Hello and welcome to my paradigm! This is quite lengthy but the super tldr is that I’m a classic PF flow debater from the Northeast with a slight traditionalist leaning. So I understand all the jargon but I prefer debaters to have a persuasive element of some sort.

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Byram Hills High School in Westchester, NY.

How To Get My Ballot

Write it for me. I hate interventionist judging, so don’t make me do it. Extend offense through summary and final focus, don’t extend through ink, and weigh. Please for the love of God weigh.

I’m a big believer in parallelism; that is, that any offense in final focus should have been in summary. This includes turns. Defense is handled slightly differently (see below).

The round should be collapsed down to a number of voting points, almost never more than 2-3 overarching issues. It should be clear what your team’s stance on each voter is and what your response is to your opponent’s arguments.

To accomplish that, speeches should be signposted, arguments should be warranted, and impacts should be weighed.

More Nuanced/Uncommon Thoughts and Opinions

1. TIME ALL SPEECHES. I will be timing when I remember to, but if your opponent speaks for longer than allowed, it is your job to signal to me that they are overtime (raise your hand/timer, don't start shouting at them to stop talking).

2. I don’t really believe in plans in public forum. I think if you can warrant that your advocacy is probable under the most likely implementation of the resolution, go wild. But the harder it is for you to win that link, the harder it will be for you to get offense.

2. I have minimal experience with theory in debate, and I don’t think it should be the crux of every debate. If your opponents violate some rule or norm that you genuinely believe is so harmful to debate that you think the rest of the round should be dedicated to it, fine. But frivolous theory is bad for debate and I have a low tolerance for it.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not. That said, if your rebuttal contained some overarching response or other singular piece of defense that is vital to your advocacy and strategy, you should probably include it for the sake of consistency.

4. I am receptive to most arguments you could make, but the less nuanced and sensical your argument, the more receptive I am to responses like, “Their link doesn’t make sense.” That said, in most cases simply telling me they don’t have a warrant (when I know they do) isn’t even going to end up on my flow.

5. I’m fine with you telling me what the order of your speech will be, but if you tell me you’re going to give me an ‘off time road map’ and then tell me the basic structure of a rebuttal (I’m going to respond to my opponent’s case and defend my own if time allows), I’m going to be annoyed. All that being said, just signpost in your speech and I’ll follow along better and be much happier.

6. You should probably read dates because the rules say you have to read dates. I don't think it justifies losing you the round but if your opponent brings up your lack of date-reading in a speech, I consider it an argument that justifies dropping any specific cards they point out from my flow.

7. I’m chill with overviews, pre-reqs, case turns, cross application, etc. in rebuttal, but if your rebuttal is just another contention I’m gonna be annoyed and my threshold for your opponent’s responses will be lower. Make your case in case. Rebuttal should be defense and offense that directly interacts with your opponent’s case.

8. I despise intervening, and you despise when judges intervene. Please for love of god weigh your impacts against your opponents’ so I have a way of explaining my ballot that doesn’t sound like intervention.

9. Your arguments need warrants. I don’t care if you make a 12 card dump onto a contention, if warrants aren’t explained I will not want to evaluate them. Note: An author saying something is true is not a warrant.

10. Speeches should be neither a dump of pure evidence or purely your own analysis and opinions. Rather, you should be able to weave both together in a way that is both strategic and persuasive.

11. I’m a personal believer that util is trutil but I’m accepting of other moral frameworks as long as they are warranted. Otherwise, I default to util because that’s what most debaters assume anyway.

12. Turns you want me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Turns that don’t get extended still count as ink but I’m not going to sign my ballot on them as offense.

13. Speed is, in my backwoods New Yorker opinion, not what PF is about. You should be able to get everything on the flow you need in the allotted time without going too far from a conversational pace. I will always try to flow your arguments, but people are always less clear when they speak faster and at a certain point I won’t be able to understand you. Focus on word economy and better argument selection and you won’t need to spread.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points based on persuasion and strategy. 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 will call for evidence only for these four reasons.

1. Someone who’s debating tells me to (Do this if your opponents pull some cheese.)

2. I can’t make a decision without evaluating a piece of evidence.

3. 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.

4. 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. If my RFD was short, it was because the tournament made me do it and you can find me later with additional questions. If I don't disclose, the tournament made me do it.

Happy Debating!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

Abe Benghiat:

School Affiliation: Lexington High School, Colgate University

Years Debated: 4 (policy)

It's your round.  Do what you want and be clear on what you want me to vote on.  To me, debate is a game so have fun.

Two main rules: try your best and be on time. Then you can't do terribly.

Any questions are fair game pre-round.

Here are a few things that each team should know about me:

I have never debated.

I am a typical parent judge.

Speak slowly enough so I can follow what you are saying and take notes.

Emphasize your main points.

Please do your own timing.

Pro sits on my left.

I am the father of a Lexington policy debater. I have been trained as a judge and have been judging PF debates for four years, perhaps ten tournaments so far.

I am very careful to ignore my own opinions, and I try hard to listen to your arguments and make a fair decision. I take lots of notes, so it helps me a great deal if you don't speak too quickly, and if you speak loudly enough for me to hear easily.

I think debate is a great activity, and I respect you enormously for the good thought and hard work you invest in preparing your arguments. Because of that, I always try to give some feedback at the end of a debate, even when the tournament schedule is rushed.

** For Policy Debaters, 2020-2021. My graduate academic background is in comparative criminal justice, meaning that I probably have a lot more content familiarity than a typical judge, albeit not necessarily the debate world version of the literature. I will probably have opinions about some of your sources. Ask if you think this may help or hurt you **

I am a former policy debater and have coached and judged (at least 100 rounds of each) policy, public forum and LD debate. I flow and can whatever speed you want to throw at me, but I'm not impressed by it. I am old enough to remember LD and Public Forum debate in their infancy and what traditional policy debate was.

