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

*cma85@case.edu for speech doc*

About Me

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

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

TL;DR

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

That said there are a few weird things about me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version

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

Speaker Points

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

Evidence

I may call for evidence in a few situations.

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

RFDs

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

I did PF in high school but do not judge very often.

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

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

LD

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

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF

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

I used to have a joke paradigm

For reference see chris conrad's paradigm, mine is practically identical.

Defense must be in second summary

Everything in FF must be in summary

I debate for 4 years for the Nueva school in very fast PF debate and can handle and vote on any argument however fast you say it. 

I take evidence extremely seriously so don't lie about it.

Extensions require a card name and a warrant. This is extremely reasonable and easy to do.

Please weigh your impacts against your opponents it makes the round substantially easier.

TLDR: I flow, I vote off the flow, I will pick you up if you win the debate.

Experience: 4 years of PF debate for Edgemont with a bit of policy, qualled to ToC senior year. Former parli debater for Dartmouth but honestly I kind of hate parli.

Things I like: Organized cases with clear terminalized impacts, fast line by line rebuttals, collapsing in summary, rhetorically persuasive final focuses

also when teams give me flow paper

Things I don't like: Sketchy extensions, poor evidence ethics, non-terminalized impacts, taking a long time to find cards

How I evaluate the round:

There are four things you need to do in order for me to evaluate an offensive argument at the end of the round.

• Cite and extend evidence on it
• Explain ur internal links (stats are insufficient without logic)
• Terminalize your impacts
• Extend it in both summary and final focus.

If you do not follow each of these steps, I will intervene against you and refuse to evaluate the argument. Yes, that means that you can lose even if you "won" the round on the flow, because I think that as a judge and thus an educator, it is my obligation to force you to win each part of an argument to win the whole thing. So, don't say "extend x contention" or "extend y link"- you must explain them. Furthermore, doing these things does not guarantee you win the argument; you obviously need to frontline responses and turns and weigh it. Consider these steps a prerequisite to accessing any offense in the round.

Other than that, I believe in:

sticky defense, presumption goes to whoever lost the flip, prefer if second rebuttal frontlines, no plans or CPs, I am open to Ks but don't really understand them, tech over truth, no new offense in summary, no new defense in ff, moderate to fast speed is ok (I'll shout clear if I need to), reading ur opponent's ev during speeches or cx is ok, no offensive overviews in second rebuttal, prefer if no conditional advocacies, no theory unless it's really egregious, paragraph theory over shell theory, scalar impacts are stupid, fully terminalized impacts. Also weigh clearly or I'll just weigh myself and I'm pretty dumb so u prob don't want that.

I love unique arguments. Please make my day more interesting, I don't want to judge remixes of the same aff and neg for the whole tournament. If you entertain me (either with your args or by being funny) I'll prob increase your speaks.

Flashing:

(I wrote this part in 2016 so idk if flashing is still uncommon but) if you flash me and your opponents a carded copy of case complete with citations and highlighting/underlining, and reads the cards verbatim, your speaker points will increase by 1.5. If you flash but don't read verbatim, they'll increase by 0.5. Finally, if you put an outline of the case up on the wiki and not the full cards, your speaks will increase by 0.5. I will be extremely receptive to theory if one team flashes and the opponents do not- you will still have to win the theory, but it shouldn't be too hard for you to do so. I hope that this policy encourages teams to share their evidence more and thus miscut their evidence less.

Calling for evidence:

I call for ev when

a) a team asks me to during round (not when the round has ended)

b) I have read the article and think you miscut it

c) I have a really hard time believing that an author actually said what you're claiming they said

d) you hinge a big part of the debate on it and I need to verify that it actually says what you are claiming it says.

If I find that you have falsified or miscut the ev, I'll drop the ev and depending on how egregious the falsification is I will give you 0 speaks and/or drop you on face. If the evidence is confusing and it's not called out, I'll probably just accept the interpretation of the evidence that makes the most sense. That's a subjective decision that you probably won't want, so I'd advise just reading good ev.

I permit teams to use the time their opponent takes to find evidence to do prep without it counting towards the two minutes. So essentially, if you take 5 minutes to find a card, you're giving your opponent a free 5 minutes of prep. Of course, this can all be avoided if you have a file with all the cards you're reading in round that you flash me.

Finally, do not falsify your opponent's evidence. That is, if you call for a card and the card is legit, don't come up with an indict that is a blatant lie. This is as bad as lying about your own card, and I'll prob drop you or give you zero speaks.

Disclosure:

I will always disclose speaks and who won as long as the tournament permits and I URGE you to ask questions about my decision. One reason that the judging pool in PF can be so screwy is because judges don't really care about the round, don't really think about the arguments, and just give half-assed decisions that they haven't really thought over. I would love it if you asked me "how did you evaluate X argument" or something like that- I try my best to think over everything, but I'm still human and may make mistakes sometimes. Chances are if you show me that I judged something incorrectly, I'll be better equipped to judge it in the future, and you just made the judging pool a little bit better. Please don't be a dick, though. I promise I'm trying my best.

Finally, If you're being a dick to your opponents I might just drop you outright. You probably don't want to risk this. Be nice.

I did PF for Walt Whitman and graduated in 2013. I coached at Whitman for threee years, and Riverdale Country School for one year

Speed and technical debate are both fine with me, but you need to be clear. This means signposting, warranting your arguments, and weighing explicitly. I am not going to do work for you, so if you don’t literally tell me why I should vote on something I will not vote on it. I am not going to do any analysis that you do not do for me in your speeches.

I am open to any type of argument. That being said, I can be easily persuaded by opponents’ claims that particular interpretations are unfair ways to view resolutions. If you do anything risky, you need to be able to A) defend why what you’re doing is fair and B) obviously win it if you want me to vote on it. The one caveat to this is if you run anything that is discriminatory in any way (racist, sexist, classist, etc.) I will get really, really angry. Please do not do this, I don’t want to hear your genocide is good contention even if you are down four and not breaking.

Summaries:

If you are first summary, I do not need you to extend defense on arguments that your opponents’ have not gotten to go back to in their rebuttal. If your opponents do not answer that defense in their summary, I am fine as having that as a reason not to vote for them on that argument as long as you extend/explain that they didn’t answer that response in your ff. Any offense you want to go for in final focus need to be in first summary though, including turns on their case (if you don’t extend the turn in your first summary, but extend it in final focus I can evaluate it as defense on their argument but I won’t vote on it).

If you are second summary, you know what your opponents are going for so my standard is a little higher. Any defense you want to extend in final focus need to be in your summary. Only exception to this is if your opponents switch what they are going for in their first final focus (don’t do this please), and you need to remind me that they never answered the defense you had put on that argument.

Weighing:

Weighing needs to be comparative or superlative in some way. The structure should generally be phrased as x is more important than y because or x is the mot important issue in the round because not just x is important because.

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

Be clear:

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

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

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

Use:

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

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

Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled. 

Your final focus to make me vote for you. 

Thank you!

Revised April 11, 2018

Sandy Berkowitz

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

I debated policy in high school and college and began coaching in the early 1980s. In addition to the events listed above, I have coached and judged Lincoln Douglas, Extemp, Oratory, Rhetorical Criticism/Great Speeches, Informative, Discussion, and (and to a lesser extent) Interp events, at variety of schools in IL, NY, NC, MN, MI, ME, and CA.

Public Forum

Fundamentally, I believe that PF provides debaters with opportunities to engage and debate key issues of the day before experienced debate and community judges. It is useful and important to understand and adapt to a judge’s preferences. So, for me:

General issues

--The crux of PF is good solid argumentation delivered well. Solid arguments are those that relate to the resolution, are well organized, well warranted, and supported with quality evidence that is explained.

--Good analytical arguments are useful but not normally sufficient. If you make an argument, you bear the responsibility of supporting, explaining, and weighing the argument.

--I flow. But, clarity is your responsibility and is key to a good debate.

Evidence Ethics

--Evidence is critical to building good arguments and that includes warrants. Use academically rigorous and journalistic sources to support your arguments. Offering a laundry list of 5-10 names with few warrants or methodology is not persuasive.

--Proper citation is essential. That does not mean “University X” says. A university did not do the study or write the article. Someone did. Source name and date is required for oral source citation. Providing qualifications orally can definitely enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of your argument. The complete written citation (including source name, date, source, title, access date, url, quals, and page numbers) must be provided when asked in the round.

--Exchange of evidence is mandatory when requested. There is not infinite prep time to find evidence. If it takes you more than a minute to find a card when asked, or all you can provide is a 50 page pdf, then I will disregard it.

--Paraphrasing is not as persuasive as reading cards and using the evidence appropriately to develop and deepen your arguments.

--If you have misconstrued evidence, your entire argument can be disregarded.

--Evaluate your own and your opponents’ evidence as part of your comparative analysis.

Strategic issues

--Extending arguments goes beyond authors and tag lines. Extend and develop the arguments.

--Narrative is key. Debate is inherently persuasive. Connect the arguments and tell a story.

--It is in the best interest of the second speaking team for the rebuttalist to rebuild their case. If the 2nd speaking team does not do that, they likely yield the strategic advantage to the 1st speaking team.

--Avoid Grand becoming yelling match, which is not useful to anyone.

--Clash is critical. It is vital to weigh your arguments, which is best to begin before the final focus. Write the ballot in the final focus.

Delivery and Decorum

--PF, and all debate, is inherently a communication activity. Speed is fine, but clarity is absolutely necessary. If you unclear or blippy, you do so at your own peril.

--Be smart. Be assertive. Be engaging. But, do not be a bully.

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

Finally, have fun and enjoy the opportunity for engagement on important questions of the day.

World Schools

Worlds is an exciting debate format that is different from other US debate and speech formats. It is important for you to understand and adapt to the different assumptions and styles of Worlds. Content (the interpretation of the motion [definitions, model, stance], arguments, analysis, and examples), Style (verbal and nonverbal presentation elements), and Strategy (organization, decision making, engagement, and time allocation) all factor in to the decision and should be seen as critical and interrelated areas. Some things to consider:

--As Aristotle noted, we are influenced by both logos and pathos appeals, which you should develop through both examples and analysis. Thus, narratives are critical. Not just a story to “put a face on the motion,” but an overall narrative for your side of the debate.

