Affiliation: Capitol Debate (High school) and Liberty University (College)
Experience: I've been involved in debate for 12 years now. I debated competitively in Policy Debate primarily (I dabbled in LD and Congress in HS). I have coached Public Forum on the MS and HS level for the last 6 years.

Basic Philosophy: (Novice/Middle School)

As with anyone, I enjoy high quality debates. I find that this comes from students debating how THEY feel comfortable and not trying to appease my every desire in the round. I debated from strictly policy to performative/critical argumentation. I say all that to say that no matter what you do i'll probably be open to it. My below comments will be pretty vague as I judge/coach many types of debate

My Specific Preferences:

1) Impact and Link turns hold my heart. A well executed turn debate always grabs my attention and you will see that reflected in both my interest and your speaker points.

2) I'm lazy, Tell me what do do. At the end of the debate don't just say "They dropped X so we win the debate." Tell me why! What does it mean for the rest of the debate? How should I weigh this against the sea of other arguments at play.

3) I love evidence. I love debaters who explain their evidence and pull out the warrants even more.

4) If you decide to take a more critical/non-traditional route, don't assume I know your literature base. While I am open to hearing it doesn't mean I understand what you are saying. Make sure you explain things in-depth.

5) I am pretty expressive in debates. USE THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! If I look like I don't get it...chances are I don't. If you say "They dropped X" and I am shaking my head no then chances are, on my flow, it's not dropped.

6) Don't be a jerk. I hate it and my expressions and your speaks will reflect it.

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison. In round abuse is key for me. It's what you do not what you justify

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your thing, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read are Wilderson (Afro-Pessimism) and other forms of Black liberation startegies. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts. However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.

Speaks-- Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Other things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

Email for evidence chain: bales@bxscience.edu

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

Argument-Specific (I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework, 

My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine. 

I have been a member of the National Speech and Debate Association for 18 years. I grew up doing speech, and as a teacher, moved more into the direction of coaching debate. I love this activity, and I am genuinely rooting for every team that I judge.

I currently coach a large, successful middle school debate team in Harlem, where we do mostly Parli.

1. I appreciate cases that convey a sense of originality of analysis, clarity, and authenticity.

2. When it comes to any data-based evidence, I am going to be more swayed by the narrative you create around the numbers than the numbers themselves.

3. I appreciate thoughtful research, but when it comes down to it -- perhaps it is all the time I spend coaching Parli -- I am easily pulled into the world of ideas and logic. I will have a longer leash for more philosophical reasoning than many PF judges.

4. Whenever I experience PF debate, I am so impressed by the way the best teams are able to manage their time-- because you have so little to work with. Do not be afraid to let things fade from the round in order to focus the round into the real voting issues.

5. In crossfires, get underneath the premise of your opponent's argument rather than the splitting hairs or (in most cases) getting into the nuances of the validity of the evidences. Force concessions from your opponent.

6. Create legitimate clash. Show me the contrast between the worlds of yours and your opponents. Make the contrast obvious to me.

5. As you speak, engage me naturally on a human-to-human level, and read my reactions. (I'm told I am fairly easy to read)

Harvard '19

UCLA Law '24

Coaching for Harker at Berkeley 2024

SLOW DOWN AND CLEARLY ENUNCIATE -- I WILL NOT FOLLOW SPEEC DOCS DURING SPEECHES. I CAN'T HEAR GOOD AND I WILL ONLY TELL YOU TO SLOW DOWN TWICE, AFTERWARDS UR ON UR OWN.

TLDR: I am personally more familiar answering the K than reading it. 2NR should tell me if they want me to judge kick, 2AR should tell me if they don't want me to. I did policy debate for eight years and coached it for longer. I have judged LD only a few times -- bear that in mind if you are going to go for some niche LD theory argument.

Online Debate: Plsss get affirmative visual or verbal confirmation from me and your two opponents that they are ready before speaking. I will pause time if there's a tech issue in a speech or CX. Be extra mindful of not interrupting too much during CX.

Debater Comfort and Safety: If anyone in the room is making you feel uncomfortable during, before, or after the debate please let me know and we can figure out together how to proceed. I feel zero qualms kicking out spectators who make students feel uncomfortable or speaking to the appropriate coaches/tab about a safety issue in round. If your opponents ask for accommodations, please honor them. Debate is adversarial but I believe it is still important to be somewhat kind; there is a thin line between "sassy and competitive" (good, fun) and "mean-spirited and cruel" (bad, not fun). We are likely complete strangers, so be mindful of your power and how you may come accross, especially when debating younger students. No explicit threats of violence towards individuals in the room or at the tournament. I'm just trying to judge a debate round, don't put me or your opponents in a weird position, please.

End of Round Speeches: I will default to good evidence comparison in speeches, and will only call for cards to verify your analysis. Forgoing terminal impact defense is less important if you have other defense, such as internal link defense or link defense etc.

Framework You need to have external offense and to extend case defense or answer aff solvency to win this argument in front of me. I judge this like a DA/case debate, which means both the aff and neg team need to compare impact calculus and solvency mechanisms. I do not feel strongly about any set of framework impacts so long as they are well explained. For the aff: I was on the neg side of framework debates more often than not as a debater, so I have thought more about the neg's impacts than your 1AC's most likely. This means you need to do more judge-direction in your speeches. The aff has to clearly explain the 1AC impact and/or offense against framework, why its bigger than the neg's offense, and if relevant, why TVA/SSD cannot solve it.

Ks: Buzzwords do not amount to a persuasive argument. Effectively using the language of your authors is different from saying buzzwords and hoping they do all the explanation. Purposefully confusing the other team isn't an effective strategy if you don't eventually explain it clearly to me. Links and root cause arguments should be clearly articulated, delineated, and contextualized to the affirmative's evidence, language, or plan. Explain what your framework interpretation means for how I decide the debate. I really dislike negative blocks that completely disregard the 2AC order and don't do any line-by-line, unless that style is explicitly related to your arguments (but im still probably not the best for that). I like when aff offense is about the plan text and aff advantages. Reps Ks: I don't feel like perf-con is a deal-breaker BUT you have to do way more work to distinguish the neg's rhetoric from the aff's if you do this and the perm is very winnable.

