arguments.

I assign speaker points on a 25-30 point scale. Speaker points will reflect how I perceived your ability to make and extend effective arguments, and strategize overall. (25 - completely unprepared, 26 - below average, 27 - average, 28 - good, 29 - very well-done, 30 - excellent; offensive arguments may go below a 25; I don't believe I've ever given lower than a 26 before, and my average is probably around a 28; I try to be a little more lenient with novice speaks, but this doesn't always happen; I also try to assign speaks relatively, based on previous rounds within the tournament)

Good arguments and extensions include a claim, warrant(s), and impact(s). I'll give some leeway to aff extensions, but they must include more than the label ("the value criterion," "Contention 2," "the impact," "[insert card name]"). If an argument is dependent on another argument, you should extend all relevant parts to make your point. If you're the Neg debater and have ample time to do so, I expect a thorough extension of all relevant points. If you're the Aff, please at least extend the claims of the underlying points and explain the important one as needed.

If you are a more experienced debater obviously facing a novice or non-native English speaker, and I detect abuse (spreading, tricks, etc.), this will probably reflect in your speaks.

I won't say you can't spread, but just know that the faster you go and less clear you are, the greater risk you run of me not understanding your arguments. The faster you go, the more I'm just listening for key words and less I'm actually trying to understand what you're saying. If you are going to spread, start slow then speed up. Slow down for tags and card names and anything you really want me to understand/write down. I'll say clear if I don't understand you, and if I say it twice you should consider permanently slowing down.

Recently debaters have started sharing cases via email/USB? This is fine, but don't bother asking me to share your case with me in advance. I'll evaluate the round based on my interpretation of what happened in speeches - if both debaters are clear, my interpretation should be pretty close to what actually happened in the round. I only call for evidence after the round if I feel I need it to make my decision, but this doesn't happen often. If I couldn't understand your evidence/I didn't evaluate it the way you wanted me to, you probably weren't as clear in the round as I needed you to be.

Overall, I'm pretty technical (or I try my best to be at least), but when the round is unclear or very close, I'll probably end up looking for the easiest way to evaluate and judge the round. With that said, if you can appeal to both being technical and giving me an easy way to judge the round, not only will I probably consider your arguments more positively, it will probably also reflect well in your speaks.

Side note: You can ask me to time your speeches/prep for you, but based on experience, I've learned that I am generally a poor time-keeper. I highly prefer debaters to time themselves and each other, and especially keep track of prep-time. If you at least want me to write down your remaining prep time, I will do that for you, just let me know.

**PF**

I've judged PF many times now in the past couple years; I understand PF debate is supposed to appeal to persuading the general public, but like LD, I evaluate the round pretty technically. I also get that there isn't exactly a framework structure in PF, but at least give me some sort of method of evaluation. After all, there must be something that you're trying to achieve. So make that goal explicit, and link back to it throughout the round.

The problem I've had with most PF rounds is that clash/weighing is done poorly, so the round ends up unnecessarily close, making it very difficult for me to make a decision. Please, as best as you can, don't let this happen!

As with LD, I am not a good time keeper, and am even worse with PF. Everyone should keep track of their own time and each other's time.

**ALL**

I will dock speaks for unprofessional dress. I'm fine with casual professional dress and I'm pretty reasonable overall, but you should not come tournaments in sweats and sneakers. If you have special circumstances that prevented you from dressing appropriately and you're worried that I am going to dock your speaks, you can notify me before the round - pass me a note or something if it's a private issue.

General: 

-No spreading 

-I don't appreciate aggression 

-Always signpost, but no cliches 

-I don't recognize arguments composed of lengthy and convoluted link chains 

-I only call for evidence if I have reason to believe it is being misconstrued 

-Do not ask me what it takes to get a 30. A 30 means you were perfect. I have only given a 30 three times throughout my years of judging.

-I really appreciate a clear framework 

At the end of the round, the winner of the debate is the team that sustains their arguments, meaning that, I expect anything you want me to vote on to be in summary and final focus. I think that frontlines should be made as early as rebuttal (if speaking second), but will be accepted in summary. Lastly, weighing is very important to me. Please begin to weigh in summary, but seal the deal in final focus. Even if you are only winning on one argument, but you extend it into summary and final focus and explain why the impacts of that argument are the most important in that round; you will receive my ballot.  

