Speak slow and clear

Cover all arguments of the opponent

Provide quantitative facts

I am a law student at Emory. I coached PF at Delbarton, CBI, and ISD. I competed in PF Bronx Science.

1. Please don't give line by line final two speeches.

2. Limit what you're going for in your final two speeches (prioritize good substantive warrants rather than more blippy responses). Group responses when you can in summary, and explicitly weigh in both speeches but especially in final focus.

3. If you would like me to vote on certain offense bring it up in both summary and final focus.

4. Use the summary to respond to responses made in the rebuttal and give me voters (alternatively you can devote time in the second rebuttal to front-lining). I am uncomfortable voting for an argument that hasn't developed at all since your case (unless of course you show me it's been dropped and bring it up in summary and final focus).

5. Please have your evidence available promptly. I will get fed up and start running prep time or docking speaker points if you can't find it quickly enough. In extreme cases, or if I feel like you are intentionally being unethical, I will drop you.

6. That being said, don't call for every card. Only ask to see evidence if you are legitimately concerned about understanding the content or context.

7. If you aren't using prep time (as in, they are searching for a card to show you), then don't prep.

8. When in doubt I will vote for the most consistently brought up, and convincingly warranted arguments.

9. Only give me an off time roadmap if you're doing something atypical.

10. You should have your preflows ready on both sides before you enter the room.

11. If you card dump, there is no way for me or your opponents to fairly ascertain credibility. I will not flow it as evidence.

12. I give speaker points based on persuasiveness and good rhetoric not technicalities. If you win every argument but sound like a robot, or just read off your computer, you will get low speaker points.

Four years policy debate at GMU

Yes I want to be on the chain - Email: bbigbiggs1@gmail.com

General Notes

- PLEASE treat everyone in the room with respect, especially your opponents

- I flow straight down, it's in your best interest to keep it as organized as possible

- More familiar with policy args, but have and will vote for critical args

- Inserting re-highlighting is good if you are pointing out specific context that is left out and in small doses, not if you are essentially making a new card out of it

• These are my general thoughts but things can obviously change on a debate by debate basis depending on how the round goes

- This paradigm is geared towards policy debate since that is what I judge most frequently. If I am judging you in a different format; do no stress about the nuances here, I adopt to the norms of whatever format I am judging without bias to the best of my ability/knowledge

Notes for Online Debate:

- Please be conscientious of speed and clarity. I never will negatively impact your speaks because of mic issues but I can only vote on what I hear.

- If my camera is off assume I am not there.

Policy v Policy

- I will look through the evidence so a card doc would be useful; however, good evidence shouldn't be a substitute for poor explanation.

- Please make sure to extend full arguments. If you just say there is "no impact to US-China war" in the 1ar with no explanation for why, I will not vote for it in the 2ar even if dropped in the 2nr. That is just a phrase not an argument.

T:

- Limits/ground is the impact I find most persuasive. It will take more work to go for precision or other impacts but I can be swayed

- I tend to err on competing interpretation but actually can be persuaded by reasonability IF explained properly

Theory

Condo - tend to be neg leaning though more than three starts to push it. More open to condo args if the CP's are particularly abusive or if they've read multiple with no solvency advocates

PICs - I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends. Not the judge for word PICs (unless they say something absolutely egregious in their plan text)

No solvency advocate CPs - I probably don't think this is a reason to reject the team, but I will likely be annoyed and lower speaks if you don't have one. Exceptions if you're against new affs or it is a very niche CP to answer a specific impact.

Other theory - 99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

Clash

Top Level: I've found myself judging more of these debates than I expected so I want to update this portion of my paradigm. I tend to have a higher threshold for 2ar re-articulation of arguments than most judges so I find myself voting neg more often in these debates than other rounds I judge.

Policy aff v the K:

- I tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff vs the alt, key to fairness, etc. are all args I tend to find more persuasive. Impact framing is the portion of the debate you should focus on. Make sure you're answering all the nuances of the util v structural violence (or any other framing) debate

- Be careful with the link debate. Even if you win that your case outweighs the neg can still win a link turns case arg that can make it tough for you to get my ballot.

K's v Policy Affs:

- Impact framing will essential. You will have a hard time persuading me that I should just reject the aff for some reason, but can definitely persuade me that your impact outweighs/is more crucial to discuss in the debate space.