There are no formal rules in debate; please do not assert so in the round. There are rules about evidence that you should adhere to . . .

Debate is both a competition and an educational activity, and as a judge, I try my best to be fair and to promote debate as much as possible as a learning activity. I know debaters work hard and I try not to spoil that work by inserting myself into the round. As a result, I try as much as possible to let the round be decided by you, the debaters, and not my preferences, knowledge or values as a judge. Concretely this means:

I will not vote based on whether I like or dislike you, notions of debate etiquette or style of debate. If you behave in a way that would be a concern for a good Human Resources director, I will assess it in your speaker points, not the decision for the round.

All debaters have to argue both sides of any topic or resolution; I generally do not like arguments that systematically favor one side (pro or con; aff or neg) over the other.

I think evidence is important, not because evidence makes things magically true, but because it allows me to anchor your claims to some empirical reality. Emphasizing evidence allows me to reward you for doing the learning and work before the round. Both sides have access to the same evidence. This is the easiest way for me to be fair and promote learning as a judge. You should be able to produce any evidence read in your opening speeches within 30 seconds, WIFI willing, and you should be able to produce any source read in any speech within a few minutes.

Evidence is not necessary; you can assume that I am a fairly well-read and knowledgeable person who cares about public policy and public affairs. However, I do not agree with those who think their analytical arguments somehow trump expert analysis and sources. I have watched a lot of debate rounds over a long time in a variety of frameworks, I have yet to see Ciceronian rhetoric or Socratic logic appear. I find that what most take for "analysis" is bowlderized ECON 101 on domestic topics and IR Realism for foreign policy topics; the world is much more complex than this. Policy analysis is operationalized common sense, but there is more than one common sense out there.

I try to decide the round by evaluating two competing RFD presented in the FF or 2AR/2NR. I then use my flow of the round to hypothesis-test the RFD presented to me.

During the round, if one team clearly seems to be winning, what I am thinking about is: "what would the team that is currently losing need to do to win this round?" As a result, I tend to be a squirrel on most elimination round panels.

While I think that there

MAGIC: another way to weigh arguments (Adapted from Yale Psychologist, Robert Abelson, Statistics as Principled Argument), substitute the words "arguments" or "evidence" for "effects" and I think this is a good framework to weigh.

1. Magnitude - How big is the effect? Large effects are more compelling than small ones.
2. Articulation - How specific is it? Precise arguments are more compelling than imprecise ones.
3. Generality - How generally does it apply? More general evidence and arguments are more compelling than less general ones. Claims that would interest a more general audience are more compelling.
4. Interestingness - interesting arguments/evidence are those that "have the potential, through empirical analysis, to change what people believe about an important issue". More interesting arguments are more compelling than less interesting ones.
5. Credibility - Credible claims are more compelling than incredible ones. Debaters must show that the claims made are credible. Claims that contradict previously established ones are less credible

A good summary of common logical errors made in arguments

Rhetological Fallacies:

https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun and good luck!

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge, but this is my second tournament in over 3 years due to the Covid interruption. I will try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say.

**tl;dr read the bold. I like starting on time/early if possible.

For background, I debated PF 4 years at Newton South and it's my 4th year coaching at Nueva. I feel like it's best if you probably treat me like a flay leaning tech judge? If you have issues with any parts of my paradigm I'm happy to discuss and/or potentially change some preferences for the round. The later in the day it gets, the more tired I get, so if I'm grumpy it's not you, it's me.

---Most normal tech things apply: here are more unique thoughts

Tech~Truth: I will buy anything that at least kinda makes sense as your arguments get more extreme/factually incorrect. I will need more work from you to win it and less work from opponents to lose it.

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over a unwarranted card. Extend internal links (logical warranting) in addition to overall links/impacts otherwise I won't want to vote on it (99% of the time this is the reason I squirrel in out rounds). This isn’t Pokémon, I don’t want to hear why your card beats their card.

Please do not signpost by cards (ideally, number voters and use contention tags)

---Other stuff

- Speaking: Speed is fine short of spreading. Speaks are based on speaking and content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well. Don't be a bully, don't let yourself be bullied. I might not be looking/flowing during cross but I'm listening, make jokes and stuff, have fun :)

- Theory/Progressive args: Run at your own risk, I'm not an expert but know the basics. I tend to think theory disadvantages new debaters so I'll probably only vote on it if: y'all all are down for it pre-round (and my level of judging lol) and/or there's actual discrimination happening and/or it's drop the arg not the debater

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. I think you should consider thinking of weighing less with buzzwords and more by literally thinking about why one is more important than explaining it (truth is convincing).

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, drop it. Find cards within a couple minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to, but won't do it on my own unless a card is both important and sketchy - if it is bad, I won't consider it regardless of whether your opponents called it or not.

- Be sensitive and respectful: Co-opting issues for a strat is not ok - care about the issue, have a productive debate. Consider if you need a content/trigger warning + spare contention. These issues are real and affect the people around you, possibly including me and those in your round and I will not hesitate to vote you down and drop speaks if something is up. That being said, let me determine that: please don't make "they don't care enough" args.

Last thoughts: I generally don’t presume and instead just lower my link/round standards til someone meets them. Let your parents watch your rounds! They've earned it. And remember to eat!

Email: kaylaxchang@berkeley.edu. Please feel free to reach out for any concern, round/not round related.

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.

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.