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I am a parent.

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

weigh

I debated for 4 years at Shrewsbury High School in MA.

The way I judge:

• I can flow speed, but if you’re going too fast I won’t be a fan
• Please signpost for me (be organized in your speeches)
• I don't flow crossfire, but I do listen (somewhat) and will hold teams to concessions made during CX
• Unless an argument takes up the entire span of GCX, I don’t like to flow things in final focus that are not argued during summary. The exception would be if first summary doesn't extend defense from rebuttal.
• Please, like please, do not try any “my opponents failed to respond to…” if they responded to it. I know it’s a lie, you know it’s a lie. Just be cool.
• Branching off of that, don't extend through ink (i.e. don't keep saying an argument if your opponents have already responded to it, unless you counter-respond). I won't flow it until you address the defense.
• If there is a lot of dispute over evidence, or it looks like there's some shady stuff going on, I don't have any qualms calling for cards.
• I'm honestly pretty generous when it comes to speaker points. Especially if you do the things below.

Some things I like personally:

• I am very game for interesting arguments and will flow pretty much anything unless it's racist/sexist/homophobic.
• The one caveat to the above is that I'm not really a fan of K's, theory, or anything that's not really part of PF, just because I don't have that kind of background and probably won't appreciate the value of that kind of debate.
• Unless you're doing something out-of-the-ordinary you don't need to give me a road map - I know the drill.
• Being polite is a real plus. It will make me like you way more.
• I really like jokes - please make them.

And, above all else, I beg of you weigh your arguments. It makes my life 100000x easier.

links are important. weighing is also important.

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!

I am a lay judge and I am a teacher. I understand the flow to some extent. Please make sure you present well constructed arguments and explain your evidence and refutations clearly. If you use data, explain its significance. Thank you.

Although I “flow” arguments on a flow pad, please note that I am not a technical judge which provides points here and there and tries to determine which arguments were “carried” to the end of the round or which ones were “dropped”. Instead, I flow to help me keep track of the arguments that are made by both sides and the critical analysis that is conveyed to me to support or refute arguments. Please use the crossfires to ask each other questions and speak to each other, rather than addressing me and asking me to take note of certain statements (which can and should be done during summary and final focus). Consider the final focus as the points I should consider in my reason for judgement write up.

Please weigh, as I find this to be critical to my analysis.

Use "cards" only to support your analysis, not to say "my card is better than your card". A round that heavily relies on "card" after "card" has missed the mark of what debate is about.

Signpost, focus on making clear links, stress impacts, try to construct a plausible and persuasive narrative. I'm fine with speed, but understand that there is a tradeoff between quality and quantity of flow coverage. Be civil please, it's just high school debate. Speaks are assigned by quality of arguments not by necessary fluidity of oral presentation - be aware of this. Also, fyi, I do reward teams for style points. Humor, wit, and interesting arguments are persuasive in real life, so I believe they should be rewarded in a debate context as well.

I have four years experience as a public forum debate judge as a parent.

Several things:

1.  Please speak slowly and clearly.

2.  Articulate slowly the first sentence of each contention.

3.  Like most people, I respond best to a well organized and compelling narrative.  That is, tell me a logical and consistent story, rather than giving me a series of random facts or pieces of evidence.

4.  Always be courteous to your opponents.  Rudeness or condescension is never acceptable, even in the heat of the debate.

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.

I am open to all types of arguments as long as there is a clear connection and purpose behind them. Speed will be a factor - especially since the rounds are virtual and the quality of the sound could be a problem. Respect for your opposing team is critical. Adequate time should be given to ask and answer questions and there is never a reason for rude or aggressive language.

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.  

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

Background:

• State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
• Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
• Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
• Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

• N/A

What I expect/prefer:

• In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
• The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
• As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
• I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
• I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
• I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
• Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
• If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
• I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

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.

The easiest way to win my ballot is to have great warrants in your arguments. To me, debate isn't all about how good of a researcher you are, so don't read every statistic on the topic at me. I really believe that debate is about the argumentation, not the evidence. Teams that debate to that paradigm will most likely win the round and certainly get high speaks (I don't ignore evidence; its pretty important, but its not everything. I just value smart and nuanced argumentation).

