Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament

2018 — Northbrook and Glenview, IL/US

Allen Abbott Paradigm

7 rounds

eTOC people: Please include me on all email chains.

"Back in my day, we only had two minutes to give our summaries!"

Hi I'm Allen and I'm an old second-year out who competed in PF all four years of high school (fun fact: I also competed in DI for three years). In my hey day, Ahana (my former partner) and I cleared at the TOC and a number of other cool nat circuit tournaments. Last year, I coached Dalton CY (best team on the circuit don't @ me) and Capitol Debate's travel team. I founded PF Videos and used to be a mod of /r/Debate. I'm no longer involved in debate, sans for judging at Glenbrooks (and I guess eTOC this year).

Outside of debate, I'm a second-year at UChicago studying data science economics and various other interdisciplinary fields in the social sciences. I don't know much about the topic within the debate world, but I do have a strong academic and professional background in IR, terrorism, and the Middle East. Specifically, I’ve worked at the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, directed by Professor Robert Pape, studying terrorist strategies in Afghanistan and Yemen, and suicide terrorism generally. I’m also very familiar with IR theory (I.e. Mearsheimer, Ikenberry, Waltz, Schmitt, etc.) and those regression studies debaters tend to cite on ME topics (I.e. Woods, Pape, Choi, etc.).

For those of you who had me as a judge last year: I probably haven't changed much. I've probably become a better judge than I was last year because I'm not in deep with the community (i.e. I don't know the top teams on the circuit this year and I don't personally know the topic arguments or lit, so I will have very few implicit biases walking into the round).

Important: please don't be afraid to debate fast, tech, complex, or however else you want. I still remember how debate works (I'm not that old) and I've been doing finger exercises (i.e. flowing Nueva CS rounds) for a month to prepare to flow at high speeds for Glenbrooks.

For those of you who haven't had me before, or want a refresher:

1. Tech > Truth. Most debate arguments are BS (we all know it) and I don't have a problem with smart high schoolers coming up with creative or original arguments. I've completely suspended my belief for this tournament.

2. I love argument comparison! This can take the form of (but does not exclude other methods of comparison) doing impact framing/meta weighing. Please don't forget about reading/extending internal links and terminal impacts.

3. My default beliefs for the round are:

a) second rebuttal should frontline

b) first summary should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined (so, if the second rebuttal frontlines, the first summary should interact with that frontlining if they plan to go for anything from rebuttal in final focus); if second rebuttal doesn't frontline, the first speaking team can extend defense from rebuttal to final focus

c) no new arguments in final focus (unless the first final focus is answering something new in second summary)

d) the judge only calls for cards if their is a dispute over them or a debater tells me to call for them

e) the judge presumes for the first speaking team

But, debaters are always free to read theoretical justifications in the round to tell me otherwise!

4. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

5. I love fast debate, but have Auditory Processing Disorder, which means I sometimes don't immediately comprehend everything I hear during speech. Thus, I may ask for clarifying questions after your speech about a tag or warrant I didn't catch in your speech (I'm not intervening, I'm trying to do the best that I can to give you a fair round). Please give me (and your opponents) a speech doc if you go above 300 words per minute.

6. I start at a 29 for speaker points. Points go up for good strategic decision on the flow. Points go down for miscut cards, ghost/no extensions, and bad behavior in round.

If you haven't gathered, I'm a funny (I tell myself this) and sarcastic (other people tell me this) individual. The following is a joke:

I will give you +0.1 speaker points for every TableTote height setting used in round above the first. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check this out.

Automatic 30 for a Coke Zero (not a Coke Zero Sugar) or freshly made risotto (recipe below).

Allen's Signature Parmesan Risotto


-3.5 cups chicken broth

-3 cups water

-4 tablespoons unsalted butter

-1 medium onion, finely diced or minced

-2 cups dry white wine

-2 cups Arborio rice

-1.5 cup Parmesan cheese

-Ground black pepper (white pepper, if you're feeling spunky)

-Penzy's Italian Herb Mix (which consists of oregano, basil, parsley, marjoram, thyme, and rosemary)


1. Bring the broth and water to a simmer in a large saucepan (I use a Dutch Oven) over medium-high heat. Reduce the heat to the lowest possible setting after the broth reaches its boiling point. Keep on the backburner.