--Motions are, in most cases, internationally, globally focused and your examples and analysis should reflect that.

--Have multiple, varied, and international examples that are used not only in the first speeches, but are also developed further and added in the second and third speeches to be more persuasive.

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

--POIs can be statements or questions and are a key element of engagement during the debate. Questioners should be strategic in what to pose and when. Speakers should purposefully choose to take POIs and smartly respond to them. Typically, speakers will take 1-2 questions per constructive speech, but that is the speaker’s strategic choice.

--Importantly, carry things down the bench. Answer the arguments of the other side. Rebuild and develop your arguments. Engage in comparative analysis.

--Third speeches should focus the debate around clash points or key questions or key issues. Narrow the debate and offer comparative analysis.

--Reply speeches should not include new arguments. But, the speech should build on the third speech (especially in the opp block), identify key voting issues, and explain why your side has won the debate.

Be smart. Be articulate. Be persuasive. Take the opportunity to get to know other teams and debaters.

Policy and LD

I judge mostly PF and World Schools. But, I have continued to judge a smattering of Policy and LD rounds over the last few years. Now that you may be concerned, let me be specific.

Overall, I believe that rounds should be judged based upon the arguments presented.

--Clarity is paramount. Obviously, my pen time is slower than it was, but I do flow well. Roadmaps are good. Sign posting and differentiating arguments is necessary. Watch me. Listen. You will be able to tell if you are going too fast or are unclear. Reasonably clear speed is ok, but clarity is key. For most of my career, I was a college professor of communication; now I teach communication in high school. I strongly believe that debaters should be able to communicate well.

--Do what you do best: policy based or critical affs are fine. But, remember, I do not hear a lot of policy or LD rounds, so explain and be clear. Having said that, my area of research as a comm professor was primarily from a feminist critical rhetorical perspective. In any case, you bear the responsibility to explain and weigh arguments, assumptions, methodology, etc. without a lot of unexplained theory/jargon.

--Please do not get mired in debate theory. Topicality, for example, was around when I debated. But, for other, new or unique theory arguments, do not assume that I have current knowledge of the assumptions or standards of the theory positions. It is your responsibility to explain, apply, and weigh in theory debates. On Framework, please engage the substance of the aff. I strongly prefer you engage the methodology and arguments of the aff, rather than default to framework arguments to avoid that discussion.

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

--Last, and importantly, weigh your arguments. It is your job to put the round together for me. Tell a good story, which means incorporating the evidence and arguments into a narrative. And, weigh the issues. If you do not, at least one team will be unhappy with the results if I must intervene.

Finally, I believe that Policy and LD debate is significantly about critical thinking and engagement. Better debaters are those who engage arguments, partners, opponents, and judges critically and civilly. Be polite, smart, and even assertive, but don’t be impolite or a bully. And, have fun since debate should be fun.

Update 10/1/2020

When I first started five years ago, most local tournaments were doing paper ballots. I can’t believe speech and debate was the first activity that went entirely online since the TOC before the pandemic! It’s a different new world...

I have already encountered various tech issues in the rounds I’ve judged thus far. Please be prepared with multiple devices - a phone and a computer and perhaps even one more back up. We will work it through together!

Good luck!

Update 11/25/2018

I have judged extensively in both LD and PF in the past year, and have grown to dislike the lack of civility in some rounds. Remember - speech and debate is about having fun! If you are the only person in the room having run, then you just lost a round.

Please note the following:

1. Fair warning - If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

2. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

3. LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. To me, that point has to be made with common sense. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking too fast. If a smarter-than-average person cannot get your point, you lost the round. Period. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will be dropped. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

Background

I am an Assistant Principal at Princeton High School. I was Head Coach of the PHS Speech and Debate Team in the past five years.

Preferences

I can follow just about all fast speech by now. However, I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over speed or other stylistic elements of debates; I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. I want to clear warrant to your claim, clear impacts and clear weighing. Simply put, convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.

Don't forget - this is about you having fun!

Good luck!

Jesus Caro
Lincoln Douglas Coach - Oxford Academy; previous policy debate coaching experience
Experience: 4 years college LD/Parli

Backround: I debated for two years at Cerritos College and later transferred to CSU-Long Beach to compete in parliamentary debate. My academic background is in Finance and Accounting. I am familiar with most contemporary arguments in debate and have read books and news article before. I think that there is no such thing as tabula rasa but I also try not to insert myself, too much, in the debate round.
How Do I View Debate?
Fundamentally, I see debate as a rhetorical game that rewards the deployment of strategic skillsets within the round. This means that you should do whatever it is you are good at. I tend to believe that the affirmative will present a question and attempt to resolve that question using whatever tools they have. The negative will stand up and try to do the same, using different strategies and techniques. Whatever it is you do, you should be trying to write my ballot for me.

How Do I Decide Debate Rounds?
From my experience judging debate rounds I’ve come to the conclusion that most rounds either conclude in one of two scenarios. Either teams will compare their arguments versus their opponents or they won’t.
“Even If” Statements: I think the most important rebutalist tool is the “Even If” statements. Even If statements allows for the narrowing of the debate because it allows for certain parts of the debate to be conceded and ignored. They focus the debate to only the arguments that are important.
Risk Assesments: In assessing risk I think a team should win their link before they begin their risk assesment. Uniqueness usually controls the direction on the link, however, if this is all you are going for you in the rebuttals, then your probably behind everywhere else and your link argument was “ they pass plan”. For example, a politics disad requires a nuanced explanation of how the specific policy triggers the link. Otherwise the risk of a link is not intrinsic to the affirmative and tenous at best. In this situation I find that good link and impact defense are enough to mitigate any substantive effect of the disad, if argued in round.
When there is no Comparison: Intuitively I think I evaluate timeframe first, the sequence of the impacts, then the probability of your impacts happening, and finally I look to magnitude to quantify the gravity of the impact. This usually means that one of the teams will dislike the decision because I barely understand what timeframe, probablitiy or magnitude mean.
When there is Comparison: In rounds where one team is making all the comparisons using “even-if” statements, that team will usually win the round. However, in exceptional rounds where both teams are making comparative statements I will examine what questions have been established as relevant Then I will try to determine which team most accurately answers those questions.
Things That Can Be True.
Regarding speed of delivery I usually believe that I can catch most of what is being said in the debate round. However, as there is no “pen time” be aware that pausing between the #5 on the Uniquness and the #1 on the Link, helps keep my flow organized.
There are some arguments that will take some extra work to get me to vote on, usually RVI’s and Speed Bad.
Framework should never be considered a voting issue. Most of the time these arguments are simply impact calc. Essentially, any argument that describes a process of prioritization between two competing impacts/scenarios is a framework argument.
“Dropped” arguments, if answered elsewhere, are not dropped.
I think that you should have a resolutional basis for your affirmative. If you are the affirmative and have some rational basis for your interpretation of the debate (Policy/Kritik/Value/Fact/Whatever), all you have to do is answer the procedural effectively.
I appreciate strategic issue selection; you do NOT need to go for every argument in the round. Both teams should be collapsing to the FEW arguments that WILL win the round.
The best advice I ever received from a coach was this, “if you lose to a bad argument/team, it is because you did not do a good enough job explaining to the judge why the argument was nonsense or unimportant”.
Specific Arguments
Theory/Topicality/Procedurals: Since all of these questions are questions regarding rules, within the debate round, I will adhere to the following when evaluating them:
Unless otherwise indicated I default to seeing these as issues questions of competing interpretations, this means in-round abuse is not necessary. I also think that reasonability can be defined as having a counterinterpretation that solves the impact of the original interpretation, fairness or education.
Counterplans: Generally, I think that counterplans are one the most strategic tools the negative has to leverage any access to affirmative impacts. This is especially important when government actions seems almost necessary like “ The USFG Should send money to six children in a rural community”, what’s the disad to that aff? I think you should begin defending your CP in the LOC to fend off new theory arguments in the PMR. I usually let teams resolve questions of counterplan theory in-round. I do, however, have a predispotion towards fairness and tend to evaluate these questions through that lens.
Critiques: I am farily familiar with the kritik and understand the fundamental basis of its operation. However, this does not mean that I know the authors that you may be referencing or the terms you may be using.
Framework: I find most kritik frameworks to be spectres of illusions by assuming that there is a substantial difference between the impacts of the affirmative and the impacts of the affirmative. The function of the framework should be to clarify the role of the judge within the round and the role of the participants. Any framework that does not discuss these two concerns leaves me wanting for NB.
Alternative/Solvency: I find the most vulnerable part of a criticism is the function of the alternative, which, stems from the function of the framework. Largely teams will read framework claiming rhetoric comes first, with an alternative that to reject. The logical response is for the affirmative to say reject and affirm the plan, the permuation. In these situations the affirmative will almost always come ahead. However, a framework that delineates the requirements for a win always ensures that the alternative is the only viable option, giving the neg a better answer to the perm. Solvency, I find, in most criticisms are rather shallow because kritik teams are not quite sure how this part works. Much like a counterplan or PMC, the purpose of the alternative is to show that the alternative works. You should have warrants and examples to prove that a vote for the alternative can solve. It is not necessary to show that you create in-round change, insofar as it’s not the purpose of the framework.
Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan. Permutations should not be advocacies. This can be dissuaded by the debaters in round.
Please feel free to ask me if you have any specific questions.

No off time roadmaps.  I'm a mom judge, but I have been judging for 4 years.  Please don't be rude to each other.  I'm fine if you speak a little faster than conversation speed, as long as you enunciate, how ever I do not want you to get anywhere near spreading, or what would normally be considered fast talking,.

E

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.

My name is Kevin Connolly. I am a Colonel/physician in the USAF with an MPH from Harvard University. Besides having deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan I have served as the Commander (CEO) of two hospitals, including the largest Air Force Medical Center. I, admittedly, am relatively new to Public Forum debate and started 2 1/2 years ago, which coincides with my daughter's participation in this event. I bring my background up so that debaters I judge understand better what I value in a good debate.