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 3/strike

---

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for Kandi king 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.

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.

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.

--

Hello Debaters,

Although I am new to judging debate, I am an experienced trial attorney.  I have judged many moot court competitions and so am at home listening to both sides of an argument and making rational decisions.  I wish you the best of luck, and will appreciate if you speak slowly enough for me to understand what you are saying.  Thank you.

Background

I am currently one of the debate coaches for Milton High School in Massachusetts. I have been coaching/advising the team since 2014 and have judged most tournaments that we attend. These typically include local tournaments but include at least one national tournament a year. I have no personal experience as a debater.

General:

Please speak slow and clear. If you speak extremely fast I won't get all of your information/main points and at that point its out the window as I won't ask you to repeat or clarify.

Be nice. Being out right rude will cause you to lose points.

Be clear and specific during rebuttal. Let me know why your opponents contentions are weak. Using rebuttal to go over your case a second time will not help you.

Keep track of your own prep time

Use summary and final focus to let me know why you won the round

I am a parent of a high school debater and have been judging PF for 2 years. I grew up in SIngapore debating, parliamentary style debates. My judging ethos is fairly straightforward:

- i suspend my opinions and what i know about a topic outside the room and come in as a blank canvas. My role is NOT to be an expert, but to be an objective and neutral civilian, being exposed to arguments, fresh, in each round.

- i strongly prefer civilized, thoughtful and persuasive debate. I will credit professionalism, civility and a good sense of humor.

- i will discredit rudeness of all kinds. I do not enjoy theatrics (such as actively eye rolling toward me when your opponent is speaking - it will work against you, not for you), nor do i value those who simply railroad and speak loudly and fast over others in cross. Debate requires active listening to one another which is not possible if you won’t listen to your opponent or let them finish what they are saying. Please avoid all theatrics and distraction techniques.

- i will consider unanswered arguments as defeated; and will not credit (may even take point away) for new arguments introduced late in the game. And please stick to the truth and actual facts, not fake facts.

- volume and speed are not what i value. So yelling loudly or jamming numerous arguments extremely quickly and tripping over your words do not impress me. I value a debater who is confident enough to stay focused and rely on the strength of their research their ability to nuance and react thoughtfully and speak at a reasonable volume and pace. And be civil to their peers across the table.

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. 

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

I'm an appellate criminal defense lawyer (once a prosecutor), and a part-time teacher, who has done some teaching within philosophy.  So, regardless of your debate event, I'll be impressed with a communicative, clear, and respectful style of debate, with attention to highlighting main points, and attention to the relative strength of all of your points, as well as how they fit together (i.e. which are subordinate).  I will not be impressed with the use of obscure, unexplained terms merely for the purpose of confounding your opponent, or merely suggesting to the judge that you have read a lot.  Debate should enlighten, not obscure, and there is nothing more ironic (or ineffective) than someone arguing against their opponent's position as unhealthy elitism while deliberately clothing their argument in language inaccessible to the average citizen.

I frankly don't think that the different debate events are all that different, in the final analysis.  All debates involve a claim that the resolution either should or should not be adopted, and reasons for doing so (or not).  A reason is simply an explanation of why someone should do something despite arguably countervailing interests/arguments.  A reason, therefore, must always appeal to someone's logic and common sense about how to acheive what is most important to them, necessarily making some argument, too, about what should be most important to them.  If you want to call that a "warrant" within a "framework" which consists of a "value" evaluated by a specific "criterion" -  to show me that I should "drop" your opponents argument even if I were to adopt the "value" proposed by the other side - so be it.  But, in sum, it's just all about convincing me that I should want to adopt (or not adopt) the resolution, despite what the other guy/gal is saying,  giving me good reasons for doing so.  Please keep that your focus, and avoid getting distracted (or distracting me) with debating terms which obfuscate more than they clarify.  For example, I'm afraid it is not helpful to argue about a "cap K," even though I know what that is. The theory, I guess, is that such shorthand lets you fit more argument in the round.  But I think it instead distorts, obscures, or mistakes the real arguments, which can be made just as succinctly in standard English if they are truly worth making at all.  *If* such terms help *you* understand your argument/strategy when you are prepping with fellow debaters, that's fine.  But please be prepared to tell *me* straightforwardly why you want me to vote for your position.  If you have to call something a "cap K," you haven't worked hard enough to explain what you're actually arguing, and why it is worth arguing.

Clear outlines/sign-posts which help lead me through your argument are very much appreciated; I may not be as smart as you are, but your smarts won't do you any good if you don't bring me along, at the end of the day.  You should be able to state your central position(s) in one clear sentence, then elaborate with attention to that (those) central theme(s).   Time-limitation does not require rushing, and rushing detracts from the persuasive value of your speech.  Time-limitation should instead lead to you to make your argument as tightly/efficiently as possible, without sacrificing needed empirical support.  And one or two persuasive arguments arguments beat 15 unconvincing arguments any day of the week, even if all 15 weak points are conceeded.

It would help me if you would try to understand the focus of your opponent's argument as well, helping me to understand what *you* understand it to be, and for you to respond to it at its core - that is, at its strongest - first and foremost.  

Please also use truly authoritative, and usefully-identified empirical support, wherever that's appropriate, making it clear what proposition you are trying to support, with attention truly to identifying the authority of the person/source you are quoting (a mere name, or the fact that something has been published without my knowing where, won't convince me that the source you're citing has any weight, unless its something like "President Lincoln").   Again, one or two truly authoritative sources beat 15 weak ones.   My understanding of my role is to vote for the argument most persuasive to the uninitiated, truly testing your ability to bring me all the way from the ground up to your view.  