2. Melt the butter in a 4-quart saucepan over medium heat. Once the foaming subsides (DON'T BURN THE BUTTER), add the onion and 1/2 teaspoon of salt and cook, stirring occasionally, until the onion is very soft and translucent, about 9 minutes. Add the rice and cook, stirring frequently, until the edges of the grains are transparent, about 4 minutes. Add 1 cup of the wine and cook, stirring frequently, until the wine is completely absorbed by the rice, about 2 minutes. Add 3 cups of the warm broth and, stirring frequently, simmer until the liquid is absorbed and the bottom of the pan is dry.

3. Add more of the broth, 1/2 cup at a time, as needed, to keep the pan bottom from becoming dry; cook, stirring frequently (every 1 or 2 minutes), until the grains of the rice are cooked through but still somewhat firm in the center, 10 to 12 minutes. Stir in 1 cup of the cheese and the remaining wine. Season with the herbs, salt, pepper, and additional cheese, to taste (DON'T OVER-PEPPER! WHITE PEPPER IS ESPECIALLY STRONG).

Honestly, debaters focus too much on persuasion through auditory perception. I'd like for there to be a debate event where we use olfaction and gustation as tools for persuasion. However, PF isn't that event, and you probably weren't going to get the kitchen/utensils/wine necessary to make the risotto during a tournament. So, we're back to just debating. But you should try making this risotto! It's very good, and everyone in my residential house in college loves it (except when I over pepper/burn the butter).

Ayush Aggarwal Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated 4 years in policy and pf at Saratoga High School

*I won't vote for an argument that doesn't have a warrant

*If it's important it should be in every speech (including key defense)

*Speed is fine, but slow down for taglines and citations. Don't use it exclude other debaters.


Threshold for theory is high, I'll vote on it if the abuse is egregious. Default to competing interps, no RVI, drop the arg (unless justified otherwise)


I like arguments that lean into K's and are debated like a K. I think these types of arguments are better than traditional Kritiks for PF, but I will still evaluate a K if you read it in round and know exactly what you are doing.


I prefer debaters read cards in the constructive. Paraphrasing often leads to misconstruing - I will call for cards at the end if no warrants are given

Jeremy Andreades Paradigm

7 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caspar Arbeeny Paradigm

7 rounds

About Me

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

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


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

That said there are a few weird things about me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Version

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

Speaker Points

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


I may call for evidence in a few situations.

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


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.

Nicholas Arozarena Paradigm

7 rounds

Hey everyone.

I'm a second year out originally from Tampa, Florida. I debated in PF for 4 years at Newsome HS as the A in Newsome EA, currently studying at Boston College.

- I do not need defense in first summary, but if you deem its relevant I'll flow it

- I'm pretty good with speed and was always a debater that talked fast, so as long as I don't yell "Clear!" then you're fine

- I'm definitely tech over truth, make an argument that is well warranted, if it's extended, won and weighed, I'm happy

- Please be nice in cross, I already think that CX is annoying in it's very nature, you will win exactly 0 brownie points with me as a judge if you intentionally dominate or demean your opponent at any time

- If you say something outright offensive you're definitely not going to win

- I'm sure you see this in everyone's paradigm, but please both collapse and weigh arguments starting in Summary. This means that by the summary speeches I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me voting on and WHY I should do in comparison to the one's your opponent is ahead on.

- I will vote on theory or Ks if they are thoroughly explained and warranted. However, I believe that both of these should be used as a check back on either an egregious abuse instance in the round or within the resolution itself. Senseless use of theory or a K just to waste time or to limit your opponent's ability to debate will result in less speaker points and depending on how I see it in the round might even cost you the win. I won't buy disclosure theory.