As a physician I’m well aware that one can find research on any topic to prove either side of an argument. However, it’s really important to understand that quality and strength of the study/research presented to support an argument is going really important to me.  Further, the evidence presented should be logical. Let me give you a quick example... In one debate a PF team was argued that the embargo on Cuba was good for the Cuban people because they were all 10 pounds lighter than the international average. While their evidence clearly supported this, they failed to use logic and the other side clearly exploited this, citing that they were 10 pounds lighter because they didn’t have ample food they and had to ride bicycles due to lack of automobiles. So, please make sure your evidence is quality & strong, but that you use logic in your  arguments. 

In my opinion, it’s not important to provide as many contentions as fast as possible. I find it much more effective to have fewer contentions that are supported by strong/quality evidence, argued logically, clearly, and concisely. Further, PF debaters need to effectively defend their positions and refute those of their opponents using the same logic and evidence standards I've already noted. Finally I have zero tolerance for disrespecting opponent teams and being rude to one's opponents! I accept and respect standing firm to arguments and debating passionately, but will not tolerate rudeness.  This preference is likely due to my career in the military.

In sum, I’m more of a big picture judge and will decide a round based on arguments supported by quality/strong evidence, a teams ability to clearly argue contentions, their ability to defend arguments against attacks, and the ability to refute opponents contentions using the same standards previously mentioned, and doing so in a confident but respectful way.

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

I am affiliated with duPont Manual High School as the head speech and debate coach. I used to debate college LD, so I am familiar with the general format of most all debate. I always say that CX>LD>PF>CON...if that's not agreeable with you, then that's unfortunate, but that's just how my hierarchy Debate chain/list works. I respect all debate divisions, so please do not misunderstand

1. I enjoy K Debate, especially if it gives insightful

Anthro K’s are not as convincing to me.

2. Do not use abbreviated jargon yet because I am still learning how to apply jargon to my RFD. For example, use CONDITIONAL instead of CONDO, or Topical(ity) instead of T, or PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTER PLANS BAD instead of PICS… Sorry, but it will make the ultimate difference because I will be able to follow my flow/your narrative.

3. I am a flow judge.

4. I will call clear if I cannot understand you, and I won’t take off of speaker points after the first time.

5. Please stand to MY RIGHT side because I am deaf in my left ear. SO, if you are facing me, please spread or speak standing to the left side of the room. I will always try to sit in the center of the debate.

6. I have had experience judging CX at UPenn, PF at several national tournaments as well as in Chengdu, China, and I used to debate in LD in high school and at IU for a year. I have been coaching at duPont Manual HS in Louisville, KY for 4 years.

7. Theory Debate…I will deal with it, however, it makes me feel inferior or confused or . It just might take me a bit longer to articulate an RFD, so don’t ty and an endearing candidness - it's so adorable and

8. I love progressive LD, and spreading is fine with me.

9. LOUD, CLEAR, and SIGN POST along the way. Also, give me an off time road map before each speech, please. Traditional debate is wonderful too; however, I DO look for SOLVENCY AND COUNTER PLANS are also valued by me.

10. For PF, I value both long term and short impacts, but I need the debaters to weigh the round and tell me what i prefer in the end. Make it very clear to me what your voters are. For LD, I need you to uphold your framework and give me the Roll of the Ballot. Make it very clear, and repeat it for me so I am sure to catch it/them.11. I love topicality; an overview

I can take speed, but please be clear. I encourage progressive debate, so I will not dock speaks for calling clear. Therefore, I will call clear until I can understand you. Please take the time to adapt if I call clear.
I base speaker points on several different factors. This includes clarity of speaking, presentation, projection, and the ability to debate strategically. Impact your arguments and tell me why they matter. Pick the most important arguments and tell me the reasons I should vote for it. Also, signposting is a must.

If you have any questions please contact me at 502-572-4635 or erica.cooper@jefferson.kyschools.us.

I like clear argumentation - you should repeat arguments that you think are particularly important throughout the debate, ore else they will not be on my notes.

Please remain polite, that is very important and key to clarity of argumentation.

Do not speak too fast, I am voting off of who makes the best arguments, but I need to be able to follow those arguments and understand them in order to do so.

Please tell me your names and speaking position before you begin each speech.

Make sure you keep to your prep time, and speech time. You should keep time for your fellow debaters. Please have a timer with an audible ringer.

Good luck. You have worked hard to get here. I look forward to hearing your clearly stated, and thought out arguments. 

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

Debated for four years at Newton North High School. I was like kind of okay-ish.

What I like:

Warrant your frameworks and arguments or I will be upset. If I remember enough about PF it's that you shouldn't upset your judge. 

Weighing is nice. Trying to weigh because I say that it's nice in my paradigm is - admittedly flattering - but less nice. If you're going to weigh please actually do the work to analyze impacts. 

I love framework debate. If you ever saw me debate (you probably didn't which is why I'm writing this explanation), I usually ran extensive frameworks in my cases because it was my style. That being said, my love of framework means neither that you should feverishly start writing a framework into your case just to make me happy nor that I will give you the win just because you win your framework. Please actually use your framework if you're running one and give me analysis within the context of how you frame the round.

Speed:

<100 WPM - No

100-150 WPM - Might be a bit slow but that sounds more like your problem than mine

151-200 WPM - Normal

201-250 WPM - Starting to get faster but fine

251-300 WPM - Eh?

>300 WPM - No

Speaker Points:

Being good at debate makes me give you more speaker points and incidentally also helps you win the round.

Off-time Road Maps:

Please don't

General:

If you tell a joke and I don't laugh it's because your joke was bad and not because my sense of humor is bad.

This isn't detailed enough:

If you scroll up you'll see a paradigm from a lovely gentleman named Caspar Arbeeny. I don't think anything I wrote conflicted with what he said but if it did just take mine and otherwise yeah he wrote a lot and it's mostly that

PF:

TLDR:

Weigh

Please do not give me a line-by-line in Final Focus. If possible, I don't want it in summary. Write my RFD for me in summary and FF.

Signpost.

Please collapse. Good extensions and weighing requires this.

If you don't read warrant names in summary and FF, you probably will not win the round. The team that makes the best and most strategic extensions almost always wins, and dropping warrants irretrievably weakens your offense.

Don't extend offense that your opponent kicked unless you're extending a turn on it.

Cross-applications and grouped responses in rebuttal, when used sparingly and handily, can be useful.

I don't need a roadmap for expected strategies (ex. no need for "it's gonna be their case, then my case")

You are free to collapse grand cross if you'd like.

If it takes longer than one minute to find a (singular) card that is called for, prep starts.

#

(heavily drawing from the brilliant Mollie Clark throughout)

The Rebuttal
For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping, when necessary, and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts, with weighing at these levels when possible. Frontlining defense seems to be the new standard, and I think that that's a good strategy. Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I love a good overview. I loathe a bad overview.

Extensions
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the claim, warrant, and impact. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. WARRANT AND IMPACT EXTENSIONS ARE WHAT MOST LIKELY WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. You will not have time to extend everything, and attempting to do so shows a major deficit in your ability to discern the central and successful arguments in the debate. Part of the challenge of this activity is making smart decisions about what to extend and what to drop on the the fly.

Speed and Speaking
I tend not to penalize speed with speaker points. I do penalize for incomprehensibility. Make sure you enunciate and are clear so that your opponent can understand you. Efficiency, eloquence, extensions, and strategy in later speeches will define your speaks. Basically, go as fast as you want so long as you're clear. Lack of clarity welcomes penalty.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. CX is not binding, but speakers may use concessions in CX as offense in subsequent speeches. I say CX is not binding to encourage an earnest conversation in CX, rather than constantly defensive, abrasive, or self-conscious exchanges. I will, however, nonetheless take a good response to offense brought in from cross by the opposing speakers seriously if they contextualize that concession and produce sound analysis that supports them.
Organization through all speeches is essential, and is especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible.

I tend to give high speaks in general. 28.3-28.5 is a pretty common/average score from me at tournaments that utilize one tenth decimals. I find myself usually giving 28.8-29.1 in strong circuit rounds, though I did come across an array of really remarkable speakers at Yale, Bronx, and Blue Key who scored higher. I will, however, strictly adhere to a points rubric offered by any tournament when provided. This may elevate or deflate my speaker points to an extent. At tournaments that utilized a tradition scale with .5 increments (i.e. Glenbrooks), strong circuit debaters tended to score at 28.5-29.5, with generically good speakers at around 28 and average speakers at 27.

The extra stuff: I studied English @ Columbia, where I spent a lot of reading/writing about poetry and other things, critical theory, and the history of esotericism. I competed in many circuit PF tournaments in high school and judged many in college. I now write about curation, museology, and the poetics of the museum as a Henry Evans Fellow "at" the British Museum, and work in the Capital Markets group at a corporate law firm in New York. This is to say that I may not be extraordinarily studied in the things most directly related to what we're doing in round. But! I have consciousness and subjectivity and am, therefore, more than qualified to be in round. Be thorough in your analysis and don't make assumptions. I'm excited to learn with you + I'm excited to watch you have fun. I want to take every measure to resist elitism/inaccessibility in debate, so let's mitigate it! Please be courteous to your opponents, especially when it seems evident that there is an imbalance in resources/access in and out of round. A normal circuit round is accessible to me, but it may not be for your opponents. Please accommodate + make the round as accessible for your opponents as possible. If it is clear that you are being accommodating and kind, your speaker points will benefit!

LD:

I have a mostly basic knowledge of how this form works, yet I've nonetheless found myself in the position of having to judge 20+ rounds of it. Essentially, my decisions will be better when debaters read their tags somewhat slowly, try to explain things as early and coherently as possible, and order/analyze my decision for me. If you make assumptions about what you think I already know, my decision will likely be worse. Also, shouldn't really need to say this, but you need to impact your arguments and signpost clearly on the flow -- no shockers here. I really like the kinds of conversations that tend to emerge specifically from LD rounds, but you may have to be generous and accommodating about some of the more idiosyncratic qualities of the style.

Specifics:

Speed: If speed is important to your style or strategy, roll with what is necessary for you, but I'd prefer you give me about a 3/10 if you put your speed potential on a spectrum, if that makes sense. Most importantly, I'd really like you to slow down on the following: tag lines, spikes, blips, theory interps, and advocacy texts. Note: I don't want to have to yell clear...like ever, but I might throw it in the chat if I need to (I also might not and then miss a lot on the flow). In general, I'm probably a judge that you need to send a case doc to.