DAs The politics DA has been bad lately. Maybe you will come up with a smart version of it and I will like it, or maybe your opponent will be really bad at answering, but I will not just assume bad politics cards are better than they actually are just because the debate community really likes the politics DA. Many politics DAs can be defeated by smart analytics and evidence comparison. Intrinsicness/perm on politics doesn't do much for me.

Theory/T I don't have particularly strong feelings one way or the other about the abusiveness of the states cp, XO, courts CP. I think conditionality is probably good, if you go for conditionality bad in the 2AR and execute well I will understand. The executing team should do a good job explaining why I should reject the argument and not the team, and provide a clear counter interpretation. I am more than happy to vote for theory. I'm more aff leaning on Process/Consult CP theory, but this still requires good affirmative execution. Do impact calculus.

UPDATE: 2/14/2020, re: Harvard tournament - This will be my second tournament judging Congress; I judged previously at last month's Barkley Forum at Emory. In other years, here at Harvard, I've judged both PF and LD.

I have judged both PF and LD, on local circuits and at the Harvard National tournament, for the past three seasons and judged BQ @ the 2018 NSDA Nationals. I'm a former high school (Science) teacher, and love being involved with high schoolers again through Debate.

A few things:

-Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I began as a parent judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll ultimately actually CONVINCE me.

- I'm not a fan of progressive debate strategies. IMO, spreading is a gimmick, and devalues the essence of debate. If I can't follow what you're saying, you're not communicating with me. And if you aren't communicating, what's the point? So, while a little speed is fine, if you see me stop flowing, you know you've lost me. Similarly I'm not a big fan of counterplans/Ks etc. either. BUT I'm always open to hearing them; sometimes they're awesome! (Just don't pull that if you're a 1st year novice debater going against another newbie. It's no fun to see a 14-yo kid get obliterated in only their second round ever because your varsity teammates shared their cases with you for the purpose of doing just that to your opponent. I've seen it - more than once - and it's really painful to watch and demoralizing for your opponent.)

- I WILL be flowing throughout the debate, so please organize/structure to make that easier for me - i.e. a clearly defined framework and contentions (signposts!), off-time road maps, voters etc.

- I like when opponents challenge evidence during CX, so that we ALL know the info is being accurately and honestly presented. Have your 'cards' ready!

- Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my thoughts.

- Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's. I WILL deduct 'speaks' if this is a problem, or if really egregious, I will drop you.

- I'm very relaxed as a judge. I want you to be comfortable in the room with me, and am really proud to have gotten a lot of positive feedback from debaters about that. Introduce yourself. Feel free to joke/laugh. Smiles are great. Remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

Excellent debaters and excellent debate rounds are characterized by the competitors' ability to speak clearly and understandably, identify the major underlying arguments at the heart of evidence and examples, and succinctly present a case for their own side as the round evolves. I value your ability to explain why something matters (more than just XYZ person said so in this article) within the larger context of an overarching argument. As the debate progresses, you should be telling me what the major reasons are to vote for you, as opposed to travelling infinitely down the rabbit hole on the details of a specific argument.

Treat each other with respect. This is most noticeable in cross fire. Ask your question and grant your opponent a reasonable amount of time to respond. Though in the moment you may feel the urge to interrupt, it is never helpful.

Qualify your sources, don't just say a name. Tell me who said it, where they said it, and the reason it is valuable.

Enjoy yourselves and relax, the round will always turn out better if you are having fun and learning.

Rcarragher19@gmail.com

I will not bring any preconceived notions with me into the room.

Please be clear, respectful and don't nod your head up and down, belittle or bully.

Don't make things up and be sure to back up your claims with reliable sources.

If you would like me to vote on certain arguments please bring them up in both in your summary and final focus.

I will give speaker points based on persuasiveness and clear communication and not technicalities.

I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over fast talking so please speak at a speed I can follow.

Be sure to weigh your impacts and know that as a judge I value the big picture (with supporting evidence) over line-by-line analysis in summary comments.

Have fun and good luck!

I debated 5 years ago for Timothy Christian. I've judged several times for LD tournaments but haven't been proactively involved in the circuit since then. I'm fine with you running any arguments so long as you articulate them well and give good extensions and links.

I'm not super comfortable with speed, since I haven't judged in a while, so I would prefer you not to spread.

*assume I don't know the topic or the literature/arguments surrounding the resolution*

Email: achoi07650@gmail.com

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know anything

- generally not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesn't know how to respond (@ novices/middle schoolers)

Topicality - will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- any speeds fine but plz it's public forum shouldn't be spreading

- I probably won't call cards but you never know

- plz don't plagiarize + know the rules of evidence

4. Speaks

- will give high speaks for nice round :)

- if y'all chill expect 28+

- if y'all rude/disrespectful/purposely making someone feel uncomfortable expect nothing higher than a 25

5. Basic stuff

- please weigh

- I ain't tolerating problematic behavior in my rounds. You know what this means. Please be respectful, this event ain't life or death depending on a win.

- I beg, please don't excessively call for cards. I take the whole round into perspective and a card probably will not change my decision and if it will, I'll call for it myself. However, do what is in your best interest.

6. Digital stuff

- Usually tournaments say camera on (I believe) but if not I don't care whether or not your camera is on or off. I will keep my camera on unless something wild occurs.

- If you experience lag I may interrupt your speech for you to repeat something. Don't be flustered if I ask you to repeat something it is important for me to hear it :).

- Say if you need me to accommodate something. I'm fairly flexible as long as it is agreeable with everyone and the tournament staff/guidelines.

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.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. I can flow a round pretty well but am not a technical "flow" judge.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quanitity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable, or just don't focus so much on evidence accuracy.

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

How to win:

If you do these five things better than the opponents, you will win:

1. CLEARLY identify the arguments in the round and which ones are important

2. WEIGH and preferably give me a weighing mechanism to warrant me voting off of a specific argument

3. EXTEND arguments and enunciate their importance throughout the round

4. ADDRESS all the arguments in the round, and highlight dropped arguments

5. TELL me a story/narrative that uses persuasion not just evidence

I follow the NSDA guidelines for speaker points. I will give 30s if I think you are one of the best I've seen.

Background in debating and judging primarily British Parliamentary style. Preference for analysis through heuristics and reason from first principles versus citing statistics (essentially an appeal to authority). Please avoid spreading.

