I am a parent judge with experience judging for over a year.

I prefer traditional debate, where the debater signposts and speaks at a conversational speed.  Be clear and precise with your debate. I do not like kritiks. An argument must include a claim, a warrant, and an impact.  Evidence and qualifications are important: simply explaining your argument and why it is right is not sufficient, rather you must contest the quality and content of evidence or argument your opponents are making.

All arguments must make sense or I will not vote for them.  I am not very familiar with the topic so explain terminology to me.

You MUST give voters at the end of the round.

I pride myself on my ability to be fair-minded during the debate.  I will evaluate the debate in the manner that has been laid out for me. 

Hello,

My name is Sarah Bassil. I have been involved in debate for many years in various capacities as a debater, judge and coach. I have no preferences on the pace of your speaking so long as it is comprehensible. In efforts to be efficient, I have put together a simple list of my judging preferences:

-Roadmaps are greatly encouraged

-Sources should not be from newspapers or journalist. They are inherently bias and therefore weaken your argument.

-Including impacts in the structure of the contentions is most important in a proper case.

-Unless your definitions differ greatly from your opponents, please do not waste both of our time by defining them.

-Please use all of your allocated time, even if it just to read through the subpoints/impacts.

-Respect in the round, especially during cross x/grand cross x, cannot be stressed enough.

-Good public speaking skills starts with being prepared and confident with your case. I highly encourage students to have memorized a least 20% of their case in efforts to ensure they have good/decent eye contact.

Debate is an activity where we learn and grow as students together, so come with a positive attitude. Feel free to ask any questions before/after the round!

I am a parent judge and this is my third invitational.

1. Speak clearly and a moderate speed. Accentuate the points with voice inflections.

2. Be respectful to each other

3.Best arguments win which are supported by evidence. Clearly tell me why you think you have won the round.

4. Framework- tell me why yours is better.

5. Voting issues- State then at the end of your last speeches

6. Value- uphold your value . I’ll measure which one applies to resolution after I hear all arguments. Which debator convinced me that he/she best supports value.

7. Criteria -will be used to measure the value

8.Style- Make significant points clear!!! Not at the same time, emphasize with voice inflections.

9. Drops- If contentions were dropped by opponent call it out to me, Accentuate it!!!

10. Have fun and Good Luck!!!!

I'm a junior at Bryn Mawr studying Political Science and Classics. I did debate for 4 years in high school (Congress, so consider me a lay-person when it comes to PF).

Speak clearly and strategically, and signpost your argument. If you start spreading, I won't follow your argument. If you haven't structured your argument, I won't follow your argument. If I misunderstand your argument, it's because you don't understand your own argument well enough to articulate it or convince others.

Use evidence, cite fully and honestly, don't misrepresent statistics. Impact everything, feel free to meta-analyze impacts. How well you do in cross will heavily impact my decision. Tell me how you want the debate evaluated. Be aggressive, be sarcastic, be courteous.

My name is Rosemary Fox. My daughter has been involved in debate for two years. I am relatively new to judging and am interested in clear, understandable and concise arguments.

I am a volunteer parent judge with experience in the Wilson Wyatt Debate League and the Kentucky Debate League.

I look for strong arguments, contentions, supported by logic and facts. Quality and clarity are more important than quantity with respect to factual support. I look for strong rebuttals and lively exchanges. Strong command of the issue and preparedness are readily apparent.

I look for clear, logical, and well-supported arguments. Signposting and a conversational pace of speed are important. I also look for a debater to actually engage his or her opponent's arguments, not just to reiterate their own points that were made in their initial case.

I do not like speed, spreading, excessive jargon, critiques, or other unconventional arguments.

Speak clearly

Social studies teacher that appreciates the value of an organized and well articulated debate, meaning, clear contentions with strong supporting evidence. I am conscious to put my own subjective bias on the back burner and will intently listen to your case. You need to be able to understand the evidence aside from just blatantly repeating it from a card. Speed should be appropriate for full articulation and processing for the other team and judge. Spreading should be avoided.