Theory: Honestly, I've always been okay with theory. If it's ridiculous, I'm obviously not going to vote for it. Just be smart.

Framework: Framework debate is critical, usually. If it's important, spend time on this. This debate should also heavily determine how I evaluate the round. Make this clear for me.

Ks: These can end up being pretty neat, but like I said before, don't assume I know anything. Lean toward overexplanation. You are going to have to do substantial work situating the K into the discourse posited by the topic, and superseding your opponent's arguments with the K. I suppose saying something like this would also imply that I think topicality is a somewhat important arena to address if you are a K debater.

But don't get the wrong idea: I am amenable to K debate; probably more than most other judges! I just really want to understand what's being said, which I do think that I have the capacity to do (see above about my study of critical theory).

A note: Be ethical in your practice of K debate. It is going to be hard for me to vote for you if it seems glaring that you are employing K debate as an opportunistic strategy to win rounds. For example, there is no reason for a white debater to be running an afropessimism K.

Value and criterion: What even are these? Why are these? These are probably vestigial to LD, yeah?? Or if they aren't, convince me otherwise?

You will want to pref me if you are reading: Max Weber, Jack Halberstam, Judith Butler, Saidiya Hartman, Fred Moten, Hortense Spillers, Frank Wilderson, or Sylvia Winter.

If I didn't cover something in this paradigm, just ask me in round. I want to be as transparent as possible.

Speaks:

This isn't the important part. Generally, when not given a speaks matrix by the tournament that dictates how I give these, I'm gonna treat every round like it's a bubble round + give speaks based on who should break and who shouldn't. 29-29.5 is a good typical breaking score.

Please be respectful. Respect lends itself to better speaks.

Another note: If you are unhappy with my decision, know that I, unfailingly, vote for whichever debater was most persuasive. Even if you are totally convinced that you have made transcendent, pristine argumentation, clearly some disconnect or error occurred in round that prevent me from, well, achieving transcendence alongside you. This means it is absolutely essential, even if you are the smartest high school debater in the world, to communicate clearly to me. I can't vote on what I don't understand, and it isn't my fault as a judge for being unable to comprehend 20 arguments/minute or some extraordinarily clunky analytic on techno-capitalism etc.

I want to be included on all email chains de2365@columbia.edu

I have judged PF for 8 years including NY State Championships and National regional qualifiers. First off, I need to be able to understand what is being said. Speaking extremely quickly and spreading are frowned upon. I often find crossfires wasted by the participants when there are continuous interruptions or one side monopolizes the time. I prioritize evidence based arguments and the weight/relevance of those arguments. Evidence based arguments not addressed by the opposing side are noted and considered a negative.

I debated PF for four years for Oakwood in Los Angeles. 

- Speed is fine short of spreading. 

- I'm fine with defense being extended from rebuttal to FF for first-speaking teams in particular, but it would advantage second-speaking teams to extend defense in summary as well since you know what they're going for at that point. I'll be more likely to buy defense that's been well-explained and giving yourself two speeches to do that is a good idea. 

- I'm fine with theory in cases of egregious abuse but warrant it well for me if you want me to vote on it. 

- Warrant and weigh anything you want me to vote off of. 

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

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

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

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

Have fun!

Hello debaters. I look forward to watching and judging your rounds. Rather than try to present a paradigm, I will just offer you some facts about myself and you can reach your own conclusions.

I am a parent of a debater who is now in 11th grade. I have been judging debate tournaments -- first in Parli then in PF -- for a full four seasons. I was never a debater myself; everything I know about debate I learned from watching you all. I now run the team at my son's high school, so I am judging at all the UDLNYC tourneys as well as about four National Circuit tournaments each year.

I am a professor of journalism at Hunter College, so I know well how to identify valid evidence, sound arguments and good writing. But this also means that I really value writing structure and organization; I want to be able to track -- or flow -- your arguments in each speech.

Ok, so I guess I do have some nit-picky preferences: I do not get anything from spreading (it just makes it harder for me to follow) and it bugs me when people give an off-time roadmap, especially since 99 percent of the time the debater does not follow it. If it is important for you to layout your plan (and I would argue it is), make it part of your speech. I also pay attention to the crossfires since I think it reveals a lot about the individual speakers more than the speeches do sometimes.

One thing for certain: I LOVE debate. Hats off to you for taking on all the work it requires.

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

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

About Me

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

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

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

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

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

Specific Preferences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a university science professor and have judged on local PDF circuits for the last five years, and also several national tournaments. I look for data-driven, evidence-based arguments that are grounded in reality, not hyper-speculative or overly contrived.

I do not mind rapid speech, as long as words are well articulated and not delivered in an evenly paced monotone. Emphasizing key points through a change in pace or intonation can ensure that I understand your case structure and am drawn to your most important evidence ... in other words, make your strongest evidence and cards clear.

I will look for the winning team to develop and defend its own case at least as strongly as it tries to negate the opposing team's arguments. During cross-fire, exerting control over the pace and direction of questioning is fine, but rude, intimidating, or overly aggressive behavior will not earn speaker points.

In arriving at a final decision, I will always value well-researched arguments over rhetoric and diatribe.

Paradigm 

I vote on almost anything if you win the debate. I believe that debate should be an even competition of what happens in the round and how it affects the outside world instead of the other way around. Also don't do anything racist, homophobic, sexist, patriarchal, transphobic, heteronormative or simply disrespectful in round without expecting poor speaker points. It will also affect how I view your argumentation in this safe space.

 Spreading

In regards to spreading I'm fine with it just don't start out at full speed I need time to adjust to voices. Also be clear and slow on tags so I can know what you are saying and what I should be voting on. I can't vote on something that I  can't hear.

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

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

I am an attorney. and before that, I was a speechwriter for executives and general business writer. My son has debated competitively in high school for 4 years, and I have judged at a few of his tournaments.

Preferences:

I am what you call your typical "lay judge." What I value most are clear, comprehensive arguments, delivered in an understandable way. I cannot evaluate arguments if you "spread" or deliver them rapidly. Please make sure they are supported by evidence, from which identifiably argued; if I can't understand the reasoning behind the argument, it will be very difficult for me to vote on it. I will take notes throughout the round and judge it based on the arguments raised, and how well they have been developed and countered.

All of that said, while the speeches matter highly in my decision-making, what I also like to see is how well you perform spontaneously, without specific preparation: for instance in cross-fire, and how well you address novel, unexpected, or even puzzling arguments. In other words, I want to see real presence of mind.

Please understand, my feedback and decision making process is from the perspective of a "lay-judge." I cannot evaluate the round from a technical or "flow" perspective, so with that in mind, you may want to adapt your argument to my judicial capacities.

Ive done Policy Debate for 7 years from high school through to college. In college I debated for Rutgers University Newark. I qualified to the NDT 3 times and was a CEDA Quarter finalist in 2016.

Debate is about warranting, evidence comparison, and impact calculus. These three things are essential to winning my ballot.

Extending a bunch of claims without reasoning is not persuasive. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence. Similarly you need to compare the impacts, do not just extend your own impact while ignoring the opponents, why does your impact outweigh? Saying evaluate the "cost benefit analysis" is NOT impact calculus.

If an argument is in the Final rebuttals but was not in the constructives I will not evaluate it.

Finally, if you use racist, sexists, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, heteronormative, or another discriminatory or oppressive discourse you will not win my ballot and your speaker points will be greatly effected.

Speak clearly

Background:

4 years of national circuit public forum at Poly Prep.

Assistant PF Coach for Walt Whitman.

Speaking/Speed

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

How I Vote

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

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

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

Offense and Defense Extensions in Summary and Final Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory

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

Evidence

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

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

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

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

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

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

I went to high school in Ann Arbor, MI and I did 3 years of PF. Just a few important things to know about me as a judge...

1. I'll vote on anything that is extended properly (both in summary and final focus, with the exception of terminal defense). I won't require the second speaking team's rebuttal to respond to turns/responses from the first rebuttal (although you can, of course, if you like), but they must be in the summary or I can't vote on them. 

2. You must do the work for me. By this I mean you have to tell me what you want me to vote for and do any/all weighing. I want my ballot to be the most objective representation of the round, which means I want to intervene as little as possible. If I have to intervene, it probably means you're not doing a great job of debating.

3. I care about ethical evidence use; this is the one thing I won't hesitate to intervene on. If, for whatever reason, I think you're intentionally manipulating, misusing, or fabricating evidence, I'll call the card in question after the round. Please don't cut corners, it ruins the debate for everyone involved.

4. I'll leave my email on the ballot in case you have any later questions/want to clarify something. Don't hesitate to send me an email or come find me after the round, I'm happy to talk!

As background: I competed locally/nationally during high school in Congress, PF, and Extemp.

Congress: Every speech after the authorship should include refutation. I love a good crystallization speech, provided you do it with clear presentation, effective impact weighing, and still contribute something of your own. Not all of your questions in direct cross need to be related to your speech, but content matters more to me than quantity. Feel free to make jokes and add humor to your speeches (they make the round interesting, and we all know how long Congress is), but keep it respectful.

LD: Full disclosure that I have never judged LD before. For this reason you're probably better off avoiding more technical aspects (K's, theories, plans), since I'd prefer not to vote for an argument that I don't understand. Give me impacts and weigh them, use your value/criterion throughout the round, and condense the debate for me through every speech so it is clear what issues I should be voting on. I won't flow CX, and please don't spread - speak clearly, especially for tags.

I am best described as a lay judge. I will flow the round, however more often than not the winner will be whoever persuades me the best. My son competes in PF and I read the news so I know a little about the topic, but don't expect me to know all of the arguments by heart. Please speak slowly and explain; I cannot vote for you if I do not understand your argument.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

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.

I am a parent.

Have fun! This is an special part of your life. Cherish it.

No new cards in second summary because as K Dot said, "Your rebuttal a little too late" (but you don't necessarily have to frontline in second rebuttal, only if you think it will be advantageous).

Jokes, puns, and references to hip-hop or popular shows Rick and Morty, Breaking Bad, American Vandal, Master of None, or The Office will be rewarded.