Three years as a PF judge, I look at the attire the debaters/team are wearing. Looking like a professional is part of first impressions. Aggressive speakers is critical of argument delivery. Clear and concise speakers are easy to understand and represent being prepared for the debate.

Having evidence to substantiate an argument is great but not always an end of a win. One annoying issue is reading your arguments line by line, word for word off a piece of paper or laptop. Referring to your notes is one thing but reading as if telling a story is not acceptable and demonstrates the lack of readiness/preparation.

Bottom line; presentation of the argument a must...!

Updated for Harvard Tournament 2020:

Background:

I am currently a senior in college. I spent four years debating for Mountain Brook High School and competed on the local and national circuits in LD and PF. Since graduating, I've worked with CX teams in the Boston Urban Debate League but have done zero work on the current LD/PF topics. Please explain any of the more common topic-specific terms/acronyms because I am not familiar with the literature.

LD preferences:

• Write my ballot for me. Give me voters in your last speech. Weigh your arguments and actually engage with your opponent's arguments. I don't want to vote off a technicality.
• I like plans, CPs, and DAs. I ran a lot of these when I was on the circuit. I also did a fair amount of traditional debate so am always happy to judge a classic V/VC case.
• I don't like tricks or frivolous theory. Please don't run theory unless there's actual abuse in the round.
• You can run Ks and analytic philosophy but I'm not very familiar with the literature.
• Other types arguments: Feel free to ask me for my thoughts before the round. In general, I'll vote for just about anything as long as you can explain your argument well and how it functions within the debate.
• Extensions must include a claim, warrant, and impact. This includes extensions for dropped arguments.
• It's been nearly four years since I left LD, so speak a bit more slowly than you normally would. Definitely slow down for tags and authors.
• Don't be rude to your opponent and don't run offensive arguments.

PF preferences:

• My decisions are largely based off of the final focuses. However, in order for me to consider a point brought up in final focus, it also needs to be extended in the summary speech.
• Have all of your evidence readily available for your opponents to read. If you take too long to pull up evidence that your opponents are requesting, I'll dock speaker points. However, ideally you're asking to look at evidence during crossfire so that we're not wasting time waiting for people to search for evidence.
• Evidence comparison is a must if you have evidence that contradicts your opponents' evidence. Without it, I have to intervene and decide for myself which evidence I think is more valid.
• Explain how your arguments link back to the overall framework for the round. This is especially true in the final focus. Make sure you're weighing impacts and thoroughly explaining how they interact with the overall framework.
• Ask questions doing crossfire. Don't use it as more speech time.
• I don't think the second speaker has to address the opponent's arguments against their case during the rebuttal. Feel free to just refute your opponent's case.
• Extensions should generally include a claim/warrant/impact, even if your opponent dropped your argument.
• Speed is fine.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

national circuit PF for 4 years. Mostly northeast so I follow northeast conventions (you don't need to frontline in second rebuttal, etc). Defense should preferably be extended through summary.

I can flow fast, but I really don't want to. If you speak quickly I'll get mad and stop flowing seriously. You will most certainly be worse off if you spread. If you literally read LD or Policy style I may count it against you in terms of speaking points- you should have done a different activity. 

Speaker points will reflect your decorum in the round as well as your technical/rhetorical ability. If you're rude or unpleasant to judge you will lose speaker points. You will lose more speaker points if you're rude to the other debaters but you get no points for being rude to me. 

As long as there's time I'll give oral RFD with disclosure and answer any questions. I'll also fill out the ballot with key trigger points. If you have a question please ask but phrase it in a way that assures me you're not trying to get me to change my decision (I won't.)

Be lighthearted. If that means humor by all means go for it. If all it means is that you project confidence without sternness, that's also great. Please make the round fun for me to judge. 

I did PF for three years in high school, and have a couple years of judging experience as well.

Things I like: 1) Framework debate; 2) Linking to your impacts. Don't just throw out numbers/conclusions without explaining how you can access them; 3) Signposting; 4) Numbered responses in rebuttal; 5) Turns; 6) Weighing and big picture analysis in Summary and FF. I like when teams can clearly explain why their impacts should outweigh their opponents' impacts, especially when those impacts are quantified differently (ex: lives vs. economics).

Things I don't like: 1) Sketchy or misconstrued evidence; 2) Tenuous links to impacts; 3) When teams bring up arguments in FF that they didn't push in Summary.

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

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

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

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

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

My name is Lisa Grzywacz and I have been judging for six years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

Name: Kerry Jones, Director of IT Service Continuity Management, Georgia Technology Authority

Affifiation: Parent/Sequoyah High School

Judging History:  Witnessed at least 20 Varsity and Novist PF Debates in 2015 prior to being trained to judge in the Harvard Tournament in 2016.  Judged several debates during 2016

Preferences in order of importance:

1. Develop a solid and clear framework
2. Provide logical and well explained contentions
3. Communicate in a clear and confident volume and tone
4. Provide reasonable, varifiable facts to support contentions
5. Know the material well enough to defend case during xfire rounds. 

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

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

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

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

EDIT 2/17/21 BASED ON READING OTHER PARADIGMS IN THE MILO POOL:

- decreased speed to 330 wpm based on what people are saying about online rounds

- will give you my e-mail at beginning of the round for speech doc/e-mail chain. will read speech doc/cards.

- some clarification in the long version about how I used to debate

Short Version:

Debate whichever way you feel most comfortable debating. Don’t read my paradigm and assume that there’s a certain type of debate that I prefer watching—it’s your activity, not mine. I’m just here to help out. Theory, phil, fw, Ks, LARP, lay are all fine (with differing degrees of comfort explained below.)

Spreading is fine up to 330 words per minute (used to be able to deal with ~410wpm but haven’t judged a round in a few years.) Slow down on tags. If you're *actually* clear and you know it, you can probably go faster. Haven’t judged online before.

Make sure you weigh. Extensions should include the author name, a brief warrant, and impact. No new in the 2AR. That includes new extensions.

Ask me any questions that aren’t covered in this ahead of time. If you don’t understand something, also ask.