So I like substance, not maneuvering and jargon and spreading -- as well as attention to the merits of the resolution which you have actually come to debate, with serious attention to how the world outside the room would receive what you have to say and how you are saying it.  That doesn't mean you cannot be creative with argument, making use of theory, but I would prefer you to think very carefully about how and whether your most creative arguments truly serve the ultimate goal of convincing me to vote for your position.  To be truly creative - that is, to truly explicate a reason which was not clear/considered before - an argument must be not only new, but also convincing.

The issues you are debating are truly important social issues usually having to do with fundamental rights on both sides, or at least the potential of a particular policy to create a better society, and even if you are not personally convinced of the merits of both sides, by doing the best job you can of articulating the position you do not like, you are insisting upon the development of the best arguments on the side you ultimately support.  Please remember that you have a very real opportunity truly to influence someone's perspective (mine), thereby shaping a little piece of the future, and though that may be done by speaking with conviction, it is rarely accomplished by merely shouting someone into submission, and often requires some concessions.  

Perhaps the most important thing you can do is to reassure me that deliberative debate is a worthwhile pursuit, designed to help reasonable people arrive at what's most reasonable.  By your thoughtful and respectful participation in this activity, you can spread the habit of thoughtful debate, demonstrating the worth (and joy) of deliberation as the essential glue holding together our fragile democracy.  Please do not waste the opportunity you have here.  Anything which might otherwise seem trivial, tangential, gimmicky, or distracting, should be very carefully and articulately tied to the merits of the resolution itself, so that it no longer seems tangential to me, or its tangential nature may cost you my vote.

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

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

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.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Lexington High School Class of 2017

Cornell University Class of 2021

General

I am ok with anything and spreading is fine. However, you still need to do the work in proving that you are correct about your argumentation and your opponents are not. It is very important to get in the habit of having direct clash and pulling from the warranted analysis in your evidence. A good way of doing this would be being strategic in how you construct your final speeches. As always, you should not go for everything, which is why being strategic is important. Explaining why your impacts should be prioritized over your opponents is an ethos booster and it makes evaluating the round easier. The focus speeches should literally write my ballot/they should explain flaws in your opponents' strategy/argumentation and how that justifies me voting for you. It is important to narrow down the debate. Also, I do not count flashing evidence/putting speech docs on flash drives as prep. In terms of cross-ex, it is always good to be polite. I think you can be assertive without coming off as aggressive or mean-spirited. I prefer open cross-ex, but you should not be speaking for your partner when they are supposed to be answering questions. That can dock your speaks. And, as always, be ethical in your argumentation and in the way you treat your opponents/me/other judges/yourself/your partner, aka no slurs/offensive rhetoric of any kind, be polite, no clipping, stealing prep, etc.

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my third tournament. I will try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say.

I debated at Lexington High School for four years. First in novice policy, and then 3 years in public forum. I've gotten to bid rounds, got bids, and broken at multiple national tournaments so I have some idea of how to debate. I finished my senior year getting 5th speaker at NDCA and 3rd place team overall. I attend University of Maryland, College Park, with a major in goverment and politics, and a minor in rhetoric. I currently do Parlimentary debate there.

Short Version-

I try to intervene and put as little work into the round as possible. If you make it easy to vote for you I probably will and the easier it is the higher your speaks will be.

One big thing that is pretty make or break in my eyes: Don't do anything that makes debate unwelcoming for anyone, e.g. racism, sexism, etc. I think debate is a really valuable activity and therefore it should accessible to everyone, so making people feel unwelcome/unsafe is a big issue. There have been times where I have been a jerk in round without realizing or things got heated when they shouldn't have, so I get how it can happen. I will probably not drop you for that alone, however, your speaks will suffer and I will find it far more difficult to justify voting for you. That said, there is a difference between saying something accidentally boneheaded in CX/something comes out really wrong/etc. and making an argument rooted in racist/sexist/etc. ideology.

Beyond that, I don't really have many preferences in terms of the actual arguments you go for (nothing too ridiculous or stupid pls, or at least make it funny if you're gonna be dumb lmao), but I may in terms of speaking and articulation of those arguments. Be clear, be clever, extend your warrants, weigh, and interact with your opponents arguments and my ballot should be easy for you.

Long Version-

This is not an exhaustive list of the things that you should/should not do in round, so use your common sense and good judgement. Try to debate as well as possible.

Specific Preferences:

-Be nice, don't be a jerk, share crossfire/CX, make the debate bearable to watch, this also ties into the whole debate as a welcoming activity point that I made above (no racism, no sexism, you get the idea).

-The easier you make it for me to vote for you, the more likely I am to do so cuz I'm lazy. That said, if the round isn't clear I will intervene as much as I need to, in order to find a winner, and you may not like my decision so don't make it necessary.

-Building off of that, the easier it is to watch a debate and the more fun the round is for me the higher your speaks will be, so don't make the debate miserable

-You can talk fast so long as you are clear, but don't spread cuz you won't be clear, if you're going too fast I will say clear and you should slow down or else I'm gonna miss stuff on the flow and that isn't good for you.

-Extend your arguments, I can flow as fast as you can talk, but if you really want me to get something, slow down and emphasize it and tell me why its important.

-I don't care if second rebuttal doesn't respond to everything that first rebuttal put on case, I don't consider it dropped but try to cover what is important

-Also please extend warrants and refer to your cards by their arguments as well as author name, saying "extend [author name], this means we win" is a terrible argument. Tell me why you win and what your cards mean, give me warranted analysis.