The most common question I get deals with extensions in summary and final focus. For me, if I'm voting for an argument, I want to hear it in both speeches. If there is defense in the rebuttal that I wouldn't necessarily vote on but is important, you don't have to worry about extending it. Just worry about offense (case arguments/turns).

I evaluate the round in the least interventionist way possible. I'll vote for what you tell me to if your extensions are clean, your arguments make some sense, and you weigh. Its that simple (please weigh). If you don't weigh and I'm left with a bunch of random arguments, I'll weigh by myself, and you might not end up with the result you wanted.

In terms of speaker points: just be smart. I'm pretty liberal with speaks.

Ethics are pretty important to me, don't lie/misconstrue cards.

Finally, and most importantly, it is more enjoyable for everyone if the round is light. Don't yell at each other for 45 minutes, no one likes that.

Don't hesistate to ask questions.

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

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 debated for 4 years for Acton Boxborough and then another 2 years at Georgia Tech in Parliamentary debate.

I speak pretty fast so I can keep up with the pace that is appropriate for PF (e.g. please no spreading.)

I flow but I enter the round with a blank slate. I need you to make the argument for me and I'll then accept it. If you make me use my own logic, it's 50/50 whether I buy an argument or not. Shift the odds in your favor and weigh for me.  And for weighing, I tend to accept a utilitarian view but I can be convinced otherwise. 

As extras:

- I won't flow in CX but I will keep track of points.

- Come find me after rounds and I'll tell my RFD as well as offer advice on what I would like to see

My judging philosophy is that debaters should choose their own paradigm. That is to say, you tell me how to judge you! You can choose any paradigm you want - I can judge you lay, flay, flow; I can flow crossfire or not flow crossfire; I can require terminal defense in summary or ask you to only extend offense; I can increase your speaks if you are funny; I can require you to frontline every response to any voter that you extend; I can pick up only teams that give me a narrative, or only teams that have full coverage on the flow. If the two teams in the round disagree on their preferred paradigm, then I will strike a compromise and find something that has characteristics resembling both suggested paradigms.

I am a circuit court judge in Fort Lauderdale Florida. My son has debated for 4 years so I have experience as a parent judge on the Florida circuit.

I believe strongly that judges must be objective. Therefore I will never intervene with my own opinion. Your arguments should be directed towards your opponents and convince me that your arguments are the better arguments.

Some of my preferences:

Do not throw numbers at me, tell me what those numbers mean and why they matter. 

Do not turn crossfire into a screaming match. Please respect the other persons' request to ask a question.

Do not spread. I will not be able to write down your arguments and this will only hurt you. However, I can follow relatively quick speaking, do not be overly slow.

Remember to have fun! I know debate is a super competitive activity but at the end of the day I strongly believe debaters should use each round as a learning experience to become better debaters

I coach at Plano West Senior High School in Texas: LD, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and extemp (and some policy debate).
I have been coaching since 1999.

I can handle speed, if you are clear; if you aren't being clear, I will let you know.

My highest priority is impacts in the round. Having said that, I expect clear warrants that substantiate the impacts.

I like big picture debate, but I will vote on specific arguments if they become a priority in the round.

I'm pretty straightforward. I want debaters to tell me HOW to adjudicate a round, and then tell me WHY, based on the arguments they are winning and the method of adjudication. The HOW part would be something like a standard, or burdens. The WHY part would include the warrants and impacts/link story for the arguments being extended. I am not at all particular about HOW you go about accomplishing those two tasks, but without covering those components, don't expect a W. I need a clear framework, so I like it when some time is spent laying the groundwork at the top of the case. If you don't give me a framework, I will formulate my own.
I'm not a big fan of theory, but if a true abuse exists, I will vote on it. Keep in mind that if your opponent has a unique argument for which you are not prepared, that means you are not prepared, not that abuse exists in the round. I do not expect case disclosure and will not consider arguments that it should exist.

I want to see clash from the negative.

I fundamentally believe that the resolution is a proposition of truth and that if a truth claim is made, the burden falls on the person proving it true. Having said that, I'm totally open to other articulated strategies.

Lives don't matter. If you want me to weigh lives, you must first tell me why lives matter. Otherwise, talk about literally anything else.

TL;DR: Always sign post in summary and final focus, extend, and provide warrants for impacts and responses. Do the weighing for me.