- Lastly, and arguably most importantly to win my ballot, be very concise and clear in the Final Focus, I always find voting off of arguments way more compelling if you only extend the relevant ones and you tell me the story of how you win them and how they're the most important thing in the entire world to me.

If you have any questions at all feel free to either email me at, or ask me before the round. See ya soon!

Stan Banks Paradigm

7 rounds

Most of my debate background is in policy. High school and college. PF debate should adhere to evidence standards. Full source citations and quotes in context. Challenges for full PDFs should be limited to serious questions regarding the source or quotes without sufficient context.

I am open to all types of argumentation provided work is devoted to development in round.

Tyeese Braslavsky Paradigm

7 rounds

Hello! My name is Tyeese, I am from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and I am looking forward to meeting you!😎

This will be my first time judging debate (and my first experience with the debate circuit in general, I mainly do Speech now), but that does NOT mean I can't tell a good argument from a bad one!

I have competed in Model UN in the midwestern circuit for 3 years and was a head-delegate and executive board member for my team, teaching speaking, research, and argumentation skills to newer delegates. I also staffed our high school's annual conference (SMUNC) where I researched and prepared topic briefs, moderated debate, and evaluated delegates on their argumentation, collaboration, research, and speaking skills, and am currently on staff for the Chicago International Model UN Conference.

That being said, in an argument, I value flow and judge based on logic, cohesiveness, clarity, and in-depth explanation of the argument. No manufactured, unexplained evidence will be accepted, no harassment of the opponent, no picking apart random semantics. In terms of presentation, speed is generally not a huge issue, if need be, I will let you know if I want something clearer or slower.

With any questions, feel free to message me on Facebook (Tyeese Braslavsky) or email me: Happy Debating!

Christopher Bryant Paradigm

7 rounds

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.

Mark Bufanio Paradigm

7 rounds

4 Years Competing on the National Circuit & New Jersey Circuit in Public Forum, 4th year coaching

1) For the love of God, Weigh. Your. Arguments.

2) Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll call out "Clear" indicating you need to slow down.

3) I'll believe anything that goes untouched on the flow.

4) Default to Util if there's a lack of substantive framework debate.

Lynne Builta Paradigm

7 rounds

I am a parent of an Anderson High School PF debater. I want you to convince me with your arguments, not with PF lingo. I do not like speed for speeds sake, as I can't flow. If I can't understand what is coming out of your mouth, I can't follow you. If I can't follow you, I can't vote for you. I originally came from a speech background, I care about speaking technique. Quality of argument over quantity.

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

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

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


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

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

Your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled.

Your final focus to make me vote for you.

Bilal Butt Paradigm

7 rounds

I am a Debate Coach at Charlotte Latin. Have been coaching all types of debate (except Policy), but most specifically Public Forum.

----Public Forum-----

- "Flow” judge I guess, can follow the fastest PF debater but dont use speed unless you have too.**

- If you arrive early, please flip the coin and be seated in the room.

- I am ok without handshakes at the end of the debate.

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

5 Things to Remember…

Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.


I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.


Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.


I would prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.


Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.


"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Lynda Cobb Paradigm

6 rounds

Lynda Cobb

Hi. I coach both middle and high school PFD and Congressional Debate as a volunteer. I was a policy debater.

I am a policy analyst and an editor.

Clash, persuade, funnel. I don’t mind observations, but don’t give me a ten-pointer and apply it to every argument. I do flow. Be CLEAR. Please follow the flow in your speech and sign post for me. If I am flipping pages to find where you are, it is generally not good for you. Please give me a framework- it doesn't necessarily have to be in case, but make it known soon so your narrative throughout the round can fulfill it.

I do have some troubles with evidence in PFD. It is generally cut to be conclusionary. Know the author, know why they are a better source than your opponent's evidence, know WHY they said what they said AND PLEASE TELL ME. That can be the BEST argument in the round.