If for some reason this does not give you enough information about how I evaluate rounds, feel free to ask me in round!

I competed in PF for four years at Harker and am now a sophomore at Stanford. I'll flow all speeches in the round.

I evaluate framework and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I’ll only vote on voters and issues that are in the final focus. Don’t extend through ink (and if your opponents do that, please extend defense). I don't need the first summary to extend defense if it is not covered by the second rebuttal. Ideally, every voter at the end of the round should be packaged with three things: frontlines, extension of impacts, and weighing of those impacts. Please extend warrants where they are logically required for the impacts you are going for. Be strategic and don't go for everything.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you conduct crossfire, but content trumps style (rigorous argumentation beats pretty speaking). Speed is maybe ok if you’re clear and look out for non-verbal cues. Only do speed if you can manage to avoid sacrificing clarity and quality of argumentation. I also like getting an off-time road map (think about including things like where I should flow overview arguments, which contentions you might frontline in second rebuttal, or breaking down how you’ll attack a one-contention case).

Here are some situations in which I'll intervene:

1. I'll call for evidence if it is disputed in-round, or if there are 2 clashing pieces of evidence that are both extended and not weighed. Don't misrepresent evidence; I may drop the debater if I think the offense is grave.

2. If you don't weigh your impacts against your opponents', then I'm free to make my own conclusions about which ones matter more.

3. If you are blatantly offensive, I'll drop your speaker points and may drop you.

4. Theory is ok to check egregious abuse, though I've noticed that I usually have to do a decent amount of work to vote on it.

5. I'm never entirely sure what to do when critically important internal contradictions arise... so just avoid it

As a side note, regardless of the tournament rules, I will be a bit annoyed if you insist on no spectators in the room (or take any other action that shamelessly puts competition and education at odds). The educational value of watching others debate is immense. We come to exchange ideas, not to withhold them, and this is the part of the activity I have always loved.

Finally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you're confused about my RFD after the round, I would rather you discuss it with me than to leave feeling dissatisfied; I always grew the most as a debater when I lost rounds.

Good luck!

I debated for Hunter College High School for seven years (3 years of parliamentary debate, 4 years of public forum) and I'm now an Assistant PF Coach for Walt Whitman High School.  

This is my first year out of the circuit, and already I've noticed that debaters understand their arguments a lot better than their judges do. Or I'm stupid. Either way, this means there are a few things you can do to win the round easily:

(1) Explain your arguments clearly (especially in later speeches! If you don't reexplain your link chain in summary/final focus, it's very hard for me to vote for you because I don't remember how you got to your impact)
(2) The slower you speak, the easier it is for me to process your argument. Go fast if you want, but more words ≠ more offense, especially if I can't understand it or arguments aren't fully explained

(3) Don't extend your cards by name, tell me what the card says

(4) I prefer warrants over evidence. You can find a card that says anything, so explain why your card finds what it finds

(5) WEIGH. Please! Weighing doesn't mean throwing out buzzwords like "magnitude" or "reversibility," it means actually explaining how your arguments interact with your opponents' offense

I have a few other preferences:

(1) Defense doesn't need to be extended in the first summary speech

(2) Don't give an off-time roadmap unless you're actually doing something outside of the norm (ie. not "framework, their case, our case")
(3) Don't run alternative arguments (theory, Ks, etc.) unless there is actually an egregious violation

(4) I consider it intervening to decide which pieces of evidence to call, so tell me if you want me to call any cards and I will

Besides that, do whatever you want. Just don't be rude. Here's a vine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6kVfCPE8U

Hello! I am a former LD debater (eons ago) who judges PF now and again. I am a flow oriented judge. I haven't listened to spreading in a while so I wouldn't go your fastest speeds with me. The most important skill in a round to me is weighing. You should tell me how to judge the round, how the arguments interact with each other, which argument is most important, etc. Tell me the story of how you're winning the round. In terms of theory which I hear is happening in PF now, I haven't seen a round with theory in it since high school (which ended in 2014 for me) and have never seen theory in PF so I am truly not used to it at this point, but I am open to it. You would just need to make sure you are explaining things carefully to me and not assuming I know what's going on. Looking forward to your round! Best of luck!

About Me

i debated for four years in high school public forum and one year in college parliamentary. i was on the national circuit for all four years.

Judging Philosophy

i flow.

i do not intervene- you could literally say that the sky is bright red and i won't correct you.

something i see a lot among current debaters debating in front of former debaters who don't coach or didn't work at a camp is that they assume that we know everything about the topic. this is a grave error. i have little to no understanding of the topic or the current debate meta, especially in the first few rounds of a tournament. i can understand the debate on a technical level perfectly fine, but don't expect me to make logical leaps for you based on information that is common knowledge on the topic.

i want an easy ballot. i will vote on arguments that are clear and portrayed as important in the second half of the debate. furthermore, i would prefer that you use the second half of the debate, especially the final focus, to analyze the clash in the round and explain why you come out on top. this should come naturally if you are weighing effectively.       

Preferences

weigh.

you do not need defense in first summary.

don't ask for evidence unless you suspect that they are misrepresenting a card. confusion about a card can be cleared up in crossfire.

don't ask before the round, "what can I do to get a 30?". i have never seen this work. 

Speakers Points

i default 28. argumentative skill, clever strategy, and conciseness are what will get you a 30. rudeness, disrespect, or general foolishness will get you a 26 or less. 

i appreciate humor.

i find the cx is key to getting high speaker points, especially among lay judges. in my opinion, to be the best debater in cx you want to be dominate without coming off as rude. 

if you flip the meta i will give you a 30.  

if you happen to be debating a team that you think is much better than you and i happen to be the judge (or even if i'm not and you just happen to be reading my paradigm), i want to let you in on a secret. anyone can beat any team. it doesn't matter how many bids they have, how many tournaments they have won, or how well known they are around the circuit- if you out debate them, you will win. the most important skill in debate is by far self-confidence. i've seen well-known teams win with shitty arguments because lesser known teams walked into the debate thinking they were gonna lose. you have to believe in yourself if you want a judge to believe your arguments. i want to make it clear that i don't want to discourage you from debating if you don't have that self-confidence as of right now- it's a much a learned skill as flowing, weighing, or arguing. in high school, i would get extremely nervous in round, especially if we were hitting a team that we thought was better than us. i would convince myself that we were going to lose before i even read our case. but after debating every weekend, cutting many cards, and writing many cases i slowly realized that i had improved substantially and the only thing holding me back was myself. even though i wasn't the best debater when i realized this, having confidence in myself allowed me to improve substantially more by taking risks i never would have dared take before. and slowly but surely, our results started to improve until people were scared to debate us. in some respects, to be good at debate you have to fake it till you make it. so to the teams who will go 2-4 this weekend, take it from someone who was in your shoes- you can win this round.  

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 have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013 and I do flow.

State the resolution (amazing how many forget to). I like frameworks but they're not musts. Introduce important acronyms.

When it comes to evidence, I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources ("Smith of Harvard" doesn't tell me much) and how the evidence supports your claim. I will ask to see evidence if I sense it's been misused.

Please weigh in summary and especially final focus.

Speak clearly. I'm not a fan of spreading.

Lincoln Douglas Judge Philosophy/Paradigm Most importantly, your case must link back to your value/value criterion. I expect clear explanations of how each contention links to the value and value criterion. In round, there should be clear clash and dialogue over conflicting interpretations of the values. Provide clear explanations of your analysis. Contentions should be well-organized and presented in a clear and logical progression of ideas. Clash and rebuttals matter and KVIs will greatly influence how I evaluate the round (if well-developed, organized, and convincing). Weighing mechanisms should be used throughout to prove that you have won and offensive strategies should ultimately determine the winner. I am not a fan of speed. LD should be accessible to a broad audience.

Public Forum: Most of my beliefs on LD stay true for PF (didactic, polite, impact heavy). Evidence should be recent and relevant. Speaking speed is not a problem. Please just make sure that the summary and final focus more clearly articulate the round and its results. Too often, PF rounds become tirelessly repetitive... avoid this by expanding on impact calculus and really commenting on how strategy worked in round.

- Lay judge with some experience judging (won't catch spreading or anything more than moderately fast speaking, won't understand terms like internal link or warrant)

- Can flow fairly well but won't catch card names

- Knows how debate works so won't evaluate things that are new in final focus, etc.

Public Forum coach for Horace Mann, competed for Miami Beach, senior in college.

I am writing this paradigm against my will because I don't think there should be paradigms in public forum debate! If you follow the rules and convince me, you will win the round. That said:

- Speed is fine, but if I look like I'm struggling to keep up or understand, slow down.

- I'm bad at getting down author names. Extend the institution name if possible (e.g. NY Times, not Smith).

- If you want me to vote on something, it should be in summary. That said, you don't need too much terminal defense in summary (but I would like to see some acknowledgment of your opponent's case).

- I prefer line by line, but obviously connect ideas, generate clash, address framework, etc.

- Second speaking team doesn't have to cover front lines in rebuttal, but it's nice if you do.

- Repeat crossfire points in speeches if you want them to be considered.

- WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENTS! Absolutely the most important thing. A good life skill too. Why does what you're saying make sense?

- Flesh things out for me! I don't want to intervene with my own thoughts/ideas, so if there's anything you want in my brain (even if its obvious, or even if you just want to express some healthy skepticism on a claim) say it out loud!

- Be funny but not mean :)

It is known that Public Forum Debate was designed to appeal to common people, as such most of your judges will be “lay” judges, meaning that they have no formal debate experience. I fall into this category.  I did not debate in high school or college; but, I do often find myself debating with my two sons.  I am judging Public Forum Debate in order to support my boys' passion for this event.  In offering my time, I'm hoping more parents will offer their time in order to support their schools as more schools attempt to create a Speech and Debate program.  

Since I come to these rounds as a parent and not a coach, I will only disclose the reasons for my decisions on the ballot and not at the end of the rounds.  Based on the tournament rules and what round of the tournament we are in, I am open to disclosing who won/loss the round.  

Other important information -   

I believe it is your job to write my ballot.  So signpost please.  Provide me with a clear way to evaluate the debate.   