Long Version:

I competed for University School (FL) for five years (competed in most events. Got some bids. One of those bids was in LD) and graduated in 2016. The last round I judged was in 2017. In looking over my old cases, it looks like my most common AC breakdown was 1 minute overview (theory preempts, presumption, permissibility affirms [if it fit with the topic], check T in CX), 3–4 minute framework, 1–2 minute offense. On neg, I would normally have presume neg, extemp a framework (normally 1–2 minutes of some sort of constitutivism), and then plug some cards in before responding to the aff.

In June 2020, I graduated from Dartmouth with a double major in government and philosophy. Currently, I’m getting my PhD at UVA in political theory (political authority [obligation & legitimacy], democratic theory, ideal/non-ideal methodology) with a minor in American politics (archives, ethics & public policy, policy implementation, localism, etc.)

My preference is to do the least amount of work possible and not need to intervene. TO BE CLEAR: run what you feel you need to run to win the round. I will adjudicate to the best of my ability. As I’m a debate dinosaur at this point, I have no vested interest in any type of argument. Lay debate is fine. LARPing is fine. Critical debate is fine. Theory is fine. Framework debate is fine and, like I said above, what I did most frequently when I debated. Things I genuinely do not feel qualified to judge: performances. If you are in front of me and you're reading a performance, it will help me to have a clearly articulated ROB.

Some theory preferences: Theory should be a check on actual abuse. It should NOT just be a way to layer the debate. Accordingly, I’m susceptible to arguments about RVIs. Paragraph theory is fine. Agnostic on competing interps v. reasonability, prefer aff interps, etc. If there’s going to be more than two distinct shells, I’ll do my best. Make sure you weigh between violations and SIGN POST.

Permissibility, presumption, skep, similar things are all fine with me as long as you explain how they interact with different levels of the flow and give actual warrants (ex: “presume aff because time skew” is not an argument. It’s a claim.)

Ks (Ks, K affs) are fine, but my formal training is in liberal analytic philosophy so I am likely hearing your argument for the first time (if I have the cards in front of me, this shouldn't be a problem.) What this means for you in practical terms: actually explain your arguments and have a clearly labeled structure. I think most K solvency is deeply bad. In terms of K authors that I’ve read in detail, it’s basically just Nietzsche (note: this means that I will know if you don’t understand your own Nietzsche K. I won’t tell your opponent if you’re telling them lies, but I will nuke your speaks.)

For LARPing, please actually think through the impacts of your arguments because state actors are complicated. I know there’s going to be an extinction debate that’ll make me sad. Unless it’s a Plan/DA/CP debate and you both know this ahead of time, you still need a util framework.

On framework: framework debate is good. But, a framework is rarely an independent reason to vote—you still have to have offense that links.

Ask if you have a specific question that isn’t covered here.

General Background: I'm a current Junior at Duke University and alumna of Fort Lauderdale High school.

PF History: I competed in the Southern Florida Varsity circuit from 2011-2014 in PF. I helped coach and instruct Novices my senior year. I now function as a "helper" from a distance as I'm in college. 

Final Focus: Everything you want me vote on in the round has to be brought in the Final focus (not necessarily the whole motivation behind why its important, just that it is a reason). I will not do the work for you and carry topics through the flow. It would also be helpful for there to be some sort of impact comparison (like define what should be viewed as the greater cost, so I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges  wto determine which is the better fruit) 

Intervention of the Judge: Realistically there will be times in some rounds when a debater might say something that I believe to be false, but if you, as the opponent, don't point out the fallacy of the argument I will not do that for you in my decision. I don't believe in judge intervention. 

Extending arguments: Please extend arguments.  

Personal Pet Peeves:

1. Please do not just say something like "that argument is a Red Herring" without describing quickly what that means and how that's true in this case. This is not for my benefit. I know what these terms mean. What I have found in my judging and debating is that sometimes you as a debater use these terms incorrectly or your opponent doesn't fully understand these terms. By describing how these terms apply to a particular round I can judge more fairly for both teams benefit. 

2. Please be respectful to your opponents. I'm not afraid of the Tab room when it comes to giving lower speaking points due to rudeness. Being respectful really isn't difficult no matter how much you believe to be "smoking" your opponents. 

3. I've been informed that speading has increased in popularity in PF since I left the circuit. I'm perfectly fine with fast speaking, but there's a reason that PF is in a different category than LD. I would really prefer not to have spreading in a round, but if it is I will not punish you for it. Realistically there's a chance I will not catch all parts of the argument and it will only hurt you if I can't understand your argument.  

Philippe Laurent

Coral Springs High School 16’ NEU 21’

Win the debate on impact calculus. That and evidence to back up what you’re claiming will happen. It should be straightforward. What I always found to be the most contentious parts of high-level debate was argumentation about different interpretations of what a card actually says. As debaters, it is your job to tell me what it says. That being said, if the information being presented in the card is essential to the results of the round and there is no consensus on what should be taken from the piece of evidence, then I can and will call for the piece of evidence. Other than that ask me before the round, and I will remind debaters if they don’t bother to read this, to ask me about what they should do to win in broad terms before the round starts.

Prefer moderate speed of speaking. Please clearly outline major points.

While I've been coaching Public Forum for a number of years my background is in British Parliamentary debate. So I'm partial to logical and narrative explanations that are backed up by solid evidence, rather than just evidence-dumping.

I am an assistant coach of PF Debate at Charlotte Latin, and a junior at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. I did PF debate for 4 years at Pinecrest High school in North Carolina. I am an Aries

My preferences are straightforward, although I would like to emphasize two points:

First, summary and final focus should be linked. More specifically, voting issues in final focus must be in summary as well.

Second, key-points of crossfire should be brought up again later in a speech. I will only write down CX concessions if they are in a speech.

I am a litigator with 28 years experience. I expect clear, concise, well layed out cases and oral arguments. I expect arguments to be strong, articulate and most importantly, professional. If you are citing cases or facts, I expect you to substantiate those claims and have evidence readily available. I consider myself firm but fair! Please remember to be polite and respectful during the debate!

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

No K's. Debate the topic.

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

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

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

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

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

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

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

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

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

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

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

Good luck and have fun!

15ayushm@gmail.com

Update for Gonzaga 2022: I haven't judged a debate in over 2 years. I still understand what's going on, but I will probably be less comfortable flowing very fast speakers, and I won't be fluent with topic-specific acronyms/abbreviations. Please slow down, thank you!