Signpost: Please signpost your voting issues at the top of your summary and final focus. Then as you speak, reiterate them at the top of each voter. If you don't signpost, I have no idea what you are talking about. It just sounds like you are extending your whole case or doing another rebuttal. Either way, I have no idea what to vote off of. IF YOU DON'T PLAN ON SIGNPOSTING, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

Don’t extend through ink: If you get a concession out of your opponent, extend it in your speeches. I am flowing only the speeches so if you don't bring it up in your speeches, it didn't happen. Also, do not say "extend my 5 impacts" or "extend my 5 responses." Actually say these impacts or responses.

Collapse: Collapse all your arguments down into 1-3. If there is clash between teams, you can make that one voting issue. As long as the things are relatively related, I have no problem.

Consistency: Voting issues should be consistent between speeches. If you have two voting issues in summary, then you should have the two same voting issues in final focus.

Timeframe: All impacts should have a timeline. It is hard to weigh impacts if I have no idea how long it takes for them to realize.

No audible alarms: Please try not to use audible alarms. They are annoying and only serve to cut yourself off. While it will not affect speaker points if teams insist on using them, I will drop my pen when it rings regardless of where you are in your sentence.

Cross-applying: I will cross apply arguments and impacts that each team extends into summary and final focus even if teams don't do it themselves. In addition, if I card you and the evidence is critically relevant to either side, I will cross apply that also. This does not mean that I will create and vote off of new arguments I find in the evidence. This just means that if your card provides two impacts and you neglect to mention the other impact could negate the first one, I will take that into account and apply it for you. I am not an activist judge; I just want to make sure that evidence is being used properly and is not misconstrued. If I feel something is purposely misconstrued or left out, I will drop that card and any resulting impacts.

Weigh: Explain why the impact of one issue is more important even if the metrics are different. Hint, prioritizing lives is a losing battle, refer to top of paradigm.

Speaker Points: If you signpost, speak coherently, cover the flow, and are engaging, you can expect a 30. Prioritize coherency over speed because 1) Stumbling knocks off speaks and 2)Anything I can't flow I can't weigh. Not covering everything on the opponent's flow is OK if you cover all the important impacts and warrants. Missing a thing here or there won't affect speaks. Engagement just means you don't speak in a way that would lull me to sleep. Tournaments are long; I get tired. If you are funny, sassy, or at least make eye contact, I will be more than happy. Please don't look at your flow the entire time. Always SIGNPOST in summary and final focus. This is my biggest pet peeve. If you don't signpost, that's 2.5 points gone. Just tell me "first voter is x" and "second voter is y." Very easy to get these points and makes my RFD easier since I know what the big issues are.

Assume that I have a general understanding of the topic but definitely explain any esoteric ideas or little know events/facts.

Also, please don't be rude or condescending; it's a competition but everyone should enjoy their time in debate, not feel harassed.

I am a parent and have been judging for four years. I typically flow the rounds. Speaking speed is not an issue for me, but if you are going to cite a lot of evidence, please slow down. If you weigh your contentions and impact, it makes it easier for me to decide.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

BACKGROUND:

I debated at Durham Academy for four years (2011-2015). After graduation, I worked at the Institute for Speech and Debate and briefly for Champions Briefs. For the last three years, I have coached for Durham Academy.

FLOWING:

I can keep up, but be clear and make it easy. Signpost. It’s always better to be clear rather than unnecessarily fast.

GENERAL:

I prefer well warranted arguments over random evidence that seems illogical. Don’t just tell me that something is logical or that it’s the most important — Tell me WHY your argument makes sense and WHY it’s more important than your opponents. That being said, I will still write down everything you say. There’s nothing crazy specific that I’m looking for you to do. Just make my job as easy as possible.

CROSSFIRES:

I try to listen to everything, but if something important was said, try to include it in a speech also.

SUMMARY/FF:

Dont extend through ink. If there’s conflicting arguments or evidence, weigh or try to take the debate further (don’t just restate the same things over and over). 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense, but just be smart and strategic. Respond to turns on your case, and if you don’t, explain why you’re not responding. Weigh. Most importantly, tell me a clear, consistent story about why you won the round -- write the ballot for me.

ask before the round if you feel inclined to 

Put the argument in summary if you want me to vote on it in FF.