I favor quality over quantity.  Logical reasoning, maturity of thought, and effectiveness of communication are of primary consideration.  Evidence, examples, and analogies are to be used for the purpose of illustration. 

When deciding the round, I try to have the following question answered - "If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?"

I appreciate funny and creative taglines.  

The Round - Defense is sticky. Use Summary and Final Focus to inform me which arguments are the most important and why they mean you win. I do not need a line-by-line recap of the debate.  If this paragraph, doesn't make sense to you, don't worry about it.  If on the other hand you do understand my points, than don't waste your time in round trying to convince me where or when your opponent dropped an argument or failed to extend.  

Speaker Points - my speaker points are based on how you did compared to past debate rounds that I have judged.  So some judge might have given you 29s and 30s for a given tournament but you might have just received a 27 from me.  Don't read that as an indication that I didn't think you did a good job; but, instead just assume I've seen better speakers in the past.  

Evidence - Don't lie about evidence.  I view evidence for purposes of illustration (see prior comments).  The quality of evidence is hard to judge.  If it takes you more than a minute to find a card after it's called for I'm simply going to strike it.  You should have quick access to your evidence.  

Crossfire - do not turn this into a brawl.  It is not necessary to raise your voices.  I will be in the same seat throughout the round.  So if I could hear you clearly prior to crossfire, assume I can hear you clearly during crossfire.  

Speed - I do not like "spreading".  If I am unable to flow your round, that onus is on you and not me.  You should ask yourself, "Do you feel lucky?" If the answer to that question is yes, than go for it.  I might be able to understand your spread.  

Be witty and you will be rewarded. Be mean and you will be punished.  Be respectful to your opponent.  

I leave you with this one final quote from the famed anime philosopher Naruto Uzumaki - "I like ramen. I hate the three minutes you have to wait while the water boils. And my dream is to one day become a Hokage."

Name: Charles Ray Miskelley

School Affiliation: Miramonte High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 4 (LD)

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? N/A

What is your current occupation?

Lawyer

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

Speed of Delivery: Slow and understandable

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line

Role of the Final Focus: Tell me why you are winning, weigh your impacts or I will not vote on them — most important part!

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Extend everything you want to weight on and have a clear narrative throughout the entire debate.

Topicality

Plans: no

Kritiks: No

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the best that I can

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?: Argument over 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?: must be extended in summary, not necessarily in rebuttal unless you are frontlining

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?: absolutely not. Must bring up arguments before grand cross for them to be weighed in the debate.

I debated PF in High School, coached in College and now work and run tournaments for the NYCUDL. I judge on the flow most heavily on the last four speeches. Please weigh and give analysis beyond dropping weighing mechanism terms. The more effective your analysis and explanation of the round the more likely I will vote for you. I won't drop your arguments if you don't bring them up in every speech, but I will weigh and value them less because that indicates to me that it is not an essential argument to your case. Be kind to your opponents I will dock your speaks for being rude to anyone in the round.

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.

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

I've judged since 2014.

Logic is as important as evidence.

Evidence is essential. I will ask for cards if I'm unsure about the evidence supporting a claim or whether the evidence has been used properly. I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources: What's the source? Who is the author? Don't say that a newspaper (e.g., Washington Post) is the author. That's where the article was published. Don't just say an institution (e.g., Harvard) is the author. That's where the author works. The author is a person. Say who she/he is. If you think her background is important (e.g., former Secretary of State), you can say so.

Announce a weighing mechanism, especially in summary and final focus. Which arguments are most important? If you don't give me a weighing mechanism, I will be forced to give the win to the side whose arguments flow through. I'd much rather give the win to the side with the best arguments on the most important issues. Tell me what's most important and why

Avoid spreading. Focus on your most important arguments. Engage the other side on those arguments. If the other side raises less important issues, explain why and then return to the most important arguments.

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

I am a parent judge who primarily judges speech events. With that being said, I analyze the arguments objectively as they are presented in the round (tech over truth, if you will). Please crystallize at the end of the round, telling me what arguments to vote for and why.

I give speaker points based on quality of delivery and demeanor (niceness counts in your favor!), as well as quality of argumentation. 

Debate Experience:

High School Policy - 3 Years

College Policy (City University of New York)- 4 Years

Cumulative Judging/Coaching (CUNY, NYU, NYCUDL, Bronx Science, Rutgers University) - ~ 5 years

GSU 2017 Edition

I'm coming out from a 2 year debate hiatus and an intensive video production/broadcasting program. I haven't been up to date with the latest literature on the debate circuit so don't assume I know your Jackson evidence is hot fire without any warrants. I also may not be your top pick for your fast and clever Consult CP debate because my hands are not fast enough to send that message to my brain. This might change with more judging throughout the season but I'll let you know.

On to the general stuff...

I evaluate the debate based on who did the best debating. That's usually done through my flow unless you create a framework for me to do otherwise. Run what argument fits your style and do it to the best of your ability. Args of the meme variety are on the table but you would have to do a lot, and I mean a lot of work, for me to vote on them. Please also note that I won't be down for your oppression good, rights Malthus type of args.

Make sure you can jump / e-mail chain files in less than 5 minutes (not for me but for the tournament staff).I will do my best to keep my rhetoric gender neutral. As a generalrule, I tend to stick to gender-neutral pronouns however I will do my due diligence to be familiar with your preferred pronouns and you have every right to correct me on the spot if I fail to do so.

Case Debate

Solid. I'm not the best public policy analyst on the circuit to know some of the nuances of your args so this would require some explanation of what these abbreviations mean and what do they look like in the context of the debate.

Politics/Disads

I'll listen/flow them. I vote on them every now and then.

CPs

As I mentioned above I'm not the best when it comes to CP theory. My general opinions on CPs, in general, is neutral so if you need someone with a firm stance on whether a consult CP is legit or not then you should defer to a different critic.

The K

They're ok.

Framework/T

Debatable.

-I did PF back in the day, and I've judged a lot of it (New to other formats though).

-I love to see strong warranting in debate, and more generally a logical progression of ideas.

Hello! My name is Grace Panetta and I did public forum debate all 4 years of high school on the Massachusetts and national circuit. I'm not an especially strict or picky judge, but if you stick the following guidelines you should do well:

1. Please.weigh.your.arguments! I know how easy it is in summary and final focus to get bogged down in specific points or cards, especially if there are little things you feel are inaccurate. But if you take a step back, weigh the 2-3 most important arguments in the round, and explain to me why you're winning, my job is going to be a lot more easier and you'll probably have a higher chance of winning. I will not do the weighing for you.

2. I consider myself to be a relatively non-interventionist judge. If you or your opponents say something I know to be factually incorrect, I won't factor it into my decision unless someone calls it out as such.

3. Please don't waste a ton of time calling cards. If something sounds too good to be true, it very well might be, and you should ask to see a card if you have serious concerns about its validity, but please try to keep it to a minimum. I was once a debater too, and can easily tell when teams call cards for the sole purpose of biding time/making their opponents nervous. As a judge, I'll only call a card if it's disputed during the round. I want to waste as little time looking at cards so our round doesn't go way over time and tab doesn't get mad at me :)

4. I know the rules of PF technically allow it, but I probably won't weigh new evidence brought up in final focus very heavily. You shouldn't even need to bring up new evidence in FF to win.

Good luck to everyone competing!

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

Don't talk too fast.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

My name is Neil Press. I debated for Cypress Bay High School in Weston, Florida from 2012-2016 in Public Forum. I am currently a graduate student at Indiana University.

I AM ALLERGIC TO SHAKING HANDS (very serious allergy could cause death for all involved)

Note: I have not judged public forum since November 2018. I have very little experience with the rule changes for 2019-2020. If you speak slower and make better arguments, I will give you higher speaker points.

If I deem your behavior in round to be excessively rude, belittling, or hateful, you will not win my ballot.

I vote off the flow. Please weigh your arguments for me or do some type of framing, otherwise I will vote off a random argument and you will not be happy. Weighing isn't just saying why something is important, it is saying why it is more important than your opponent's arguments. It requires a comparison.

I am typically tech>truth if you aren't offensive and don't go severely beyond the limits of what I should expect to hear in a Public Forum round. If you are unsure if you are crossing that line, feel free to ask me before the round.

I will only evaluate theory if it is justified, don't read it just to win. Theory needs to be necessary. As an FYI, I don’t find date theory or speaker point theory necessary. Just ask your opponents for dates before or during the round. Essentially there needs to be blatant abuse for me to even consider theory as a viable route to vote.

I can handle moderate speed, but if you go too fast I will miss arguments. I won't be mad if you go fast, just know you are taking a risk in doing so. If its not on my flow, it is your fault, not mine.

If you are going to read an overview tell me before your speech so I can flow it somewhere.

All speeches should be signposted well. If not, I will miss arguments on my flow and it will be your fault.

Summary and Final Focus parallelism is important to me. If you want me to evaluate something as an offensive argument it needs to be in the Summary. Please make it explicitly clear as to why I should be making my decision. I only vote off arguments in the final focus.

Warrants need to be extended in both the summary and the final focus. If at the end of the round I don't understand why an argument you made is true, I will not vote off of it.

Try to be respectful in crossfire as decorum in round plays a role in how I distribute speaker points. If you aggravate me enough it could affect my decision.

I refuse to vote off any type of necessary but insufficient burden structure that are topic based (Ex: In order to even consider affirming they need to prove the U.S. can be a moral actor), however a burden on a contention is fine (Ex: They have the burden to prove the probability this impact happens).

Take notes of my RFD. You have more rounds at this tournament, potentially on this topic, or later in the year. I am taking the time to give you an RFD and help you get better, you can acknowledge that by writing down what I say. I will dock your speaker points if you are disruptive or not paying attention to my RFD. Be respectful. Feel free to ask me questions about my decision, just don't be obnoxious about it.

TL;DR: I will vote off the flow. I favor heavily weighed arguments.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing, HOWEVER, Flow is not at the top of my list for winning the arguments. Rather I consider your ability to persuade me as a typical everyday citizen. Your ability to do that is unique. I am expected to come into the Debate room without any previous opinion and with a clean slate, in order to keep my own personal opinion from influencing how I choose the outcome. In exchange I expect the debaters to assume that I do not know anything more about the topic than an ordinary person. It is therefore each debaters responsibility to define acronyms and define anything that an ordinary person would not commonly know.