Please do not threaten your opponents with violence. If you do this, I will vote against you.

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

I make decisions by determining the important questions of the debate, starting with the most broad (does the case outweigh the DA? does the solvency deficit outweigh the net benefit to the CP? does the K outweigh the case?) and paring that down to the specific disagreements (does economic decline cause war? do the consequences of actions matter more than their ethical import?) based on sets of evidence. Given this model of decision-making, it would behoove you to articulate those questions and keep in mind how you would like them answered. Very clear judge instruction about the big picture at the beginning of speeches goes a long way. Reasonably assess what you and your opponent are each winning and present the case for a ballot in your favor. Teams very rarely win all of their arguments, so the team that convincingly and reasonably evaluates the debate is more successful.

Clash and engagement usually matter above the content of any particular argument (with some important exceptions). Given this emphasis on engagement, it is important for both teams to highlight points of disagreement.

Regarding theory and topicality, effective comparison of the impacts of standards wins debates. Beginning this process early in the debate increases your chances of winning and makes these debates more interesting. The argument that counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive is easily winnable, especially if the 1AR engages the line-by-line and defines relevant words.

Framework debates almost always require debating about the case. A topical version of the aff has varying levels of value depending on the aff's best offense against framework. T standards about the value of engagement and clash are more intuitively persuasive than nebulous "decision-making" impacts, but I am open to hearing both. Most importantly, articulating a clear, salient impact that interacts with the other team's offense is the most valuable strategic choice for the beginning of the final rebuttals.

If left undebated, I will not "judge kick" advocacies extended in the 2NR, and I will weigh the case against Ks.

Lincoln-Douglas
My debate experience has mostly been in policy debate, and while I am familiar with the differences in LD, mostly everything above applies.

"Conditionality bad" is substantially more winnable in LD than in policy, but the mechanics of how I think theory should be debated remain the same. Reasonability is also more winnable in LD given the rise of absurd theory arguments. I would prefer to judge a debate that does not center upon theory.

Hi, I am a mom judge who takes notes. This is my fourth year judging and I have a daughter in Public Forum. I love to judge and listen to interesting argumentation, however making a decision in a close round is often a challenge for me so it would be to your advantage if you follow my paradigm and make this cleaner and easier for me to evaluate. P.S. if you ask for my paradigm it most likely won’t be as in depth as this; follow this don’t just “do your thing”.

1. LINGO- Chances are, you all know more about the topic than me because you’ve been researching for weeks. this being said, make sure that you don’t throw around “topical lingo”. Make sure you explain to me the terms fairly clearly. Also, don’t use fancy debate rhetoric that is typically spammed for flow judges. If you say “turn” or “flow to our side” or “extend” I’m probably gonna get a little confused. Just explain to me where and how I should evaluate the argument. Also why are you giving a roadmap if it’s super complicated and you’re hopefully going to tell me where you are anyway???
2. SPEAKING- The way I look at it, debate is about adapting to whoever your judge is. For the purpose of this round, it would be strategic to just persuade me. Make eye contact and show me that you’re engaged in the activity. ..It’s okay to be aggressive to an extent but don’t be rude to your opponents. If you’re getting “beat up” fight the fire with fire though… Usually I give midstream speaks around 26-28s but a 29 is relatively easy to get if you argue effectively, professionally, fluently, and have good argumentation the whole way through. That being said, I don’t think I’ve ever given a 30 but don’t let that stop you from trying to change that. Don’t go too fast, I want to be able to understand something your saying but even perfect diction probably won’t be able to compensate for this entirely- the slower the better.
3. ANALYSIS- Please weigh. This will make both of our lives so much easier. I really don’t want to revert to being the judge who votes off of something random because it’s the only thing I remember or understand at the end of the round. Tell me why your link chain makes sense and why I should prefer it over your opponent’s. Also if both teams are weighing then tell me why to vote off of your weighing mechanisms, don’t just repeat them. When weighing, don’t just throw out random words like “scope” and “magnitude”- explain them to me and why it applies directly your argument.
4. CLASH- I like when in debate, both sides are actually debating and not just giving two completely different sides. Obviously you don’t know if your cases are going to clash but in later speeches engage in the debate, this is probably where I’ll end up voting.

I am an active coach and former advisor for Forensic Debate and Speech with 10 years experience judging tournaments at the local, state, and national levels. I am familiar with requirements at each level of competition, novice through varsity, for high school students. My original training and education was as an English teacher at the secondary level (NYS Eng/Language Arts, 7-12). In that capacity the importance of developing skills in reading, writing, speaking, listening, analysis and research, was the focus of training. When debating, the mastery of clear communication skills, and the ability to present a well supported, convincing argument come alive. A strong argument will demonstrate sharp critical thinking and analysis of an issue; these are key elements in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Presenting with clarity and enthusiasm is vital to delivering both affirmative and negative positions. Be aware of your speed: "electronic speed" that does not enhance articulate delivery is not an advantage. Your thoughts, reasoning, and the development of your position are essential. I identify as a diversity enhancing judge and support inclusion. The art of debate is a challenging, highly original, and thought provoking experience for everyone to share.

Linda Mohlenhoff

UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019

Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach

In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.

Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.

Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.

Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.

Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.

Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.

Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.

For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.

Last updated: February 27th, 2017

Background: I debated for 4 years at Durant High School in Durant, OK in LD and PF. I was a state quarterfinalist in LD in 2016. I currently debate NFA-LD and NPDA Parli at Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I consider myself *mostly* a flow judge that is tab to an extent minus a few preferences. I will vote for who I believe did the better debating, as most ballots suggest.

Main affiliation: Durant
Other schools I have judged for: Marietta, Pottsboro (TX)

My paradigms:

Local LD: I like philosophy, but I'm not a freak about it like a lot of Oklahoma judges are. I expect everything you say to be backed up by evidence. Not everything is common knowledge. Your opinion does not matter. I will flow any argument. If you run a policy case, I will listen to it although most judges in OSSAA would probably hate it. I don't care about the speed in which you talk, just be clear. I like to see good framework clash. I can't stand seeing rounds with zero clash that are like two ships passing in the night. Weigh your impacts!