After having judged quite a few national circuit rounds, there have been a few teams that go too fast. They spit out a number of poor arguments and win because the other team can't cover them all and the dumpers cherry pick and pull. I get it all down, but I don't necessarily grok all the arguments...mostly because they are a skeleton of an argument. Honestly, this makes me sad. At that point, it is not about persuasion and argumentation. And the thing is, these rounds had 4 smart people in them. They could have made great arguments. They chose to overwhelm rather than outwit.

Summary speech is REALLY important. It is the chance to play chess- very strategic. In Final Focus, tell me why your voters win the day. Shore up your warrants and weigh those impacts. I do enjoy some panache and humor.

Finally, don't be a jerk a.k.a. a contemptibly obnoxious person. In cross, lay your cards down. Being evasive makes me unhappy. If your opponent keeps asking and you keep evading, I will not let you win the argument you are hiding for later.

You are amazing for getting up early on a weekend to throw words at me. :)

Bud Davis Paradigm

6 rounds

Be polite and do not talk over your opponents during cross-fire. If you are going to spread, let everyone know before the round starts.

Cara Day Paradigm

6 rounds

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21


Or FB message me with questions

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.


-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.

-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).

- CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)


I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:


Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.


2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).


My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.


I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.


I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 2

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc

Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.

DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

Lisa Delasandro Paradigm

5 rounds

I am a parent judge who has been judging for four years. However, I am lay. I tend to be a truth-over-tech judge.

Things I like:

- Please be polite.

- Weigh. It will make my job much easier if you weigh in summary and final focus.

- Good evidence. I tend to prefer the team who has more convincing evidence

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I will put my pen down if you are going to fast.

- Do not interrupt your partner or opponent during cross.

Bob Dolan Paradigm

7 rounds

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

NSDA evidence rules require authors last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigarous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINETLY in play here!

Libby Ellinas Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Ozan Ergungor Paradigm

2 rounds


and don't give off-time roadmaps

i begged you


you didn’t

and you


-rupi kaur

Kaitlyn Evans Paradigm

6 rounds

A good argument is a good argument - make good arguments and you will do well if I'm your judge. While some arguments are going to be more effective than others, I do not have an inherent objection to any particular strategy or approach as long as it does not violate the spirit of the activity.

A few things to keep in mind:

1. Speed is okay, but a low quantity of good quality content will always trump a high quantity of mediocre content. It's important to remember that public forum is supposed to be for the public, so you need to be clear and understandable if you are going to talk quickly.

2. Be respectful of your opponents - debate should be civil and you can have a debate round without being a jerk. This includes not cutting off your opponents during cross ex. You can control the cross ex without interrupting and talking over your opponents.

3. Don't cheat.

4. If you don't provide a specific framework for your case, I will evaluate the arguments through a cost-benefit analysis framework. I don't have any problem with you running a different framework, just make sure to articulate and justify it.

5. When stating evidence, I prefer you state both the author and year. Please do not paraphrase the cards. Tell me exactly what the card says and then explain how the card fits into your case/the round.

6. As a general rule, I don't think that critical positions have a place in a public forum debate round. If you decide to run a critical position, make sure that you have a very, very good reason to do so as you will have to present quite a compelling argument and justification as to why you are making that choice.

7. Please remember that this is first and foremost an activity about communication - make sure you are speaking clearly and with conviction. Your purpose in the round is to convince me that you have the most compelling and important arguments (quality will always trump quantity for me).

If you have other questions, ask.

Li Fang Paradigm

6 rounds

Name: Li Fang

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

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

What is your current occupation? Engineer

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

Speed of Delivery

· - I am a parent judge, so please don’t go too fast. I would rather you develop a cohesive narrative throughout the round so that I am able to follow you effectively.