- Specificity of the link is going to be important. Generic state bad links aren't going to be as persuasive as links to the specific action of the plan.

- Simplify the debate. Don't spread yourself too thin, try and pick just one link for the 2NR (unless two are very poorly answered but I'd cap it there) and really impact it out.

- I find embedded turns case args on the link debate very persuasive if it is a specific link to the aff.

- Clarity on the alt will be important. This is an area of the debate that I feel like gets under-explained throughout the debate. I like some explanation of what your alt materially looks like and how it resolves the link.

F/W v K affs:

- Fairness can be an impact, but I generally find the way teams explain it is more of an internal link to education (a pretty good one at that).

- When the aff is reasonably in the direction of the topic - I tend to place a lot of weight on the TVA and need explanation of lost ground and why the ground you lost is good.

- When the aff is blatantly anti-topical or an aff that is meant to be a personal strategy, go for clash good. I don't believe you need a TVA in this instance (or should extend one) as long as you have a good reason why the discussions that happen under your model of debate are good.

K affs v F/W:

- The easiest way to get my ballot is if you win your impact and win the "limits/clash means they can't access the aff's benefits even if it is theoretically good" arg you are in a very good place so long as you don't royally mess up the TVA debate or SSD. Having said that: I am open to other strategies, do your thing, but just understand that I will need more explanation than your typical judge.

- We meet probably not ideal unless the neg messed up the interp.

- If you are an aff that is in the direction of the topic, counter-definitions should be your friend.

- If your aff is outside the scope of being able to do so, you need to impact turn their model of debate. I am not gonna be persuaded by a counter-interp that was clearly designed to include your aff. Obviously extend your interpretation, but don't use it to try and mitigate their offense.

- Things to avoid: I do not find blanket stating "k debate is predictable" persuasive. Give me a reason why your specific aff is predictable for the negative to debate if you want to go that route.

K v K

I will not be as knowledgeable in K literature as either team is going to be. The best thing you could do to get my ballot is to make the debate simple. I may not be familiar with a lot of your terminology - and I am not going to vote on something I do not understand - so you may benefit by clearly explaining certain terms or at least having evidence that is clearly highlighted to define abstract terms/concepts.

Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

I am a parent lay volunteer. Here are a few tips for how I judge:

1. Spreading - Speak at a reasonable, lay-person speed.

2. Jargon - I am not a debater and I don't spend much time in your world. Use real words that real people understand.

3. Etiquette - Be polite to each other. I don't care how strong your arguments are. If you're a jerk, it will affect my opinion.

4. I do take careful notes and try to flow.

5. Please signpost. It helps me track arguments.

I am a first time judge. I am an electrical engineer who develops sonar systems for the US Navy and like concise arguments.

2017-2018: WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH;

2020: I am a junior undergrad International Relations & Diplomacy and Modern Language double major with an Economics minor at Seton Hall University. As a competitor, I debated four years of Public Forum Debate and Congress and one year of Policy Debate and LD on the New Jersey and National circuit for Freehold Township High School and qualed to the TOC in PuFo my senior year. I also debated two years of Middle School Parli where I placed 3rd in NJ.

After graduating I privately coached 1 year of PuFo at Freehold Township, where my teams achieved a 100% break-rate in the National Circuit. Said teams all cleared at the 2018 TOCs as well.

I currently debate on the college APDA circuit (1 year), and I have experience participating and Judging highly-technical debate rounds, so feel free to run whatever arguments you like. Please note that I have been out of the HS debate scene for almost two years so I still need to get used to the new rules changes and get adjusted to the greater Progressive nature of PuFo. Before getting into my paradigm, if you have any questions, feel free to email me at oandre1028@gmail.com before the round or just ask me before we start. Regardless, a few general things:

1) Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as it's understandable (enunciation is key) and preferably not spreading, I spoke generally fast for a debater and wouldn't even consider it remotely close to spreading. However, if you're going to spread just know there is a tradeoff between what you are spreading and what is written on my flow. If you are going too fast, I will clear you however if I see myself having to clear you more than once then I expect you to SLOW down or stop spreading altogether, if you don't I will just put my pen down until I am able to understand you.