Circuit LD/Policy: I will rarely judge policy because Durant traditionally does not field CX debaters so this mostly pertains to circuit LD. With that being said, I am okay with basically everything. K's? Go for it. RVIs? Go for it. However, if you run theory or T, please run it on something genuinely abusive and don't run it just for the sake of running it. I'm personally not too big on condo either but I won't penalize you for it. I just do not like to see someone running 3 CPs and kicking 2 of them. PLEASE do not run time sucks. Nor do I enjoy seeing somebody running 10 off just to run 10 off. I like to see good debates with good evidence, logic, reasoning, and links. I also expect you to be reasonable. If somebody uses the wrong pronoun and you try to link them, I'm not going to actually count it against them unless they're intentionally doing it to be rude. Accidents happen. I'm more likely to vote on T if there is proven abuse rather than potential abuse. I won't say I won't vote on potential abuse, but I am less likely to. I default to competing interps on theory, typically. Please weigh your impacts! I love impact calculus.

If you have have any questions please ask!

General: Yelling, sounding uninterested or unsure, being rude, etc = decrease in speaks. I'm chill with any speed as long as you're clear. I will usually give 28-29 speaks unless you speak super great or really bad.

Experience: Debated in high school and college, now coach.

Paradigm: Persuade me. Warrant it.

...no really, that's it. Persuade me. You can persuade me using any number of techniques, but whether I'm voting off the flow, on theory, or topically on a well impacted argument, I'm still just voting on what I find the most persuasive.

I'm ok with speed. However, If I can't understand you, I'm not being persuaded.

If an argument is important, make sure you've clearly communicated it. If it's an online debate, make sure you repeat or slow down when making important points.

If only one side in a PF debate gives me voting criteria or framing, I will most likely be voting for that side.

A few other things:

-Nazis equal Nazis. If you are going to link to Nazis or the Holocaust, do so carefully and avoid trivializing Nazis or the Holocaust by comparing everything to them.

-if you have a preferred pronoun, please let me know how you would like to be addressed prior to the start of the round.

-If you are reading a case that might be upsetting/triggering to your opponent, please provide a content warning at the beginning. If your opponent requests you not read triggering content, I will seek guidance from Tab and see if a side switch or other accommodations can be made. However, just because content is uncomfortable does not automatically mean it should not be read.

email: david@notiosolutions.com

I think debate is about three main things: discourse, facts, and respect. Ideas always build on each other and there is always validity to the other side, even if you don't think there is.

So, here's how you win my vote:

1. Be respectful. Please no eye-rolling, ad hoc, rude voices, hostile body language ect. If you get passionate and feel the need to raise your voice to get your point across, go for it. But no hostility, please. If you are offensively rude to your opponents, I will drop you.

2. Evidence. Public Forum for me is based on facts. I'm an economics major, so give me all of your numbers. Give me the impacts, warrants, tell me why I should be voting for your side, and why your side proves the resolution. If you have competing sources, fight it out and tell me why your source is better. But have it on hand, because I will call for evidence if necessary.

3. Logic. Even if you have the best facts from the most prestigious sources, if you can't connect them with solid logic, they're useless for your side. Everything has to connect back to the resolution, so don't get lost in the cross-fire. If I can't follow the argument you're making, I won't vote on it.

4. Uniqueness. Even though PF is usually pretty straightforward, I like to see off-the-wall stuff. If you have a different and fun argument to make, I want to hear it. Just make sure it's not a plan to solvency.

Third year judging public forum

You have to convince me why you side's contentions using logic or trust worthy evidence, do I need say... If your speech does not make sense to me for reasons of speed or convoluted logic or if in my judgement it didn’t make sense to your opponents I would drop the contention from consideration

expect a well informed judge who flows, expect an unbiased judgment based solely on team's arguments against each other's logic/information, who enjoys that task as a challenge

"Let us hold our discussion together in our own persons, making trial of the truth and of ourselves"

Protagoras of Abdera (Father of Debate)

Hello debaters!

I've been coaching and judging in PF debate for four years now. I flow main arguments, responses and monitor time. I like clash, that your cases include for each of the claims the warrants and you explain clearly the impacts (explain why your arguments are important and what could happen if this is not done, in an accurate and understandable way)

Please know the purpose of each of the interventions:

-Constructive Speech: Time to present your side/ your case to me. I like contentions that are unique, have quality, that are relevant, credible, and creative. Watch out with the pace...No problem if you are speaking fast, but too fast or too slow affects your delivery and how you'd be understood.

-Rebuttal: You are to respond by refuting, invalidating, blocking the opposing team's arguments most of the time. Give evidence, and you can include some defensive arguments as well.

-Summary: The word says it, you will make a recap of what has happened, highlighting the stronger points of your team's side.

-Final Focus: "Last shot" to convince me and explain all reasons why I should vote for your team. Go ahead, be persuasive!

-Crossfires and Grand Crossfire: CLASH! Back and forth questions and answers... Remember that in the Grand Crossfire EVERY SPEAKER participates.

General:

Do your protocol, be formal, don't be rude.

Use all your time. When you do perfect timing, it means you have practiced and prepared well enough, so I take it into account.

It is hard to make decisions if both teams have good performance and are competitive. If you win: you had a little extra something that I thought was important, so congratulations...if you do not win the round (YOU WON EXPERIENCE!!!): you may be disappointed, but please: learn and reflect from it, keep working hard, never quit or stop doing your best because in life sometimes you win or sometimes you don't.

Last but not least, remember to take this as a learning experience... SO HAVE FUN!

College debater on both the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary Circuit. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact and be accessible to all debaters in the round. Weighing and comparison is very important to me - this and other analytics should be slower if you want them on my flow. Spreading too much will result in me not flowing your entire speech.

Lay judge. 2 years experience judging.

Background Experience

Competed in PFD for 4 years @ Nova High School. 2012-2016

Now coach @ Ransom Everglades

How I Evaluate The Round

As the great Kyle Chong once said, "I first evaluate the framework debate, then I vote based on who generates the most offense off of the winning framework."

How I Evaluate Arguments

Use your warrants, please. I can't evaluate an argument that I cannot understand, and I cannot understand arguments that are not fully explained. Note, empirics are worthless without logical backing. I respect great logic far more than I do what some random study found. Here's why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

This is a human activity. Craft your narrative! Make pretty speeches.