· -That is not to say that you have to speak as if I was a child, but rather you speak at a moderate rate (similar to that of a conversation)

· -I prefer the quality of the argument over the substance of material you present (i.e. more pieces of evidence DOES NOT mean you will win)

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

· -I believe that anything you want me to vote for should be in both the summary and the final focus, especially if you are the second speaking team

· -I prefer a big picture summary. As I said earlier, I am a parent judge and therefore I cannot comprehend if you go on the line by line

Role of the Final Focus

· -This speech I find to be most important. Please tell me what your final arguments are AND why they are important in the context of the round

· -I would appreciate it if you were able to condense the arguments that you present, along with what is going on the round. I don’t have the experience that you have and therefore I can’t sufficiently adjudicate the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

-Topicality: N/A

-Plans: N/A

-Kritiks: N/A


· -I do not flow to the extent that former debaters and/or coaches do. I have no experience in actually debating so I can’t flow very well

· -However, I will still take notes down and pay attention to what you are saying.

· -In order to compensate for my inability to flow like other debate and/or coaches, speak slowly and explain your argument and why they outweigh your opponents.

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

· -I value the argument more than the style in which you debate

· -If you are debating as if you are in another event such as Lincoln Douglas, I will not appreciate that. Public Forum, to me, is meant to be understandable to the public, so please be respectful of your opponents while explaining your arguments.

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

· -If you want me to consider an argument that you believe to be winning, please mention it in both the summary and the final focus. I don’t think it is necessary for it to be mentioned in the rebuttal (the rebuttal is for responding to your opponent’s case, not mentioning your own).

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

· -No. You do you.

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

· -Not at all.

· -Any argument I vote for must be in the last two speeches (Summary and Final Focus).

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

· -If you are to say anything that blatantly racist, sexist, or offensive. I will drop you immediately with very bad speaker points

· -Make sure to have fun.

Kegan Ferguson Paradigm

6 rounds

Put me on the email chain:

Assistant Director of Debate at North Broward Prep.

Debated in Indiana/at Indiana University, and went to the NDT in '15/'16. Fifth year judging.

Policy Paradigm:

DA's: I prefer smart, clear policy debate over stringing together awful disadvantages. One of my least favorite things in debate is a DA that has entirely misconstrued evidence, no real internal links, and a nonsense impact card. I would much rather people stick to politics or well-researched DA's instead of trying to go shoddy but tricky (looking at you, Miller DA)

CP's: Delay CP's are bad, UQ CP's are meh, Conditions CP's are meh, Consult CP's are mediocre, Specific PICS are great. Go for theory against abusive stuff, but the threshold is higher for aff's outside of the core on arms sales.

Topicality: Nebulous 'it's the heart of the topic' claims do not make you topical. I default to competing interps and think that reasonability generally requires the aff to extend a counterinterp that is reasonable.

K's: Topic specifics are my fav, and always will be. Alt solvency is more important than most rounds treat it. Same goes for internal link turns to the aff. Policy aff's should focus on impact turns and alt answers instead of the perm (unless the aff is written to go for a perm)

Framework: Fairness can be an a-priori impact if you win it is one. I find it persuasive when fairness is also clearly explained as an internal link turn to aff impacts. Debate is an offense-defense activity and clearly explaining your offense matters a lot. FW is more of a question about whose interp cultivates education and good debates than it is a question of rules.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy theory debates. I will vote on Condo bad if you win it/it's dropped, but I find most neg answers persuasive. Though the higher the number of conditional positions the more there's a debate to be had. Squo is not an option unless you say so. I won't kick the CP for you unless an argument is made for why I should.

Ethics: Don't be hateful or use bigoted language. Don't clip. Don't intentionally steal prep.

PF Paradigm:

Disclosure = slight speaker point bump

I don't need to be there for the flip. I don't care what side of the room you sit on.

Feel free to go for K's or theory arguments, but I have a high standard for quality here. Most of the debates I've judged that attempt to run these arguments have resulted in very low speaks. Don't try to force them if you haven't practiced.

If you take minutes to bring up a card that was called for I will tank your speaks.

Impact calc is most important. Warrants always beat taglines. I prefer hearing smart arguments over a large quantity of them.

2nd rebuttal should answer the 1st, non-negotiable. First summary should extend defense, especially given the 3 minute change. Arguments in final need to be in the summary. Argument spin I could clearly see coming is not new.