Framework of your speech should be based on common sense to a point but should also show some building significance as you move through the round.

Not attacking all of an opponents contentions isn't a deal breaker in my final decision. Rather, teams should present a strong case that doesn't simply rely on disagreeing with opponent but should refute it and use that refutation to advance your case, thus earning points. That said, this attack should maintain decorum and civility in the round. Teams that break this decorum and civility are highly frowned upon.

Off time road maps, eh. Your speech should be clear enough for me to figure that out. Road maps will be on your running time.

Finally, in in your final focus, I need to hear you articulate a "so what?" that crystallizes and wraps up your overall argument while bringing in final information that was brought up in round.

I have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.

Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.

Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.

Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.

Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.

Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.

CFL Policy Update

Judged alot of policy in my career, understand most policy arguments but you should walk me through voting off them (Ks, Topicality, etc. I am comfortable with. Speed isnt an issue if you disclose and honestly probably shouldnt be even if you do not so dont feel obligated.

Email for disclosure brendanjkane1998@gmail.com

(About Me:

I am the Assistant Coach at Xaverian in New York City, in charge of debate (Mainly congress and PF but I have a background in policy and LD) Since I'm mainly going to be judging Congress and Public Forum Debate this year I will break down my paradigm into congress and PF

FOR PF

TLDR tabula rasa - go fast but slow on tags, I like disclosure and evaluate basically any arg but walk me through it

General

At heart I am a tech over truth Flow centric judge who pretty much defaults to a standard offense/defense paradigm. I try my hardest not to be an interventionist IE i try and be tabula rasa. If you plan on doing any weird strategies just run it by me before he round (I.E. run a condo theory shell), because it's very possible I don't have experience with that particular argument(I never really ran them much but I understand most). If I'm not familiar with a technical pre fiat argument, walk me through it because I will be open to voting for it.

I will disclose if the tournament let's me, if they don't and you see me outside of round and I'm not doing anything, feel free to approach me and I'll gladly take out my flow and discuss the round.

Speed

I was always on the faster side so I'm cool with speed, just be aware, if you go super fast, I will stop flowing card names so try not to just extend a card by author last name but instead what it says too (If you slow down on tags I should be fine but most people don't).

LMK before the round if yall plan to be fast or not, I prefer for faster rounds to flow on paper since I am just more use to it from years of debating but if you guys plan to go like 200 WPM I will just flow on my laptop.

Feel free to ask in round if I have been flowing cards but anything south of like 300 I should be able to flow cards unless unforeseen circumstances occur.

If you disclose and I am on the email chain feel free to go as fast as you want.

Evidence Standards

I prefer dates in case and blocks(I get it if you don't but in the future please try). If you lie about evidence I'm at minimum dropping the evidence and at worst dropping you. I will call for evidence if:

A. I'm told to.

B. It's crucial in my decision.

C. I have reason to believe it doesn't say what you say it says

Summary/FF

I expect in first summary you to extend case (PLEASE FRONTLINE YOUR OPPONENT'S RESPONSES) and to extend turns. Terminal Defense does not have to be in first summary. For second summary I expect anything you plan on having be in FF be in summary.

Theory

I don't have the highest threshold for theory but I'll certainly evaluate the argument if it's made.

IDC if it is shell or spike format I will evaluate either.

Road maps

For road maps, I'd much prefer you just tell me where you start if you aren't doing anything insane. If you plan on running an overview I need you to tell me where to flow it.

If the flow gets super super messy feel free to literally take me step by step with your roadmap I trust your judgement here.

Signposting

Just please do it.

It is not my obligation to figure out where things go in a debate- if you signpost poorly things will get lost and I won't evaluate responses you give

Speaker Points (also addresses disclosure)

SO this is the thing that is largest variable in my judging from tournament to tournament. If you respect that I am a flow judge you will probably get good speaks, but how good varies by weekend since I still haven't fully fleshed out how I want my speaker points scale to work out.