My background is in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum Debate. 

For LD, my preference is traditional argumentation. I will consider extensive theory arguments, but only to the extent that you are able to clearly articulate how they support and define the value and criterion within the round. However, be advised that I will also consider your opponent's claims of abuse if you start to approach the absurd. Let's keep things at least passingly relevant to reality, shall we? 

For PF, I weigh clearly defined impacts heavily in my decisions. Incorporate weighing mechanisms if you like, just make sure you can articulate why I should use them. Basically, just tell me what's important and why.

For both, speed is fine; spreading is not. Remember, like all forms of communication, debate relies heavily on that antiquated notion that other people actually be able to understand you.

I'm currently in my 3rd year of parli debate and debated in policy for Sci Tech for 4 years. This means that it's unlikely you'll be speaking too fast for me to understand at any point, but if you're unclear and don't become clearer after I've 'clear'ed you a couple of times, it'll hurt your speaks. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact and be accessible to all debaters in the round. I am very open to any kind of argumentation (including K's) as long as those three things are included. Weighing and comparison is very important to me - this and other analytics should be slower if you want them on my flow. CX should be just as argumentative as your speeches.

And I shouldn't have to say this, but don't be mean.

Name:Jens Rudbeck

School Affiliation: Horace Mann

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 6 Years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? No

What is your current occupation? Professor of Political Science at Center for Global Affairs, New York University

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: I prefer slower

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I like both

Role of the Final Focus: Important that the reasons I should vote pro or con are highlighted

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Very important

Topicality up to the debaters to decide whether an argument is non-topical. If they cannot reach a conclusion together, I will evaluate whether an argument is topical based off their analyses

Plans: Not allowed in PF

Kritiks? up to debaters

Flowing/note-taking: note-taking

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? I Argument and style equally?

I value both argument and style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

No

I am interested in clear and logical debates.  Evidence should be used to support but should not drive the argument.

The quality of evidence trumps quantity. I am looking for warrants that logically tie strong evidence to the claim. 

Civility is a must during crossfire. While sarcasm is appreciated snark is not.

The pace should be deliberate. Speaking too fast or too slow is not preferred.  if I can't understand you, or the pace drags it will count against you.

Timeliness is important,  going over time constraints will count against you.

As a historian, historical parallels are always a bonus.

Former extemp-er, several years experience coaching/judging debate.

I value clash (don't just talk past each other) and clarity (if I cannot flow your argument it won't be weighed)

I enjoy good value debate, which makes it much easier for me to weigh the round

I have been judging Debate for 7 years. Coaching for 4. So consider me new-ish/old-ish.

Flow

I consider myself a “semi-flow” judge. Watch your speed, if you are too fast I won’t bother to write. Makes the decision a lot more challenging, for you. Make contentions and sub contentions clear.

Evidence

Include at the minimum the year of the evidence in your case. Paraphrasing is okay, but please do not misrepresent the evidence. If your opponent calls for a card it should say what you say it does. Further, if they call for a card, you should be able to find it quickly. It is your evidence, isn’t it?

Summary and Final Focus

Be clear in why you “won”. Make the voting issues clear and concise. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, weighing is probably a good idea as well.

Cross

I will not be judging cross so if it's important bring it up in your speech. Speak up for yourself in cross. Do NOT take over the questioning it should be a back and forth.

Aggressive Debate does NOT equal Obnoxious Debate

Be aggressive, but not obnoxious. Be firm in your contentions and the entire case have passion in your voice but don’t be mean or rude. Do not roll your eyes at, talk down to, be rude to, or personally attack your opponent.

Prep TIME

USE IT ALL!

I have been a coach for over 10 years , but my team is student-led and you can consider me lay. (This was written by my students to prevent judge screws-you can thank them later.) I appreciate a more personal form of debate when it comes to judging.

Lots of eye contact with the judge (even during crossfire) and always address me as “judge” and your opponents as “my opponent (s)“ during speeches. Stand for all speeches and crosses, except grand. I will be highly inclined to vote for the other side if you do not address your opponents contentions and extend and show the impacts of your own.

Do not waste time looking for your cards. Have your cards ready and make sure that the evidence being cited is easy for your opponents to find.

During interactions with your opponents, I will dock your speaks and drop you if you act like a bully. Please, have an appropriate amount of physical desk space between you and your opponent.

When speaking, I appreciate a clear emphasis on what is important. I’ll be timing you, but please keep time for yourself.

I debated Policy in the national circuit for Science Park High School for three years and Public Forum for the remaining year. Since then I have judged for LD, Public Forum, Parliamentary and Policy.

As a judge I feel that my only obligation is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present and defend their arguments. I will not do any work for either side, what is not said is not assumed and will not be considered. I will vote on any winning argument. (theory, K, etc.)

Hey everyone, this is Sriram from Algonquin TZ, and you are about to be judged by my dad, so please show him a quality round.

Understand that at his core, he is a parent judge.

How He Will Evaluate Rounds

Although he has no debate experience like us competitors, he has an extremely rich trove of knowledge, and he will make sure to listen to the warrants and would appreciate really clear analysis. To borrow from Ben Konstan's paradigm: "Will he listen to weighing? Absolutely. Will he like if you read off a gazillion cards? Almost certainly not." Collapse the round into a few easy to understand, logical argument, explain why your winning, weigh, and you've got a great shot at winning the round. If you start yelling "REMEMBER ALGONQUIN 18 ITS A CLEAN TURN ON THEIR ENTIRE CASE," you clearly have not read this paradigm, and you will probably lose.

Expertise

He has a PhD. in CS,so he will definitely know a lot about technology arguments. He also has a lot of historical knowledge as well as general knowledge, so he knows more about H1B Visas than most people (especially true considering he is an immigrant from India). And While we are here, lets talk about respect.

Respect

My dad will always expect the best of you: show up on time, do not speak over each other or the judge, and always be silent when the other team is speaking. Do not let crossfire devolve into a shouting match - sort through the chaos and be responsible, and you will be rewarded. Please do not start bashing India or for that matter any country, race, religion, gender, or culture, as that is an instant L you do not want.

Speed

He can understand a moderate speed; don't start spearing fast, and don't dare go near spreading levels and you will be fine.