Keep your evidence in cut card form, and don't just hand me an article if I call for evidence after the round. I will discount it. Don't misrepresent things and then get caught when I read evidence after the round - that's a quick way to a low speaks L.


29.6 -30: I think you are debating like a Top 5 debater at a national tournament.

29.3 – 29.5: I think you are debating like a Quarter-finalist at a national tournament

28.8 – 29.2: I think you are debating like a doubles or bubble team.

28.5 – 28.7: Debating like you should be .500

28 – 28.4: Debating on a very average level

27-27.9: lots of room for improvement

Below 27: You have used some hateful language, been excessively rude, or given up mid speech

Jeremy Fitzpatrick Paradigm

5 rounds

I have been a PF coach for 15+ years. To win my ballot you should do the following things.

1. Clearly sign post throughout the round. I do flow but I do not like to spend time looking for the arguments you are addressing.

2. If you have a framework, you need to address it throughout the round. Stating it in the first speech and then not again until final focus will cause me to not weigh it as heavily in the round. I only insert myself into rounds that there is no clear framework or weighing mechanism for the round.

3. I can handle moderate speed as long as you articulate. It is to your benefit that I get all the info I can.

4. I vote on the arguments presented. I will listen to all arguments but you need to make sure they are clearly explained. If I do not understand it I do not vote for it. I will not vote on K in PF

5. Extend arguments not cards. You need to give the argument the card is making just not the author's name when extending.

6. Give me clear voting issues in the final focus. I like to hear why you should win. The focus should be on your case not your opponents.

7. Speaker points are based on how well you present yourself throughout the round. I am a speech and theater teacher and like to see good communication skills. Yelling at me or your opponents is not good communication. Crossfires need to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I rarely give 30’s, those are reserved for truly outstanding persuasive speakers.

Anson Fung Paradigm

5 rounds

I teach Mandarin 1 at Strake Jesuit. Good debaters are like big politicians debating on a big stage. Persuasion is necessary. Speak clearly if you want to win. Please make sure your arguments are topical. I'd like a clear story explaining your position and the reasons you should win.


Shane Gilbert Paradigm

7 rounds

TOC Update: Please read my paradigm in its entirety. While I strive to adapt to various styles, I am human in that I often resort to my own biases and vote off of what I prefer. The more you know about my predispositions, the better you will do with me as your judge. Please feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Big Picture

When a round is over, I first look at the impact level. In order to win your impact, you must have: a) extended the same link(s) in both summary and FF (even if you did so in 2nd rebuttal); b) extended that impact in both summary and FF; and c) frontlined all responses to the link(s) and impact(s) you extend. [That being said, if there is some muddled defense on your argument, I sometimes will resolve that if your weighing is much better/ the other team's argument is also muddled.]

After considering the impacts, I then look at weighing. I prefer that you do comparative weighing after you have extended your impact since it makes most sense for me to flow there. I have found that most teams I vote for are those who are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing and offering comparative weighing mechanisms that compel me to prefer their impact(s).

Specific Preferences

1. Do not go fast. Average circuit speed to maybe just a tad faster is my sweet spot. Although I can flow a faster rate, I am more likely to get confused and flustered, often because the debaters are muddling their own arguments instead of explaining the specific warranting. This disconnect makes it difficult for me to assess the round and make a confident decision. By speaking at an average pace, you will increase the chances that I comprehend and ultimately vote off of your argument.

2. Do not give me a roadmap. Just tell me where you're starting and then signpost from there.

3. In summary and FF, I prefer that you collapse on one of your arguments from case.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence, especially if you and your opponent have contradictory cards. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I do care quite a bit about why X is true. If you think your opponent's evidence is shady, tell me to call for it. If I think your evidence is shady or that I need to examine cards to make my decision, then I will call for them.

5. I see teams going for turns that they non-uniqued in rebuttal. I will never vote for an argument that you yourself tell me is non-unique, even if the non-unique response was never extended. Obviously you can read other non-uniques that do not interact with your turn, so do not misread this preference as saying that you should not use both forms of refutation in response to an argument. This preference is exclusive to teams that read responses that logically non-unique their own turns.