-I really dig analytics as arguments, but if it directly conflicts with evidence I probably side with evidence (i.e. "we have evidence of an increase in X" "but "X isn't increasing" is a bad analytic)

-If there are analytical reasons (read warrants) why there argument is wrong or misapplied, or their warrants are bad or non supportive, I would love to consider analytics ("we have evidence of an increase in X", "but increase in X doesn't solve because..." is a good analytic)

-Basically, if warrants are good, you make clean extensions, you collapse in summary/final focus, and you give me clear reasons why you are winning, my ballot is pretty easy.

-Being funny is always a plus but please prioritize showing respect to your opponents and the activity first, winning second, and being funny after all that.

I also got out spoken by my PF partner (Peter Lawrence) all of senior year!!!

Speak clearly

I'm a parent judge that has been judging over the last 2 years. I will flow but speed and extreme amounts of jargon will make it harder for me to follow you.

I am more likely to vote for a few well articulated arguments than a ton of individual, unwarranted arguments. When referencing things from earlier speeches, don't just tell me the author's name. Reference the claim/thesis of the argument itself because more likely than not, I won't have the author's name on my flow. Also, I tend to pay a lot of attention to crossfire. Please be respectful to each other.

I generally place more value on impacts with higher probability that impacts with a high magnitude. The more implausible an argument, the less likely I am to be persuaded by it. Given a close round, I will often side with the clearer and more logical team. Also, weigh arguments. Don't just tell me your arguments are important, tell me how they COMPARE to your opponents' arguments.

I really admire the effort that all of you put in to partake in this activity. That being said, enjoy the tournament!

I am a first year PF parent judge so please be patient with me as I learn the ropes of the debate business.

First of all, please slow down and logically construct and organize your speech and arguments. Also if you are going to use acronyms or abbreviations, please clarify their use beforehand. Please be respectful and polite to your opponents and stay within your allotted time. What I will also look for is smooth transition between teammates and buildup between rounds (hopefully you have practiced this before).

Crossfire round is big for me so be artful and use this to build on your earlier points or counteract the opponent's arguments.

Profanity is unacceptable and sticking to ethical points is encouraged.

Finally while I recommend you approach this as a contest, accept the results just like any other game and enjoy the experience and interaction with fellow debaters.

I am a parent of a high school debater and I have been judging PF at the National and Regional levels for the last five years.

I love the guidance "To what degree will an argument improve the world as holistically as possible given the resolution––humans, environments, economies, etc.?" Using numbers, and sizes of numbers, to make these cases is critically important to my decision-making processes.

I love ethically-collected, fact-based contentions from reputable sources, such as from the gray circle at the top of this curve: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Think tanks on both ends of the spectrum, particularly those funded by right-wing/Koch money can get a bit sketchy in this context.

And above all else, I expect measured cadence during statements (if I can't understand you, it does you no good!), and a spirit of graciousness during crosses. Points will be taken away for the above misses (particularly if I can't understand what you are saying) as well as any demeaning, sarcastic, or derogatory comments, facial expressions, tone, or evidence. I dislike using debate tribal language in excess and particularly in lieu of content. The "frothing at the mouth preacher style" does not work well with me; I merely ask you to be authentic. Your content should convey the weight of your arguments, not your actions. You will be docked speaking notes for discussions, nodding, or other facial/body expressions while the other team is presenting.

I also delight when humor can be interjected. And smiles are always appreciated.

I will happily share my thought process with teams once the ballots have been entered, while respecting the rules of the specific debate.

I graduated in 2014 from Lexington High School, where I was on the debate team for four years. I stopped debating my senior year and transitioned to being an assistant teacher in the novice class because I didn't like the highly technical/esoteric nature of LD.  

I don't have a problem with speed, but it is probably in your best interest to slow down. I've been out of the activity for a while and the faster you speak, the more likely it is that I will miss something important. 

I'm a really conceptual, big-picture person, so take the time at the end of your rebuttals to explain to me where each of your arguments fall in relation to other arguments in the round. If both debaters extend a bunch of separate arguments and do zero weighing then I won't know what to do and you will probably not be happy with my decision.

I would really rather not vote on blippy/tricky/dumb arguments, but I will if I have to, as long as you have clearly extended them. I won't vote on something that I do not understand. I also don't appreciate frivolous theory - I would much prefer a substantive debate. If you do decide to read theory, be slow and clear.

I have zero tolerance for offensive arguments. It's easy in debate rounds to forget that you are casually mentioning the real suffering of real people. I also really dislike rude or arrogant debaters, so please just be nice. 

I am a parent.

I am typically OK with most arguments.

For evidence, I prefer well accepted sources. However, if the team can demonstrate the authors are qualified despite being not well known, I will accept that too. 

I like to see a direct clash of arguments and want to know how specific arguments interact with each other.

I also like to see well explained internal link chains and overview to help me better understand your arguments.

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

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 parent of a Lexington (MA) High School debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my second year judging & have judged at 4 tournaments thus far.

I try hard to keep my personal preferences and opinions from influencing my decisions as a debate judge.

I take notes during the debate. So please do not speak too fast, otherwise I will not be able to take notes and/or follow your arguments.

Background:
I competed in LD debate, Extemp, and Congress from fall 1998 - spring 2002 (plus some other speech events). I then competed in Parliamentary debate for all 4 years of college. I find speech and debate to be highly valuable to the participants and wish to give back to the community. That is why I started coaching in 2014 when I returned to the US after my army service.
Current Affiliation: Needham High School Assistant Coach (speech and debate)
Last Update: February, 2023

LD Paradigm:

QUICK: I am old school / traditional. I expect LD to be like it was when I did the activity. If someone has a value and criterion, links their arguments back to their criterion and impacts how those arguments achieve their value, I am extremely happy and give high speaker points. I also really like it when people have strong crystallizations (voters). Clearly weighing and explaining why I should value your arguments more than your opponents make my job easier, which give you more speaker points.
I dislike theory / policy debates in LD. Policy debate exists, do whatever you want in a policy round. Don't do it in a LD round.