Lingo

He can understand the basic things, but make sure you don't sacrifice clarity and tempo for shouting out debate terminology

Ks/T/CPs

Stop. Don't go near these, don't mention them, don't use them. Instant L.

Speaks

Anywhere from 25-29. If he is blown away by your poise, presentation, and general brilliance you could get a 30. Won't drop below a 26/27 unless you're completely incoherent, offensive, or other special circumstances.

Experience

No formal judging experience, though he as judged a lot of rounds at this point(~3 years). He also has heard me talking about rounds for the past few years, so keep that in mind.

Summary/FF

Big picture, slow down. He really wants a strong narrative first and foremost, supported by good logic and strong evidence.

Hello! I competed in Public Forum all throughout high school and am currently a computer science major at MIT. My general rule of thumb is to judge off of the flow. With that in mind, I have a few principles that I greatly consider when judging.

1) Extending - I'm large on extending points throughout the round. If you attempt to emphasize a point in your case rounds after dropping it, I will overlook it and not consider it in my final evaluation. 

2) Framework - If you utilize a framework in round, I will only use it if you extend it throughout the round. Also, please make sure your framework is consistent with all of your points (i.e. no contradictions).

3) Evidence - Use academic or otherwise reliable sources. I can tell the difference in quality between sources, and I can also tell if you are abusing the wording of a piece of evidence, so please don't do this. If I suspect that evidence is being misused or misinterpreted, I will ask to see it.

4) Etiquette - Debate can be really intense, but more than anything it's fun! That being said, if you decide to be rude to me, the opposing team, or even your partner (I've seen this), then it will reflect poorly on you (and your speaker points). So, feel free to be nice and polite!

5) Speed - I'm fine with any speaking speed, go ahead and spread if you want. However if you choose to spread and are inaudible, then it makes my life harder (I have no preference either way, so don't think spreading will make you more impressive if that's the source of your decision).

I'd also prefer if the debates remain topical to major discussion points and doesn't devolve into 30 minutes of definition debate. Aside from that the only thing I ask is to be professional and try to be relaxed, it makes the round smoother for everyone. Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts, good luck, and have fun!

I have personally been coaching/judging PF debate for several years. I consider myself very tab. I only have a couple of paradigms to follow, but don't overly stress about them, i am open to various debating styles.

• I am a flow judge, so debaters should flow arguments throughout the debate
• As a result, please tell me where arguments go on the flow
• CX is not flowed, so bring key arguments into following speeches
• Huge fan of evidence, but don't let it make arguments for you
• Tell me what is A priority of the round, otherwise i might decide other issues are more important 
• I don't time debates opponents are responsible for holding each other accountable on time 
• This is PF so be sure not to have cases centered around plans/counter-plans
• Speed is okay with me, however if you are unclear i will stay clear once for you, but afterwards, I will simply stop flowing the debate due to my inability to follow the debate

I started judging PF in 2016. Prior to that I judged middle school parli for 5 years.

I was a policy debater in high school and college 30 years ago, so I am comfortable flowing, can deal with real speed etc. For context, I have never heard a PF debater spread faster than I can flow. Ha! However, I am not deep on any on any technical aspects of PF---still learning :-)

Some pointers on me:

1.) Please signpost. I like to flow so I am annoyed when you do not signpost.

2.) I like evidence so I will sometimes ask to see it after the round. Don't over-represent what it says as that undermines your credibility. However, this does not mean that I don't value analysis. The best strategy involves excellent analysis backed by strong evidence.

3.) No new arguments in Final Focus.

4.) As I am a civilian judge, you should assume I know very little about the topic, i.e. what a college educated adult would know from 10 minutes of NYT reading per day. The only exception to this is business/technology as I work at a tech company on the business side. You should assume I am deep on those issues.

5.) I am lazy. I won't do anything that you don't instruct me to do. If you assume that I will connect things without you explicitly saying so, you do so at your peril.

6.) Humor is important. You get bonus points for having a sense of humor. I am kind so it counts even if you just try to have a sense of humor and aren't actually funny :-)

On a personal note, debate is the only thing I learned in high school that I have used at work every day for the past 25+ years. So great to see all of you competing!

Important note for in-person tournaments only: I am disabled and use a trained service dog. If you’re in a room with me, there will be a dog quietly laying under my chair. The dog will not touch you, get close to you, or acknowledge your existence at all.

That being said, IF YOU HAVE A FEAR OF DOGS SO BAD YOU CANNOT BE IN A ROOM WITH ONE, please tell someone so they can assign you a different judge.

——

Current Affiliation: Boston Debate League

Background: Debated PF in Eastern Europe for seven years, been judging policy and PF in Boston for seven more.

Rounds judged this year: n/a

_____

Background:

- I'm a pretty standard tab judge. I'm happy to vote on any sort of issue as long as as there is decent weighing and impact analysis explaining to me why I should vote for it.

- That being said, I will drop arguments that are clearly offensive (racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.)

- It is important to me that you extend your arguments if you want me to vote on them: I very strongly tend towards the flow and voting on positions that have been present throughout the debate.

- Jargon and spreading are totally fine with me. I do flow much better if you help me out with good organization - signposting and roadmaps are always fantastic. 

- I strongly prefer being presented with a framework: I strongly dislike brining my own values into a debate. It makes the round very hard to adjudicate.

____

Subjective preferences:

(I try not to vote on these, but I do want to acknowledge my personal biases!)

- The kind of round I like listening to best sticks very closely to the topic: stock issues, disadvantages, counterplans, counterwarrants, topicality, etc.

- I'm more inclined to vote on a Kritik if you relate them to what is currently happening in the room (or at least explain why they're relevant)

- I can and will vote on theory if the need arises, I just personally find it tedious and I won't enjoy the round as much.

____

Stylistic notes and speaker points:

- I prefer you use variation in your tone in order to highlight important issues. This will have a positive effect on your speaks.

- Overly hostile behavior is unpleasant. Talking over each other in cross-ex, raising your voice in an attempt to threaten or silence, or making rude comments about your opponents themselves rather than their arguments will lower your speaks the more you do them.

- While jargon and spreading is good ***with me***, I do ask that you clear it with everyone in the room first and offer accommodations if anyone needs them.