Speed is fine, but if you're planning on going really fast be sure to annunciate tags/cites.

If evidence issues are brought up in round I'll call for the appropriate cards afterwards. I take debate ethics very seriously

Debated 4 years in high school (3 in PF), now judging for Stuyvesant

My paradigm is pretty simple. If you have any additional questions, feel free to ask. 

-Weighing. is. crucial. Please do not make me do extra work - this is super risky for you.

-Any extensions of offense made in the FF should have also been made in the summary if you want me to vote off of them. This includes turns. That being said, do not extend through ink...

-I don't require defense in summary and, if you are giving the first summary, you definitely shouldn't be extending defense. (I will be incredibly frustrated if you do.) However, you must respond to turns. If you're giving the second summary, I think it's strategic for you to extend 1 or 2 pieces of key defense. 

-Please collapse on a couple of voting issues in the summary and FF. Don't try to go for everything. You should be going for the arguments that win you the ballot, and you should be weighing these arguments in the context of the round. 

-Please don’t misinterpret your evidence or make silly oversimplifications. I do call for contested evidence.

-To ensure clarity, please signpost!!!! If it’s not on my flow, you’ve wasted your time. I’m fine with speed, but I am not fine with disorganization and/or a lack of clarity. This is a big pet peeve of mine, especially in the summary.

-I enjoy good puns. 

Did PF for a while, judged PF for a while, remain unconvinced that detailed judge paradigms are good for the event. The short version is this: I will judge your arguments as a reasonable person with little background knowledge, no opinions, and normal powers of reason. Arguments should be coherent, well-supported, and clearly tied to the resolution; rebuttals should be logical and used strategically; summaries should explain clearly why one should vote a certain way, rather than just describe the flow.

I will flow all speeches, but will reasonably assume that arguments rarely mentioned are not that important. If you want to speak particularly quickly, I will understand you, but I've rarely seen that help someone win a round. I *might* understand you if you use debate jargon (it keeps changing over the years, which is a good sign that it's not useful), but I have never seen that help someone win a round. If you try to use Cross-Ex to bully your opponents rather than ask helpful questions, I will only take that out of your speaker points, and it will not affect my decision. However, I've never seen that help someone win a round.

I look at sources extremely rarely; if you suspect your opponents have deliberately misrepresented their evidence, take it up with Tabroom and get them disqualified, but disputing sources generally has not, in my experience, helped someone win a round. Sometimes, debaters will ask me to do things, such as make their opponents answer a question, or tell me that I have no choice but to vote for their side, and I've never seen that help someone win a round.

Hello!

Fundamentally, I just want debaters to respect each other and debate what they do best. I've been involved with debate for 11 years--debated policy in high school and NPDA parli in college. During that time, I've coached most college styles of debate. Definitely was a K hack in college but love any type of debate that's done well. Currently finishing my masters at UNT

Some specifics:

-I'm not heavily involved with the topic so please keep that in mind with your strats

-I'm good with speed but am a little rusty so maybe don't go full super saiyan

-Speed, Ks, procedurals, etc. are all fine.

-Please don't assume that I know your lit lol

-I default to competing interps unless given a different framing on procedurals

-It's hard for me evaluate 1AR/NR theory because of aff side bias

IN THE ONLINE REALM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE - SLOW DOWN.

I am a flow judge.

I have a few things you should keep in mind:

I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters.

When extending evidence, extend the warrant not just the author (because sometimes I don't write down the tag and just the warrant).

I do not flow crossfires. If you make an argument in crossfire or your opponent concedes an argument in crossfire, you must say it in a speech in order for me to count it.

**Although I am a flow judge, I reserve the right to forfeit my flow (and vote like a lay judge) if competitors are offensive, bullying, or just unnecessarily rude.

I’ll get right to the point.

Don’t spread.

I have six years of experience judging in Public Forum Debate as a parent.  I do keep track of contentions and their responses, though my ability is limited by the speed at which you speak.  I want you to take special care about being crystal clear when saying the first sentence of each contention.  I am a fan of signposting.  If I am keeping time, don’t ask me for X seconds.  Tell me when to start or stop.

There are only three ways you can lose a round with me judging.

1: Believe it or not you can be out debated. J

2: You speak too fast for me to flow.