2) Accessibility: I will accept speech docs if you believe it will help me follow you in round, however in PuFo even if it is on the doc but I wasn't able to understand it or hear it when you read it the first time it won't be on my flow. I will use the speech doc to help me analyze your arguments and evidence. This just goes back to my personal belief that debate should be accessible to all, especially coming from a small and unfunded program. So adding in another level of intricacy such as spreading, card dumping, theory, etc. might not make the round accessible to your opponents. It also makes it so the round becomes a game of who has more cards or blippy arguments rather than proferring your own/author's analyses and explaining to me why you win the argument/round. As a second speaker, I rarely read straight off a speech doc/pc and usually only brought up my flows for my speech. PuFo was created as the lay person's debate, and while Judging although I will looking at my flow to adjudicate I always try to keep the integrity of PuFo alive. Keep in mind winning in debate is fun, trophies are great, and we all strive for the top, however participating in a highly contested and educational round makes the experience better for the debaters, audience, and Judge.

3) Weighing: Please make it easy for me to know what to evaluate. Weigh as much as you want; I recommend doing it as early as rebuttal if you need to in order to make my decision clear. If you don't weigh, then I will do it myself based on whatever arguments I thought clashed with each other during the round. I hate intervening in rounds but will do so if both teams fail to weigh sufficiently. You will not like interventionist Oscar, my brain is wacky and is best when forced to be Tabula Rasa or as much as a human can be while judging. If you force me to implement my own thoughts, opinions, or ideas and make the experience unenjoyable to me then I will most likely vote Neg on neutrality or whichever team I liked more if neither team was clear. That is because tab usually doesn't allow me to drop both teams xD. Simply said, the earlier and more effectively you weigh, the better chance my decision will be based off the arguments and mechanisms that both teams presented in the round.

3) Summary/FF: If you're going for something it 100% has to be in summary and FF. If something is terminal defense just say that it is in your first rebuttal and you don't really need to extend it in summary, but everything else in summary should be in FF if you want me to evaluate it. If you are the first speaking team, the only defense you really have to extend is on the arguments they frontline in second rebuttal. Obviously, you need to extend turns and all, so this means you should take advantage of this time by spending the entire time in first summary front lining, extending, and weighing your case. If you extend defense that the other team hasn't addressed yet, you are literally wasting time and I will simply stare at you. I also believe that 2nd summary should extend critical pieces of defense, since they know what the first summary has gone for. **However, I have yet to decide if I will have heightened expectations for either speaking team's coverage and voters as now summaries will be one minute longer. What I will say is that strategies will most likely change, however if you are going to end up going for your entire case in Summary on both speaking positions it probably won't be clear and will lack proper weighing and clash as the FF is still only 2 minutes long.**

4) Second Speaking Team: Your rebuttal should have some type of frontlining done in it. If you do not frontline, you are making your partner's job much harder. Some debaters and judges believe this places an unfair burden on the first speaking team since they do not know what you're going for until second summary which I might tend to agree, however the concept of flipping position or side makes it so you still have some sort of advantage against your adversaries be it speaking position or debating on the side you are more comfortable with. What I will say is if you don't do any frontlining in second rebuttal, on the flow it will be more difficult to win my ballot as my standard is to cover their offense which includes Turns on your case, and if you do, your speaks and chances of winning will increase. **How the second speaking "advantage" changes with an added minute to the summary time, I don't know. I have yet to judge a round with the new format so we will see what the tradeoff ends up being and if I will extend less D based on speaking position.**

5) Evidence: My favorite thing to see in a round besides you knowing how to warrant your arguments well is a team that really understands methodology. When I debated, I know teams would often get bogged down in reading absurd evidence with enormous impacts to win them the round. However, almost all of these studies are flawed in some way. Therefore if you can call evidence and understand the issues with the evidence by reading the study's methodology and then contextualize this in a speech to me, it will not only kill the impact of your opponent's argument, but I will probably up your speaks if you do a good job of explaining why the methodology of the study does not actually prove that X causes Y or whatever the argument may be. Also, if your opponent’s evidence is sketchy, let me know and I’ll read it, but I typically will call for evidence if it may decide the round or you tell me to call it.

6) Theory: If you want to run these types of arguments, make sure there is some type of abuse that is going on in the round. Don't just run theory because you think your opponents won't know how to respond to it, goes back to my thoughts on accessibility. Nevertheless and ironically, that's an exact reason why theory should be run on you. If you were to run things like paraphrase or dates theory, it has to be run pretty well for me to consider it heavily and vote off of it. Also don't troll with it either if both teams aren't on the same boat. A good example of not being on the same boat would be the Millburn CZ vs Nueva CS round at Berkley semis. On the other hand a good example of the teams being on the same boat would be the Robert Chen round at SCU 2 look it up on /r/debate xD. With that in mind if both teams want to run theory and make the round more progressive I'm fine with that however keep in mind, although I have experiences debating and judging same I might get the decision wrong more often in comparison to a vanilla PuFo round, that is because theory was rarely run in my circuit when I was debating.