I’ve been judging PF for a number of years and I do practice flowing however my decisions are determined more on persuasion than flow. I believe that it is extremely important therefore to know your judge and ask the appropriate questions to make sure that what you are saying and how you’re saying is catered to the listener because even if you know what you’re saying but the judge is not able to understand it or appreciate the logic behind it then you are at a loss. In short, KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE. Feel free to ask me as many questions as needed before the round begins to clarify further. Best of luck and remember to have fun!

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.

Russ Ricciardi

Judging Paradigm - updated August 31, 2016

SUMMARY DESIGNATION FOR UPCOMING YALE 2016:  TRADITIONAL

AFFILIATION:  NONE

 DEBATE (GENERAL)

 I view academic competitive debate as a species of communication arts. You should speak clearly, and presume as little as possible about your audience and your judge. I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round. I will generally not ask to see evidence after the round, even if advised to do so by the opposing team. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly. The burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine. You might say I am rather old-fashioned. Nonetheless, I have voted for “critical philosophy” cases on the rare occasions I have heard them. The key to my ballot is to present the argument logically, clearly, and persuasively.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

 At any tournament sponsored or sanctioned by the New York State Forensic League, including particularly all Long Island Forensic League (LIFA) tournaments, I will expect that the primary focus of the debate be on the clash of values or value-criteria. This expectation is supported by the definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate as given by the NYSFL:

>> Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a form of … debate that focuses on values, their inter-relationships, and their relationship to issues of contemporary human concern. The focus is not upon facts to be ascertained or policies to be implemented, although such matters can be referred to as supporting material. Rather, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate should require the students to explain in a persuasive manner the most important values and criteria for judgment about the resolution under debate.<<

The definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate by the National Catholic Forensic League is brief:

 >>Individual students debating issues of values and philosophy.<<

 In light of the NCFL statement, at any competition under the auspices of the CFL, my judging emphasis on values and philosophy, in preference over policy considerations, will be at least as strong as the emphasis I will bring to any NYSFL-related tournaments.

 In contrast, the website of the National Speech and Debate Association (National Forensic League) provides a more flexible description:

 >>Many people refer to LD Debate as a “values” debate, as questions of morality and justice are commonly examined.<<

 The NSDA statement is much weaker that the two previous statements. It does not place values at the center of the debate necessarily, and it is a qualified descriptive statement, not a normative statement.


 As I do not find any stronger authoritative universal statement concerning the relative importance of the values framework to the policy considerations in an LD debate, I will strive to keep an open mind on this point in all competitions not sponsored by the NYSFL or NCFL or their affiliates. I will expect the debaters to each make their case as to how the debate should be decided.

PUBLIC FORUM

In the Public Forum format, debaters should strive to make themselves and their arguments intelligible to the average citizen, not presupposing that their judges or audience have any prior experience, training, or knowledge of interscholastic debate nor the topic under consideration.  

Competitive Experience:

College: None

High School: Policy debate, local circuit (1974-77)

Judging Experience:

Total four years local circuit (1981-82, 1986-87, 2014-16)
A few national circuit tournaments in the Northeast

Other Experience:

Attended teacher training track in Public Forum at 2015 Harvard Summer Workshop

If you have any questions or comments for me about this paradigm, or any other Speech and Debate matters, 
feel free to contact me at:  ricciardi.sd@gmail.com

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

Paradigm originally posted to WikiSpaces Feb. 13, 2015. Last previous revision December 22, 2015.

You don't need defense in first summary.

WS

I have been a coach for over 20 years, but like most people (especially on the East Coast) I am relatively new to this event.

I will do my best follow the NDSA norms and judge with 40% content, 40% style, and 20% strategy. I believe that the debaters should provide their own warrants based on statistics and examples. Do not spit evidence. I value debaters that can think on their feet and clearly explain their arguments.

Not a fan of a team standing constantly for POIs, but a couple of well thought out and timed POIs are appreciated. Also unless otherwise noted or argued in the framework, I will assume the motion is global.

PF

Good with speed up to a point, if you go blazing and I miss it, I can't weigh it.

I need each team to tell me why they think they won the round, so I don't have to figure it out on my own.

I have no strict rules about what has to be said in summary, but I expect consistent argumentation. Something from the first four speeches should not just pop up in the final focus as a voter.

It is important that your evidence says what you say it says. If the debaters make a card(s) important to the round, I may call for evidence.

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

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

Don't forget to have fun!

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

For debate:

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

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

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

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

Criterion only.

No spreading. If I cannot hear and flow the argument, it doesn't exist. 

Vote off framework. 

No disclosure.

No oral critiques. 

I believe there are worse things than extinction. 

tl;dr I've been coaching since 2011 and can handle any way you want to speak and debate. I encourage and support creativity as long as you follow the rules of the tournament, your league or the NSDA.

*************************************

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not disturbed by alarms for calls from your family and Slack notifications from your coach. I wear headphones and your timer going off sounds really loud.

Please "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time. Tournaments want us to start on time.

I don't disclose after rounds unless the tournament requires it. I weigh everything up to the last word of the last speech. So that means I can't start deciding until the end of the debate round, which means I need time to think and write after the round is done so I can turn the ballot in on time.

I don't like when multiple debate teams from a school use the same constructive. Write your own speeches please.

Ask me if I'm ready before you start speaking. I don't want to miss anything you say because I'm still writing notes. Actually ask me - please don't robotically ask "Judge ready? Opponent ready?" then start speaking before receiving an answer.

If the tournament or your league has a rule that judges may only consider arguments spoken about in the last speeches, then I will respect and follow that. If there is no rule saying that, then I will consider ALL arguments given at any point in the round. If you made a great point 20 minutes before the end of the round, then I'm still going to remember it even if you didn't repeat it 5 minutes before the end of the round. Techniques your coaches teach you (like to extend your arguments into the the last speeches) are not rules, they're just best practices.

Congress

I give high points/ranks to competitors who speak well and argue well. If your speech is as good as those in extemp, I will rank you highly. At a certain point in the year, everyone doing Congress is at about the same level for their argumentation skills because everyone is using the same formula for each speech. Therefore, having high-level presentation skills is what separates the top 6 from the bottom 6 for me.

I am biased against speeches that, after the first few, don't rebut or support previous arguments. As a Congress coach, I've seen the student thought process: "Goshdangit I spent all that time before the tournament writing this sponsorship speech and I'm gonna goshdarn give it." Well...ignoring the other speakers and giving a speech that just repeats the arguments of previous speakers does NOT help you get higher scores from me.

Policy

Policy is rare in the 2 states where I've judged, so I haven’t judged it much. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win. I don’t read cases or evidence that you share - I judge based only on what you say so that there is no confusion about what was said vs what was written. I don’t mind spreading as long as you’re understandable, but I’m not a perfect flow-er so I’m going to miss some things and will depend on you to tell me what you think is important after the first constructives. I judge based on who was more persuasive as opposed to who covered more points - this usually means if you have some squirrelly argument I will ignore it and go with the arguments that makes more real-world sense. Speaking of squirrelly arguments - I am so sorry but "everything leads to nuclear war" is hack. We were saying the same thing in the 80’s and it feels played out. If it makes sense that something might lead to nuclear war, like militarization of the Arctic, then I’ll accept it. But when you try to say something like more laptop manufacturing in Malaysia or the military playing Fall Guys on Twitch will lead to nuclear war, you’re going to have to work REALLY HARD to get me to give that any credence. I do not turn my brain off during rounds - there's no such thing as tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas

My LD preferences are pretty much the same as Policy above. There’s not a lot of progressive in my area, so I don’t know all the jargon. I don’t care if you do progressive or traditional, as long as I understand what you’re talking about. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

Public Forum

The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

SPEECH/IE PREFERENCES

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a national circuit final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own unnoticed habits.

Please don't make fake changes of position. The purpose of changing positions is so that different parts of the audience can see you better. In front of a camera, this means you have ZERO need to change position. Stay centered in the frame just like a news reporter. Please don't do the golden triangle in front of a camera - people whose job is in front of a camera in real life don't do this. In-person in a normal classroom at a tournament, change position based on the people in the room. Don't go over there and talk to a fake audience if no one is actually sitting over there. Adjust your position changes to the actual people in the room you're in. Changing positions during your speech's transitions is WHEN you do it, NOT WHY.

Events I have judged but not enough to have preferences for:

BQ, Extemp Debate, original spoken word, duo improv, radio speaking, broadcast announcing, pro/con challenge, and world schools.

Events I haven’t judged:

Parliamentary, Mock Trial

My experience

High school coach and classroom Public Speaking teacher from 2011-2018, then 2021 to present. Have coached/taught: PF, LD, Congress, and all Speech events. Have coached students to TOC, NCFL and NSDA in PF, OO and POI. Have coached students to state championships for PF, LD, Congress, OO, POI, Extemp and Humorous.

Teacher since 2003.

Teaching private public speaking lessons to adults since 2019.

I judged at nearly a hundred online tournaments during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Online platforms I've judged on so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents, Classrooms.cloud, HopIn and Yaatly.

I've completed the NSDA/NFHS online judge training including the cultural competency section.

I know how to be a Parliamentarian for Student Congress.

I know how to be an Extemp proctor.

In high school I did policy and prose/poetry.

I speak Spanish and Portuguese.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

I'm a parent judge, and have been judging at various public forum tournaments for the past 6 years.

I have worked for 30+ years as a litigating attorney, so I understand what works as a persuasive argument. I value logical arguments supported by evidence (not just conclusory statements). Tie your arguments to the resolution, and explain based on the evidence and logic why I should vote in your favor on the merits. You should address and not ignore your adversaries' points.

Please do not speak too fast, make sure you have the evidence ready and available if it is called for, and be civil and respectful at all times.

Lay judge who votes on quality and weighing of arguments.

Don't go tech, but I can deal with complex arguments if explained well.

Be polite to you opponents. Snide or disparaging remarks are not appreciated. Debating is more than arguing.