3: You are extremely rude to your opponents. 

My judging style is as follows:

I don’t judge just off lives impacts or random pieces of evidence. I want you to tell me a story and be compelling with your arguments. That’s the whole point of Public Forum. 

Note on rudeness: If you are somewhat rude to your opponents, I will most definitely dock speaker points, but will still listen to your arguments. If I believe you cross the line, I will immediately drop you.

I really like a properly ran cap K. Down with capitalism!!

Feel free to run anything in front of me, but I would ~prefer~ that you not run frivolous theory.

I believe disclosure is very good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise.

Topical puns in you speech will increase the speaker points you get.

I have previous LD and PF and Policy experience but I was not a tricks debater.

I won't vote on the K if the alt is unclear - same goes for policy advocacies. Clear solvency please.

awelton001@gmail.com for questions

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

PF

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

LD

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

I did PF for four years in HS and have coached PF for 4 years since. I was head PF coach for the Bronx High School of Science in the 20-21 year, and am an incoming graduate student in Philosophy. My pronouns are he/him.

Students' safety and comfort is my top priority in round so I will drop debaters who, in whatever way, make the round less safe/comfortable for other debaters (purposefully or otherwise). I also encourage debaters in the round to press claims to this effect in or outside of speeches, whether those claims are against their opponents, me, an observer, etc. Feel free to get in touch with me via email (nathan.witkin@gmail.com), including during the round.

Please default to they/them pronouns, should you be unsure of anyone's preferences.

---

I'm fine with speed, K debate, theory, etc. but clarity (w/r/t explanation and articulation) is a must esp. online. Consider that the odds I miss something scales with speed. I may ask for clarification if your audio cuts out at any point.

Defense is not "sticky," i.e. must be extended in every speech just like offense. Following from this, extension through ink is fine if your opponents don't extend the ink. This includes cases where a team extends conceded defense into summary, but not into FF. The defense is lost if not extended into FF. Second rebuttal still should frontline, because I don't accept completely new frontlining in second summary (you can still develop a previous defense debate in new ways).

New weighing in either summary is fine, but not in FF. As with defense in rebuttal/summary, I'm relatively permissive when it comes to what is "new," so you have some leeway to further develop prior disputes about weighing/defense/offense in FF. The rough threshold is whether what you're adding in later speeches can be reasonably construed as entailed by something said earlier (it is usually permissible to further specify or explain something, even if it has been mostly implicit up until the later speech).

I won't call evidence unless you tell me to, or unless I need it to make any decision at all (for instance, if the round hinges entirely on one piece of evidence).

On progressive arguments [in PF]: as a result of my academic background, there is a solid chance I will be at least somewhat familiar with the literature on what you are running. That means I may have a higher standard for what a sufficient explanation of the argument ought to look like. Your argument should be well-explained enough that unfamiliar opponents won't be classed out of the round by jargon. Relatedly, don't treat abstract impacts like those to reinforcing patriarchy (etc.) as magical trump cards for outweighing more generic PF impacts (I think this does a serious disservice to them, and often evinces a lack of understanding of the arguments themselves and their significance). That goes for post-fiat arguments and for pre-fiat ones you might be weighing against (for example) the educational value of traditional substance-debates. If you think your impact in either case should get special priority, weigh it like any other. The bottom line for me is that what you're reading is ultimately just like any other argument, and won't on face be treated differently because you're drawing from one academic literature (e.g. post-colonial studies, critical sociology, etc.), as opposed to another (economics, political science, etc.), unless of course you give me an uncontested or contested but won reason why.

Two addendums for rare(ish) situations:

1. I don't allow second-speaking team to trick first by frontlining one contention and then going for the other (since, if defense is not sticky, first team might then have dropped all their defense on the non-frontlined, but surprisingly extended contention if they did not predict the trick, and then lose access to it later since it wasn't in first summary). It's conceivable I might let this possibility stand, which would require first team to always extend at least one piece of terminal defense on non-frontlined args as insurance, but this seems like an unnecessary burden.

2. Weighing that is introduced in first rebuttal does not need to be frontlined in second rebuttal. I allow the second team to respond to weighing for the first time in second summary (it still might be a good idea to also respond in the rebuttal).

Let me know if you have any further questions before the round starts.

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.