7) Kritiks: If you run a K, I will be able to follow, but I most likely will not vote off it. Pre-Fiat K's on opponents' behavior or case sexism, racism, etc would most likely be moot as there should be content-warnings prior to case reading and if not and I felt a debater might be upset/targetted then I would interven. There is a time and place for everything and K's in PuFo ain't it. I also subscribe to the idea that many times you are running the K in PuFo because you want to get a competitive advantage i.e. deter opponents' accessibility in the round. If that is the case I won't auto drop you but you will get very low speaks. However, if you do run a K in PuFo and it happens to be ran so exceptionally well that the caliber is synonymous to the level performed at late elims at Nats in CX or LD debate I will probably buy it. However, this is unlikely to happen as if that was the case you probably would be competing in LD or CX rather than PuFo, and if that isn't the case then I apologize and give kudos to you.

Things I like:

· Warranted arguments: “Everything happens for a reason” is not just a cliched quote when it comes to debate! If you are not warranting arguments thoroughly, I will not vote on it. I will not vote on blippy arguments where you just assert things. Just because some dude found that conflict decreases by 2000% under X condition literally means nothing to me. If you can’t explain the methodology or the warranting of the study, a simple response of “There is no warranting here” will take out the impact.

· Cool arguments: Stock arguments are fun and all and actually can be the most effective arguments if run correctly and warranted, but if you have a cool argument you want to break out, feel free. I’d love to hear some cool stuff. I’ll typically vote tech over truth.

· Signposting: If you don’t signpost, I will be lost and it probably will mean if you say some good stuff it won’t be on my flow. Signposting makes my life and yours much easier.

· Overviews & Roadmaps: Roadmaps help me know where you're going on the flow. Overviews can be very effective if done correctly. I'm ok with second position overviews as long as you are not changing your entire advocacy and are not too abusive. With that being said go for them, however understand the trade-off of using time for your overview as a well-established overview is not a one-liner and will not be only a few seconds long. This all goes to round strategy and if you and your partner's speeches all go back to this overview and weigh it enough+correctly I will vote off it and use it as the mechanism while adjudicating. Nobody likes a framework debate, but a good overview can win the round for you while a bad one can be turned on you and cause a clear ballot to the other side. From personal experience, I utilized overviews almost every round and it became part of my typical speech as it helped me clearly frame the round or point out misconceptions/abuse/knifing in the first half of the debate which made it more likely for the judge to buy my advocacy and helped my first speaker. With that in mind, I can smell abusive ones especially when it comes to resolution framing from a mile away because sometimes I was that guy, and I did it to make the round less accessible for my adversaries. So please don't be THAT person.

How to get good speaks:

· Weighing: pretty self-explanatory. I like math a lot so if you do some impact calculus for me I’ll be happy. Tell me why stuff matters.

· Jokes: Debate is a stressful activity. You guys could probably use a laugh as could I. Be funny and I’ll up your speaks if I laugh

· If you guys quote the GOAT of soccer or give me a crazy analogy during the round, I’ll probably bump up your speaks.

Overall, let's have a good round, and good luck y'all!

Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.

😤 WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS 😤

Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.

YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.

No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.

NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.

Other

I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.

No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.

If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.

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

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

My name is Jonathan Freedman. I am a lawyer, and while I did not debate in high school, I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for three years, and JV Public Forum for two years prior to that. If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please. I judge tech over truth, so I won't argue for you. It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am probably not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

I have over twenty years experience as a orator and linguist. As such, I prefer slow and clear communication, as well as a roadmap so that I can follow the flow of the debate.

1. I am a lay judge, but I can understand more complex argument, as long as they are clear and slow.

2. WEIGH impacts starting early on in the debate (summary on)

3. Please give me an OFF TIME ROADMAP before EVERY speech, it will help me flow your argument better and I will be able to base my decision.

4. Please be nice and curious to each other during cross-x. While I do base my ballot solely on the flow, your speaker points will be based on your ethos, thus rude attitude will be reflected in low speaks.