I will call cards myself if something sounds wrong. If you deliberately misuse evidence, it will undermine your credibility overall with me in the round.

ask before the round if you feel inclined to 

About me:

- I debated policy 4 years at James Logan High School, mostly on the circuit

- I now coach and judge intermittently

My feelings towards certain positions:

T and Theory

Outline an abuse story. Defend a world interpretation.

Disad/Case

Weigh worlds. Explain link stories. I will vote on terminal non uniqueness.

Counterplans

Textual competition counts as competition. Win a net benefit.

The K

Explain the alt. Be extremely clear with framework. Explain the role of the ballot. Embed clash and make comparisons in your overviews.

Pofo

Be respectful. Arguments in the final focus need to be in the summary, warranted. Weighing should start in the summary. Don't be unreasonably omitting defense in the first summary.

Speaks

If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks. If you're good for debate, you'll get better speaks (s/o Phoebe Kuo).

Miscellaneous

You can try to earn +.1 speak for making @four_pins -esque jokes.

I debated in public forum for Nueva last year. My greatest accolade was being 1st seed at the TOC my senior year, I was a competent flow/tech debater. I am currently debating for Stanford, and have competed in APDA (College Parli) and British Parli tournaments. Most of the following are relevant to PF, but the general idea applies to most events. A few things to keep in mind:

1. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets. If you have really important responses, it’s probably in your best interest to slow down at least for the tag.

2. Cross is for YOU. You can literally only lose speaker points by being annoying and/or aggressive. I would like to see you ask clarifying questions to set up a bomb rebuttal/summary/FF. Every time you yell I will take off .5 speaker points. Please don’t yell unless it is funny. People really don't seem to understand this one. I. Literally. Don't. Flow. A. Single. Thing. In. Cross. Unless. It. Is. An. Ad Hominem. This means you shouldn't be looking at me expectantly for me to flow or understand. bring it up in a speech.

3. I like roadmaps, but only tell me flow order and if there is an overview where you will be addressing it.

4. Theory and shit: I lost on theory enough to become relatively competent at evaluating it, but consider me the flay judge of theory. If you want me to vote on it you better have a good goddamn reason.

5. Ask me questions before the round if you have questions on what I would like to see in each individual speech. If you are REALLY curious you can check out my many horribly embarrassing rounds that have been posted to YouTube (I mean seriously, why did people only post the rounds where I get destroyed?!?!).

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 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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a lay judge who has been judging various categories of speech and debate for five years. I am a higher education administrator and an attorney.

In PF I appreciate a well reasoned argument and a respectful discourse. I prefer that the question be clearly addressed. If your arguments are too theoretical and off topic, I will not be judging in your favor.

In judging LD I prefer fairly straight forward cases that are clear and directly connected to the topic. If you are going to argue theory, it needs to be connected to the topic you you risk losing me. Similarly, counter plans are OK as long as I can follow the connection to the resolution. Spreading is a risky proposition because if I can't follow and understand what you are saying I can't score it.

I am a higher education & fitness professional. I have judged speech and debate over the last 4 years and have experience judging public forum, congress, and oratory. I appreciate a well-organized and thorough argument; spreading is discouraged since if I can't understand you, I can't judge you. Please remain professional and concise in order to prove your case in a mature and convincing manner.

Pronouns: she/her

Experience: I debated two years of Policy and two years of PF at Dowling Catholic High School in West Des Moines, Iowa. I won the state title in PF in 2015 and competed at Nationals in Dallas in Worlds Debate that same year. I also interned for the NSDA in the summer of 2018. I’m now president of the Fordham University Debate Society which competes on the American/British Parliamentary circuits.

Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Don’t sacrifice clarity to try to get more on the flow.

Please give off-time road maps and signpost.

Try to avoid theory arguments, as I think they bog down the debate given your time constraints. I will only vote on theory if I have no doubts that in-round abuse has occured. I would much rather adjudicate based on the substance on the flow.

Clash and weighing are essential. This means not just extending your arguments, but telling me why they specifically defeat that of your opponents. The Final Focus should write my ballot for me, and I will only vote on offense in the Final Focus if it was in Summary. That said, do not feel obligated to bring every piece of evidence from your constructive all the way into FF. If you don't think an argument/impact isn't getting you anywhere, kick it and spend more time on the argument that is.

Lastly, be nice. If you're rude in crossfire/the debate as a whole it will be reflected in your speaks. People do this activity because it's fun, and even if the goal is to defeat your opponent you don't need to set out to ruin their day in the process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

awelton001@gmail.com for questions

I'm the coach at Boston Latin School, and I've been coaching at the high school and college level for about the last 15 years. I've done most forms of debate at one time or another, including Policy, Parli, LD, and even Congress and Worlds. I'm generally fairly well versed in the topic area, but it doesn't hurt to define unusual acronyms the first time you use them. Also, just because I can follow technical debate it doesn't mean that you need to be a spewtron with a million cards to impress me. Especially in PF I tend to appreciate a slower, more well reasoned case over a ton of carded claims any day.

Specific things to know for me as a judge:

1. Be honest about the flow and extend arguments by tag, not by citation. I like to think I can generally flow decently well. Repeatedly telling me your opponents dropped something that they actually had multiple responses to it tends to annoy me and degrade your credibility (and speaker points) pretty quickly. That said - don't assume I've snagged every card citation you blitzed in your constructive. When you extend carded arguments, extend via the tag - not via the citation. Even if I do have the cite for that specific card it's going to take me longer to find it that way and while I'm doing that I'm paying less attention to what you're saying.

2. Don't be a [jerk]. I don't generally flow CX, though I do listen and may jot down relevant things. DON'T BE A JERK IN CX (or elsewhere). Like many people, I tend to have a bit of a subconscious bias to see kinder and more respectful people as more reasonable and more likely to be correct. So even if you're not interested in kindness for its own sake (which I hope you would be), consider it a competitively useful trait to develop if you're stuck with me as a judge : )

3. Warrants really matter. I generally care much more about warrants than I do about citations. That means that putting a citation behind a claim without actually explaining why it makes logical sense won't do you a ton of good. There are a fair number of teams that cut cards for claims rather than the warranting behind them, and that practice won't go very far against any opponent who can explain the logical problems behind your assertion.

4. Extend Offense in Summary, Defense extensions are optional there. What it says. Any offense that isn't in the Summary generally doesn't exist for me in the Final Focus. Extending your offense though ink also doesn't do much - make sure to answer the rebuttal args against whatever offense you want to carry though. On the flip-side, If you have a really important defensive argument from Rebuttal that you want to hi-light, it certainly doesn't hurt to flag that in the Summary, though I will assume those arguments are still live unless they're responded to by your opponents

5. Explicitly weigh impacts. Every judge always tells you to weigh stuff, and I'll do the same, but what I mean specifically is: "tell me why the arguments you win are more important than the arguments you might lose." At the end of the vast majority of rounds each side is winning some stuff. If you don't directly compare the issues that are still alive at the end of the round, you force me to do it, and that means you lose a lot of control over the outcome. As a follow up (especially as the first speaker) make sure to compare your impacts against the best impacts they could reasonably claim, not the weakest.

6. Collapse down. I respect strategic concession - make choices and focus on where you're most likely to win. By the Summary you should have an idea where you're likely to win and where you're likely to lose. If you try to go for everything in the last two speeches you are unlikely to have enough explanation on anything to be persuasive.

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask.

Good luck, have fun, and learn things.

Background

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

Updated for Online Debate

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

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

Paradigm

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

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. & Taxation LL.M Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law

Experience:

Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

Summary should line up with final focus. 

Don't spread.

Weigh your args.

Will add speakers points for (good) puns/jokes.

Worlds style debating is an exciting debate format - that offers new challenges to debaters; not the least of which is working with a larger team.

Do : show team cohesion. Your three speakers will look that much more formidable if the themes and arguments brought up by your first speaker are built upon and recapitulated by your second and third speaker.

Do not : speak or gesture between yourselves during round such that it becomes a distraction

Do not : trot out a series of cards and expect me to make the logical links in the argument.

Do not (further) : make the primary justification of an argument simply because an "expert" in a "think tank" said so

Do : attack your opponent's model from the outset

Do (further): point out to me that the proposition has shifted their case, especially in light of your attacks

Do : refute your opponent's arguments by collapsing individual lines of argument into themes

Do not : deliver a line-by-line, point-by-point refutation - one, it shows insufficient synthesis and understanding of the round, and two, you will likely start spreading too much for my liking

Do: bring up a variety of examples to support your argument using a global perspective (I refer to name of this style of debate - worlds)

Do not : limit your viewpoints to American-centric examples or viewpoints

Do: offer POIs that are short and succint

Do not : continue standing, make faces, loudly sigh or otherwise disturb the round if you have been waved down

I did PF for 4 years at Byram Hills. My paradigm's pretty simple:

- Collapse and weigh at the end of the round. If you want me to vote on an argument please do the work for me and tell me why. Do not try to extend everything.

- Any and all offense you want me to consider needs to be in BOTH summary and final focus, including turns. That being said, DON'T extend through ink.

- No, I don't require defense in summary, but I strongly suggest it, especially for second speaking teams. I would also really prefer extensions of defense in first summary IF the second rebuttal frontlines case.

- On that note, I think it's probably strategic for second speaking teams to frontline in rebuttal, but I don't require it.

- I won't call for evidence unless it's been contested in the round and I'm told to call for it, so if your opponents miscut something TELL ME and I will call for it.

- Roadmaps aren't necessary. Definitely sign post though.

- Speed is fine, but please don't spread - clarity is a requirement for me to be able to judge.

- I am old and never debated progressive arguments myself, so if you want to run Theory or Ks you need to explain them really well. If these types of arguments are run properly in front of me and not adequately responded to, I will vote for them. That being said, I don't want to hear a full T shell, and Ks need a role of the ballot argument.

Be nice! Have fun! Talk pretty!

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Former PF debater for Regis High School, currently working in venture capital.

Things that I like: clear weighing, telling me where to look on the flow when you are responding to something, consistent extensions, using stats to support logical arguments. OK with speed - will say clear when I can't understand you - and ok with intensity but be nice.

Things I don't like: bickering in CX, being rude, unorganized speeches.

Any questions please ask.