Additional Details: I love LD debate because of the standard debate inherent to the activity. The ability to explain why I should use a certain moral standard and then explain how your arguments lead to the achievement of your standard are critical in my mind. That is the only thing I want to vote on. I expect the debate to be centered around the resolution provided.
Any other argument, ie, policy debate, theory, fairness, etc, no matter how well done, or how much time is devoted to it, misses the point of the activity in my mind, so it will be treated as such in my RFD.

Also, as a speech and debate coach, I value both the delivery and the analysis. Both are part of the speaker scale. For speech aspects, speed, clarity, sign posting, eye contact are things I look at. For analysis, the more in depth, the better. I want to hear the student, not the card. Telling me to extend a card without telling me why the card is important in the round in not analysis.

In addition, since I do believe in the educational merit of this activity, I will gladly talk with anyone after the round. I usually don't disclose, but am fully willing to explain how I saw the round, what can be improved, and what was done well.

DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Policy Paradigm:

Everything I hate in LD is kosher in Policy, so knock yourself out. That being said, I enjoy rounds on substance and the speaker points I give reflect that. I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

PF Paradigm:

I enjoy judging PF. Due to my LD background, having some sort of framework / framing the round helps me as a judge and helps you win the round and get higher speaker points. Due to the short speech times, I really want you to explain why one or two arguments that you are winning are more important than the one or two arguments your opponents are winning. Weighing is really important!

Something a bit more specific - being the second team to speak in a round means your rebuttal can deal with the first 3 speeches, and while I don't require you to do so, it really helps your side when you deal with both the pro and con cases. Use that advantage!

I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Cheers,
Adam Nir

Updated December 2015

EXPERIENCE:

4 years of national circuit PF for Ridge High School in NJ.  Coach at Poly Prep in NYC.  Taught at CBI, NDF, and will be teaching at Millenial Speech and Debate Institute.

SPEED:

I was on the faster side of the PF circuit, anything short of spreading should be fine so long as it's signposted clearly on the flow and clear and anunciated.

EVIDENCE:

I will only call for a piece of evidence in one of two situations.  

1 - I am explicitly told to by someone in the round.  

2 - I am utterly unable to make a decision without seeing it.  Hint hint, if this is happening, someone was doing something wrong.  

For an evidence call I'll just make everyone put their pens down while the team looks for it.  If you just read an indict and they drop it I'll drop the evidence in the round.  If you think it's a gross enough violation for a loss or a disqualification, tell me to call for it and I'll make that call.  The only exception to this rule is that if I cannot make a decision for the round without incorporating that piece of evidence, then I'll ask to see it.

HOW I JUDGE:

Step #1: I look at the framework that's left after the clash in the round.  This means the framework that is warranted and weighed over whichever opposing framework is provided.  

Step #2: I look at the impacts that are left standing on the flow.  This means link level and impact level extension that is implicated as offense by the debaters.  *****Any offense needs to be in summary and final focus, this includes turns (this doesn't include defense, rebuttal to FF extension is fine on that)*****

Step #3: I look to see how the impacts left for each side fit into the framework provided for me.  This is where, in the event that you haven't established a framework or weighed your impacts, things start to go badly for you because I use my personal calculus to decide which impacts I want more.  *****I AM WEIRD, YOU DO NOT WANT ME MAKING THIS DECISION****SO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS*****

MISC:

I don't flow Cross and usually use it to write on the ballot.  If something important happens in Cross, it needs to be mentioned in the next speech or it does nothing on the flow.  

I buy any argument so long as the evidence is there and the responses are dealt with.  If you want to run an aliens case, go for it.

I'm also down for other weird stuff.  Want to read one contention and start responses in the case? Go for it.  Want to skip case and go straight to defense? Godspeed.  Want to use a hipster moral theory? Warrant it and you're good. 

I am receptive to theory and kritiks, so long as they are implicated and warranted.  If you tell me your opponent's discourse is a voter, I'll go for it.  

Any and all questions are more than welcomed, I want you to have total knowledge of who you're debating in front of.

Good luck and have fun.

Hello my name is Malar Pannirselvam, I have a son who participates in VPF Debate, so I have some degree of experience regarding judges. I'm tabula rasa (literally don't even know the topic or the viable stategies at the start of most tournaments), but I will definitely get a feel for the argumentation on a resolution over the course of a tournament. I will not disclose unless the tournament allows it, as I believe that not disclosing takes a fair amount away from the actual debate and devolves to blaming immediately after you drop a ballot on a bubble/break/bid round. Please ask me questions after the round is over, I will give each speaker comments (from my relatively normal lay perspective) on both argumentation and speaking stuff (unless we're low on time or lunch is 5 minutes away)

LD specific:

- no spreading

- ideally no kritiks, but if you do read kritiks, articulate the alt super well

-since this is my first time judging LD, I'm going to expect y'all to keep time and whatnot, but my timer app does have an LD function

- no weird theory violations

Things I like:

Clash

Respect among teammates and opponents

Communication between both members of your team

Effective use of prep and speech times (including cross fire)

Weighing and impact calculus (impact, magnitude, timeframe)

Offtime roadmaps, and other methods of signposting (as long as you aren't stealing prep)

Keeping your own time (and not misrepresenting it)

Extending arguments and cards in your Summary and Final Focus (rebuttal speeches for LD)

Voting Issues (voters) in your Summary/Final Focus (rebuttal speeches for LD)

Things I don't like:

Sketchy math or evidence misrepresentation (I may call for a card at the end of a round if time permits)

Disorganized speeches: I will not connect your dots for you.