Thanks.

TOC Paradigm

Sean Keckley

Did policy at George Mason

Years judging PF: 2

Years competing in PF: 2

Speed opinions - I can keep up with your speed, but it's PF so no spreading. If you're going too fast your opponent can read over your shoulder as you speak.

Summaries - Pair down to key points of offense and defense, impact calc, clear internal link explanation

Final focus - Should reflect the summary, but contextualized to opponents summaries and grand cross

Extending args - extending key args into the summary is necessary for it to make it in the final focus, otherwise it won't be weighed

T - be it, it's PF

Plans - no plans in PF, CPs are sketchy and I'm inclined to vote on args that say it harms debatability

Ks - willing to vote on them in PF, but you're gonna have to do a lot of work to justify it (which is hard given the structure of PF)

Flowing - i'll flow, so there's that

Arguments>Style

Offense doesn't have to be extended in the rebuttal but does have to be in the summary

Second speaking teams have the same burden as first speaking in rebuttals

I'll vote for args raised in cx if they make it into speeches

Normal Paradigm

Did PF in high school, do policy at George Mason now. My email is seankeckley@gmail.com, add me if there's an email chain. If you have any questions don't hesitate to email me.

Policy

- You do you. If it's argued well, I'm willing to vote on it. That being said, I'll list my thoughts on certain arguments below.

- Don't be a dick

- Slow down on tags

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand you it isn't on my flow and won't get voted on

- Tech over truth

- Claims with no warrants aren't arguments

- I don't take prep for emailing/flashing, but don't steal it

- Confidence is good

- Good analytics beat bad cards

Ks - I'm not familiar with most K philosophies. However, if you can explain what it is, how the aff links, and what the alt is I'm fine with it. Because I don't know your lit (especially for high theory teams), tone down the jargon and be clear.

Case/DAs - I like em. Can be convinced there's no risk. Have a clear story and do impact calc. A lot of these debates come down to DA outweighs case, so be sure to explain how. Politics DAs are a thing.

Theory - Impact it out. Tell me what the abuse was, why they should be voted down, and have a thorough explanation of how this debate was worse/less educational/unfair because of it.

CPs - Things get sketchy after 2 condo worlds. If that's what you're running, make sure you've got a good reason. Explain why they can't perm. Have a clear net benefit. I won't judge kick a CP. I judge PICs on an individual basis. State CPs are a thing.

T - Default to competing interps. Explain the world of the your interp vs the world of theirs, tell me why yours is good and theirs is bad. If your aff has little relevance to the topic, you better be ready to defend it. I don't know the current high school topic or what the consensus on reasonability is, so probably not the best judge for T.

K affs - I tend to think that affs should relate to the resolution, but I can be convinced otherwise. Tell me what you're doing and why it's better than talking about the topic, and I'm willing to vote on it.

PF

Be organized in your speeches and do line by line. Confidence is good. If you're funny I'll bump your speaks. I default to util, so unless you give me an alternative ROB then that's how I'm evaluating the round

Important speaker point information

Give me proof that you called Ben Biggs big daddy biggs in round and you will get a 30

Draw me a good picture of James Harden and you probably get a 30

Background

I'm a business management professor at Kean University. I judged public forum at the national circuit for a couple of years a while back, but I haven't been judging recently. Overall, I'm a parent judge.

In General

*Please go slow. My notetaking isn't fast, so I might not catch a lot of the things you say if you go fast.

*Please explain arguments well. I value arguments that are defended and used well.

LD

*I haven't judged a lot of LD, so I cannot really judge progressive arguments.

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

Speak at a reasonable speed. If you speak to fast and my pen goes down, I am no longer listening.

I do flow the round. Please signpost and roadmap. It helps me track arguments.

Have fun!

I'm the mother of a PF debater, and a professor of linguistics. Don't talk too fast; I vote based on the flow, but may miss something if you talk faster than I can parse & write.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for three years. I find the topics interesting and love hearing the rounds, but I never debated myself. I value logical arguments, but I find it hard to vote off of far fetched arguments that have long link chains. I flow but if you talk too fast I won't be able to follow. I'd appreciate it if you didn't use too much jargon. And most of all, be sure to have fun!