No matter what if you disclose your case to your opponents (if you email add me to the email chain brendanjkane 1998@gmail.com so I can verify and because it will make my life easier to flow) I will give .5 extra speaks for doing so.

If it is already on the PF wiki just LMK

Misc

If I flowed on my laptop feel free to email me after with what round and flight I judged you and I can give you my flow.

If anything is unclear in my RFD or comments feel free to email me.

You can be funny and I will appreciate that but if you cross the line I will lower speaks.

If your case is like 1K plus words I will flow it on 2 pieces of paper so signpost or else things will get lost.

Don't feel you have to wait for me to enter the room or do a coin flip.

I am human I may make the wrong decision but in the end I will try my best to fairly evaluate the round.

@PFVideos If someone wants to record the round plz get consent from both teams (if one team competing is recording PLZ ask the other if this is okay) if I discover one team is recording without consent I will drop that team. If you get consent feel free to record my RFD if you want

Still have yet to squirrel

Congress

General

So I've watched and competed in a lot of congress rounds and am an assistant coach mainly in congress. If I am parling a round you are in I will track reverse activity(If PO is using it to select questioners) and recency for speeches. If I am not parling I will not, but I usually can tell even without a recency chart if you mess up. I tend to flow the round, and I write my ballot during questioning(if there is no questioning, then I will not be flowing or else I would not have time to write your ballots).

Feel free to ask me questions about your performance after I've submitted my ballot (if I'm parling between session or after the tournament), I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

If I parli

very non interventionist or I try to be unless an issue with fairness arises

Authorships/Sponsors

I unlike most other judges truly value a solid author that sets up a debate. I understand that in the SQuo, authors (especially on the second bill of a session) are really discouraged and I get it, but I personally make an effort to try to not continue that skew.

Something also that differentiates me is that if your bill produces a solid, balanced debate, I will give you a bonus for it(this is my way of rewarding good, balanced bills).

Clash/Preemptive Responses

In regards to Clash, I expect It in every speech past the first affirmative.

For preemptive responses, I feel they often are disjointed whenever I hear them (that shouldn't discourage you but should let you know that I rarely see it done properly). If it's done properly I'll appreciate it

Late Speeches

In later speeches I expect more clash than new arguments.

Just aside I have noticed in my own judging that I rank people who frame debates very well- take that how you will

IE Events

I don't think anyone has ever looked at an IE paradigm, if I'm judging you in a speech round and you've read this please tell me, since it enough people do I will write one.

If you have any questions for me before your speech feel free to ask.

I am new to judging PF, but I did policy debate and extemp back in the day. I also have a background in law. I think debate should ultimately be about persuading an audience. I am your audience, so make sure I can hear, understand, and process your arguments. Evidence is important, but a logical argument with reasoning that you truly understand is even more important. I expect you to roadmap your argument, highlight your voters, and explain why you should win the round. You should be assertive but civil in crossfire.

I am a more or less novice judge, having competed in Public Forum debate for two years in high school, with little experience in judging. The main criterion that I will be looking for from competitors is clarity of argument. I need to be able to understand exactly of what I am attempting to be convinced, and why your side is better than that of the opponent. I will be looking for personalized arguments that are grounded in fact but conveyed in a narrative sense, such that I am drawn into your contentions and have a clear notion of what they are. Do not speak too quickly to get out your last few points at the expense of rushing through those that are more important. Also, while it is important to be argumentative, especially in crossfire rounds, do not attack your opponent personally or negate their arguments without support. Make sure that your evidence is portrayed in an organized fashion, and that you can be ready to call upon a source at a moment's notice.

I want to hear nice, clear, understandable arguments. I don't appreciate debaters who talk over other people or make unnecessarily rude remarks.

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

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!

I am a parent judge so speak at a reasonable pace, if you are too fast I won’t be able to keep up. Extend important arguments and articulate your points clearly. Be respectful to the other team. You will see my decision on tabroom.