Stealing prep or other ethical violations.

Excessive profanity (or profanity directed at a person in round)

Unethical/sketchy arguments (racism good, sexism good)

(Low point wins do in fact exist, by the way)

Speaker Point Scale (I award in .5 points, since that's generally what local tournaments ask me to do)

25 or below: You messed up big time in this round. Please try to find me later in the tournament for specifics, but you probably violated one of the things that I really don't like.

26: Beginning Debater who has a solid start, but requires some work

27: Good debater, about average, but could use some fine tuning in regards to speaking and/or strategy

28: Great debater, did a great job of adapting to the expectations that I set.

29: You legitimately did something exceptional this round in regards to the way that you spoke, and I commend you for doing so through this 29. Either that or you carried your team on your back, and your partner got bad speaks.

30: Hasn't happened yet, and probably won't be happening for the near future.

Most importantly, never ever forget that debate is a game, and is intended to be enjoyed to the maximum, otherwise you wouldn't be spending a weekend morning speaking in front of 2-3 other people in some empty history classroom. Good Luck!

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

Mr. Poe is a high school Spanish teacher who has judged at basically every local Massachusetts tournament ever.

• Does he flow (most crucial question): sometimes

• Sitting versus standing in cross: he wanted me to include that he “has no preference”

• Extending defense in first summary: not needed in either summary (as long as it’s been said before he says it’s “fair game”) (he also doesn’t know what this term means)

• Going new in the two: just because he might not catch it doesn’t mean you should do it

• Kicking out of turns: he probably finds it unpersuasive

• Frontlining in second rebuttal y/n: he doesn’t care (asked about it, and he also doesn’t know what the word “frontline” means)

• Weighing: the sooner the better (you can start in rebuttal)

• Speed: he says “medium speed” but I think that means lay judge level

• Extensions: you need to extend card context not just the author and implicate it in the context of the round

• Types of argument: tech > truth

• Progressive args: obviously not

• Speaker points: historical precedent - he will drop you with 25s regardless of your argumentation if you are a) rude and/or b) yelling

• Autodrop for running racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted arguments

• Humor: good (direct quote: “so long as it adds something to the round”)

• Disclosure after the round: no guaruntees

I am a parent of a Lexington debater. I have been trained as a judge and this is my third tournament. I will try very hard to keep my personal opinions out of the debate. That will be easier for me if you weigh and evaluate your arguments and if you compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I will take notes, but I do not want you to speak quickly because if you do I will not be able to write down what you say.

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton in NJ. I broke at Nationals, TOC, and NCFLs. I'll tell you anything I want you to know, but ask me any questions you may have about the round.

One of the teams I judged thought it'd be nice for me to put this on my paradigm, so here's an article I wrote for a speech-and-debate non-profit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 speaks if you do interpretive dance during case

4 years debating for Stuy, 4 years coaching for Poly Prep

i flow (unfortunately)

- slow, please

- i don't know how to evaluate k's, theory, etc. (if there is an egregious abuse, i'm down to have a discussion or bring it higher up)

- no patience for cards getting called every five seconds-- just do some warranting :)

pretend i'm lay and have fun. i believe in you.

(30s if you win w/o reading evidence)

Hi. I am a flay judge for pf (all other events, treat me as a VERY lay judge) , but don't spread, run prog, or run silly args. Still a truth > tech judge except that I can flow and vote based off that.

I understand basic stuff like basic weighing terms (magnitude, probability, scope, timeframe), but definitely not K's, theory, trix, framework, etc. My daughter did debate from her freshmen year to senior year, and now is in college. My son is currently debating as well.

I value clarity over speed. However, please don't spread, even if you are very clear. I can't understand it that well, and can't flow that fast. I also WILL NOT acceptspeech docs.

Don't run 20 contentions. Focus on a good amount. (Quality > Quantity!)

An argument/contention is claim, warrant, impact. No impact, no warrant, no claim -> no argument.

Be nice. Not doing so might impact speak point if that's in the tournament I'm judging.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!
Or else, what am I going to vote based off of?

If I'm interested, I might ask for cards after the debate is over. If you miscut it or powertag it, I might drop you.

No matter how good this paradigm is at english, my first language is not english. Please don't use too superflouous words (get what I did there)? I understand stuff like card, contention, block, but not turn, nonunique, delink, or stuff like that.

P. S. This was edited by his son because his previous one was 28 words. In round, his english might not be this great, and he definitely won't make puns. Don't expect your RFD or comments to be this great either. Use the following example to see his paradigm expressed by him alone.

His previous paradigm was:
The following is what I will consider more valuable in the debate: clarity over speed, quality over quantity, argument = claim with warrant, attitude=nice to others

Hello. Son here. This is what you should know about my father.

He kinda flows. I've seen it, it isn't pretty - it's a bulleted list - but it works a little bit. He'll know your contention taglines and will flow rebuttal responses that he deems worthy. That's better than nothing? He relies mostly on his memory so good luck.

Limit speed to conversational level. His English is fine but he absolutely hates debaters who speak really fast because he can't understand them and thinks they're losers. Speak slow and with confidence, he likes people who present themselves well.

Debate jargon to a minimum. I guarantee that he has absolutely no idea what a non-unique is, or even what a delink is at that. Just say that they're wrong and provide evidence. No need for technical terms, it'll just r/wooosh.