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

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

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

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

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

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

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

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

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

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

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

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

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

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

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

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

♥ In Closing ♥

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

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

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

My strength is as a speech judge, so I prefer debate rounds where strong communication is utilized. I typically go into my first round not knowing background on the topic so I can be prepared to be convinced. All other things being equal, I am likely to vote on impacts. Don't expect to win me over by niggling about definitions. I value: roadmaps, clarity, evidence, and respectful argumentation. Dislikes: spreading, gish galloping (I admit I had to look that one up, I just knew I wasn't going to like it. Yup. Don't do that).

I am a parent judge but I have judged PF a few times. Please be slow and take your time in explaining arguments. I do take notes but I don't flow, so it's important you tell me if opponents miss arguments.

I am looking for intent and content. In content I want you to explain to me your way of thinking clearly and slowly. In intent I want to know your intent as in why you want it. There are no right or wrong answers- they are simply answers so don't bother to convince me. What I am looking for is a solution as in what is the question and what is the solution. What I mean is can you clearly tell me what are the points in favor of or the points against. Then can you tell me why you are in favor of it or against it. Again please speak slowly- there is NO RUSH, tell me CLEARLY THE ARGUMENTS, AND PLEASE DO NOT BE DISRESPECTFUL DURING THIS DEBATE.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN DOING THIS. WINNING OR LOSING IS NOT THE POINT - THE POINT IS TO PARTICIPATE AND HAVE FUN DOING IT.

If you want more clarifications please email me on Rohini_arun@hotmail.com or call me. P.s.I am not supposed to say this but I will say it none the less because I feel it is important-

- if you prefer not to read from the computer feel free to do so. However if you want to read feel free to do so.

- Personally I don't care about the sources, however I understand you need to provide me with the sources. However if you drop a source donot be worried.

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

Evidence

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

Flowing

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

Cross-fire

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

Jargon

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

Etiquette

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

Thanks for taking the time to read this paradigm.

Although I'm a parent judge, I've seen enough rounds at this point to have a good handle on flowing your arguments. I take the judging role seriously, and make every effort to reach what I believe is a reasonable decision. Relatedly, I've received bias training and try to judge fairly based on the strength of the arguments made during the round. Also, I have a strong education in finance and economics, so you can assume you don't need to provide me background or definitions if you're making points in that vein.

Here are some of the things I'm looking for in a debate.

-- Logical arguments: If your argument doesn't make sense, I'm going to have a much harder time buying it, or figuring it out.

-- Understand your case. Sometimes I see cases that sound great at first, but as we get deeper into the round, it becomes apparent that the debaters doesn't know the details (it helps if you've done the research).

-- I like crisp rebuttals. Make a really good, logical point that argues against your opponent's contentions. Some rebuttals just don't carry that much weight. A laundry list of weak rebuttals isn't necessarily helpful. Great debaters have studied the issues from all sides and know the logical weaknesses in the mainstream arguments, or even the cards that other debaters may quote. Turns are often effective as well.

-- Clear speaking at a reasonable pace: I'll try to keep up if you're going fast, but you risk having me miss key points. Especially if I'm new to the topic, I'm going to have to both hear and consider what you're arguing.

-- Good decorum during cross: No constant interrupting and please be concise; leave time for both sides.

-- If I'm stuck choosing a side, final focus may help me. If you think you have a powerful argument that you think went uncontested (or poorly contested), or you turned your opponent's arguments, you may want to remind me in final focus.

Lastly, please try to have fun, and good luck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

awelton001@gmail.com for questions

February, 2018. I have judged one tournament as a parent prior to the Feb. 2 Pennsbury tournament. In that sense I would be considered a "lay judge." I am committed to listening carefully to the substance of the arguments without prejudice to style (aside from assigning speaker points). I can probably tolerate a certain amount of jargon... but not too much. For me, clarity of argument is important; clarity is evidence of clear thinking. I will be looking for how well rebuttals "land" on the opposing argument. In general I am partial to quality as opposed to quantity of argumentation. Hope this helps and hope all participants have fun and learn from their experience.

I am a parent judge, which means a few things:

1. Slow down, please! If you focus on the narratives of the arguments, you'll win the round.

2. If there's something important in the constructive or rebuttal, make sure it's talked about in the summary and final focus.

3. Voters are a great way to win the round in the 2nd half of the debate.

4. Be nice and not rude.

** If you clearly weigh your arguments against your opponent and stimulate a consistent narrative, you'll win the round. **