I did Public Forum for four years in high school and now judge PF and LD.

I primarily favor arguments that are not only backed by evidence, but more importantly, have a firm logical basis (I.e. warrants).

I flow so do not try to accuse the other side of saying or not saying something that they did not or did say because if it was important to the round, I wrote it down and can tell when you are using that as a scape-goat argument.

Another note on flowing--please use a weighing mechanism. If you don't give me one then I am forced to try and sort through the arguments on my own which probably will make the round closer than it should have been. So, do not leave that up to me and instead give me a clear reason for why your world is better.

I can handle a bit of speed but if I cannot understand what you're saying, I can't flow it so please no spreading. Keep your arguments clear--especially tag lines for contentions.

I do not mind if you want to finish your sentence after time is up, but anything extensive where I have to audibly tell you to stop will cause me to look unfavorably upon you.

I do not mind time signals, so please just ask.

Please no off time road maps. Anything you say during the round is to advance your side and therefore should be on your time.

I agree with everything here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=61812

For Blake 2020: Absolutely zero prior knowledge. Please explain everything to me.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

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

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

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

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

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

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

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

Good luck and have fun!

I judged PF and Congress last year and am doing LD judging this year. As a parent judge, I really enjoy and value the professionalism and courtesy displayed by the debaters at such a young age. For me, a lot of arguments are not necessarily a clincher. I would rather have lesser arguments, but argued clearly, passionately and with authority. Needless to say, keeping civility through the debate is a must.

PF:

Debated PF throughout middle school/HS, policy last year in college.

-Evidence standards are important. I'm not particularly sympathetic to teams that misrepresent evidence. Don't do it.

-Clear, well thought out arguments will be rewarded with speaker points. A blippy response with no corresponding warrant is not an argument. I will evaluate these responses as such.

-Essentially anything is fine with me. Speed, technical debate, etc. Whatever you do, do it well.

Any questions, feel free to ask me in round.

Background/Experience: I coach LD and PF at Achievement First Brooklyn High School and previously competed in both local and circuit PF and extemp in high school. I am currently in my second year at Barnard College, where I am double-majoring in political science and economics. In addition to my competition and coaching background, I am also the founder and director of Open Access Debate and curriculum director at Youth For Debate at Columbia.

Judging Philosophy: I strongly believe that not only should debate be an accessible activity, but it should also create accessible spaces in which people are free to discuss and challenge structures of oppression. You should be respectful of your opponent, judge(s), and observers and broach sensitive topics with caution (i.e., avoiding graphic descriptions of violence, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc./including a trigger warning if you believe it is necessary to your case).

Kritiks/Theory: I am familiar with kritiks and have no problem with you using them in round as long as they are purposeful and don't distract from the main issues at hand. However, I don't believe they are necessary to win the round. As for theory arguments, please don't use them unless there is actual abuse in round.

Performance: I'm fine with speed and will ask you to slow down or speak more clearly if I can't understand you. I keep a detailed flow so if you are speaking at supersonic speed, I probably won't be able to note all of the points you are trying to get across and thus am less likely to weigh them when reviewing the flow as I am making my decision. I don't believe that using jargon will serve your case in any meaningful way so please keep it to a minimum. I'm not looking for an Oscar-winning performance but a basic level of emotion/enthusiasm in addition to coherence would be much appreciated. With that being said, performance doesn't factor into my decision unless it interferes with my ability to understand your arguments.

Other Case Aspects: Please provide a value and criterion and clearly define and justify each–– the purpose of debate is to persuade and if I don't understand the foundation that your case is built upon then your arguments are less likely to resonate with me. As a former PF debater, I love evidence and will respond well to arguments grounded in empirics. However, I also appreciate good normative ethics debate. As long as you provide warrants for your contentions, you're golden.

I had been a parent judge for many years. i had judged PF, LD and speech on different levels and on local and national level tournaments. I rely both evidence and pragmatic analysis for my decision.