On the topic of speaking, he's like really harsh with speaks. He routinely gives out 26.5s to people who he thinks didn't do well. But if you follow this paradigm, you can get a 27.5 maybe.

Be respectful. He loves it when you like destroy someone in cross but you can't be super rude doing it, or rude in any facet. It's a fine line I know.

Good luck.

I’m from Lincoln-Sudbury High School. I competed all four years of high school and have been judging for two years, exclusively in pf. I’m a college student at UMass Amherst, just having returned from a four month study abroad trip to Thailand (aka I have a tattoo).

I’m fine with fast speaking speeds but if you’re spreading I definitely won’t catch everything and will spend more time piecing together your argument than evaluating its impact.

I want to see both summary and final focus be similar in length (each around 2 minutes). In summary, please summarize the round. In FF, please provide me with a focus I should have at the end of the round. In addition, each speech should cover similar points of argumentation. I can’t vote off contention 1 in FF if it’s not in summary.

I try my best to flow but sometimes my pen runs out of ink. If this is the case, I will stop flowing for the rest of the round to make it fair for both teams. I call it equality inc.

No plans, kritiks or theories.

I go for argumentation over style.

2nd speaking team doesn’t have to cover its own case in rebuttal. I’ll flow it if you do but it’s not required.

No new arguments in grand cross and final focus.

As a member of the prestigious Lincoln-Sudbury SW team, I feel it’s my responsibility to give back to the community that allowed me to reach new heights. God Bless America, God Bless the NSDA, and God Bless the TOC. Good luck.

I am a parent judge. Judged since 2016.

I value logic and coherence. Apply empirical evidence in your arguments.

I prefer a small number of clear, well-articulated arguments over a list of arguments covering every aspect.

Don't speed, you may lose me.

Be nice in the crossfire.

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.

I am a parent judge from Acton Boxborough Regional High School. I have judged Pubic Forum debate for three years.

I am not a native speaker so please do not spread and try to be as clear as possible. I also prefer arguments that are based on numbers and facts. And do not stretch too much when you talk about impact, you may need to be a bit more convincing if you are going to talk about something against common sense.

Peter Zopes
Speech and Debate Coach, Chelmsford High School

I participated in Policy Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking in high school (in the late 70s), though mostly Extemp. I teach US History, Speech and Debate, and Government. I’m in my fourteenth year of coaching Speech and Debate. I think formal debate and argumentation has real value; it drives public discourse and helps society progress. I am very interested in what I see going on in the debate community, though not all do I agree. That being said, here is my judging paradigm that outlines my position on debate.

The Resolution. I prefer substantive debate that focuses on the resolution. There is a reason we have a resolution, debate that! Be clear, concise, and clash. Be topical. Debate the contentions, the evidence, the link, warrant, etc. Don’t waste time on frameworks or arguing about debate! I’m not a fan of theory or kritiks. (They smack of deconstructionist word play!) Be professional, speak to the judge (me!) not your paper or laptop, and address your opponent with respect. Stand during the round. Dress professionally. (Yes, imagine that!) I can flow most things that comes my way, however, speed and volume (not loudness, but the amount of information put forth) do not necessarily further the debate.

Case and Evidence. This is key. In LD, debate is value based, you must demonstrate how your case is constructed to achieve the value and value criterion you identified. If not, this will negatively affect my judgment on the round. In PF show strong case development in support of your side of the resolution, with strong claims, evidence, and warrants. Arguments need to be developed and elaborated upon, not just with vague statements, but with supportive evidence (statistics, analogies, statements, data, etc, from philosophical, legal, theological, historic, and news sources). This should be used both in case development and rebuttal (when appropriate). Evidence used should be clearly identified in the reading of the card in terms of both author and source. (Name of author, title of article, and if needed title of publication and date) During rebuttal explain how you or your opponent did or did not support their side of the resolution via claim, evidence or warrant. Specifically identify voting issues raised, defended or dropped.

Speaker Points. Be professional, polite, articulate, strategic, and clear. This is the basis for determining speaker points. DON'T Spread or even try to talk really fast. All words have a clear beginning and end. I need to hear them. IF YOU SPREAD, YOU LOSE. Your case should be presented in a manner that is not over flowing with debate jargon or nomenclature.

Something to keep this in mind: In the original debates, if either Lincoln or Douglas conducted their debates in the manner modern debaters do, neither would have won. The audiences would have walked away. Modern LD and Policy debate may provide you with some great learning experiences, however, constructing and delivering a case in the manner I hear today is not one of them. All you are learning is how to deliver to a narrow, self-selected audience. I hope and will do what I can to prevent PF from proceeding down that path. Further, too often debaters dismiss parent judges for not knowing enough about debate. That is the wrong mindset. It is not the parent judges' job to become an expert in your type of debate or the resolution. Your job is to educate them on the resolution and your case, and convince them your position is correct. You need to adjust your delivery to reach them. The number one consideration for any debater or speaker is reaching their audience. If you lose the audience, you lose the debate. Simple. The supposed "cool" judges who let you do whatever you want are not helping you develop your skills beyond the narrow world of debate. Selecting judges with widely different judging paradigms does! Good luck!

Update. I prefer a narrative presentation of the arguments. Telling me you are "frontlining' this, "extending" that, is overtly technical and undermines the rhetorical nature of the event which we chose to engage. Avoid the nomenclature of debate - identifying the structure various parts of or the process of argument, but explain to me, in clear concise language, what arguments you are advancing in the round and why they have impact compared to your opponents' arguments. Good speaking, like good writing, is precise and concise, avoids jargon and uses common, proscribed vernacular.