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

7. Peculiar but maybe important (and hopefully not relevant for TOC, though some teams always manage to come up with wild arguments...): If you are making an argument about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, 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 think most debate resolutions are rather unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can definitively say specific legislation or electoral results do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case as to why your politics argument is likely, then please do not read it or go for it.

Jacob Gordon Paradigm

7 rounds

Impacts are how you win the round. Unwarranted impacts don't have weight. Everything I'm expected to vote on should be extended through every speech. You're in PF, so you're likely defending the topic/the squo. CPs and Ks probably don't have a place in PF, if you really think it's the best way to approach the topic I'll consider it, but you're definitely setting yourself back by doing so. I'll vote on anything if you give me a valid reason to, this means T needs to have proven abuse/lost ground. C-X isn't flowed. I time everything and stop flowing once you're out of time. Ask me stuff after the round if any of my RFD isn't clear.

On card calling: Think before you do it. I've seen, like, 2 rounds ever where card calling made the difference in who won. It slows down the whole round and is likely not necessary. If you're going to make the same arguments regardless, just make the arguments. This noted, I won't vote differently just due to card calling, just a personal preference.

The contents of each team's summary speech are entirely up to their own discretion. I do not bias myself based on summary content other than through the self-inherent advantages and disadvantages of how you choose to allocate your time.

Eric Grodan Paradigm

4 rounds


3rd year of HS PF judging experience. I have judged at several local and away tournaments.

Paradigm-type items:

I do mind speed.

I disfavor jargon.

Provide a roadmap at the beginning of your speeches.

Avoid conclusory statements not supported by logic and evidence.

I prefer to let you monitor your own time so I can put my entire focus into the debate.


B.A. Political Science M.S.U.

J.D. Southwestern University School of Law

LL.M. (Taxation) Loyola Law School

CA Bar Member #212258

Good luck and have fun!

Alan Gu Paradigm

5 rounds

I debated PF for Millburn HS for four years.

I like clarity and weighing.

If you have additional questions feel free to ask me before round.

Glen Gustafson Paradigm

6 rounds

While I encourage you to use whatever method you need to time yourself, I will have the official time with me, including your prep time. When the time is up, complete your sentence and be prepared to move on to the next part of the debate.

You may speak as fast or as slow as you like - however - if I can't understand what you are saying, it may not be helpful to your argument.

1st and 2nd cross are individual crosses. Your partner should not be assisting you during this time.

My personal opinions on whatever the topic might be will not interfere with how well you make your case. Convince me and you will win my vote.

Best of luck to everyone!

Max Hardt Paradigm

6 rounds

PF in 2020:


I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

Arthur Harris Paradigm

7 rounds


Graduated Bloomington Jefferson HS in 2012. Competed in Policy (4 Years) / Congress (3 Tournaments) / Extemp Speaking (4 Years).

Did not debate in college. Currently coach Public Forum and Congress for Bloomington (Year 2), work in finance when not coaching.

Paradigm Questions/Disclosure:

If you have specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask them before the round starts (but ask your specific question, not "what's your paradigm"). I recognize my relative inexperience in the judging pool and am learning and growing as a judge just as you are as a competitor.

Assorted Musing/Long Paradigm:

I used to have a whole lot of words here about the way I think about and judge debate. I've moved that to a google doc which you can view here. Everything is still up to date and accurate

Most Important Things:

Be respectful. If you say anything offensive (racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.) I will not hesitate to give you the auto-loss or the worst score I can.

I'm always down to give you more feedback, email is great (arthurpaulharris at gmail dot com) or just come find me at a tournament. I will answer any question about something on any ballot I put out.

Short Paradigm [PF/LD]:

1. I can flow your speed although I'd appreciate if you'd slow down for your tags (really as long as you're clear for your tags you're fine, but none of you are clear so slow down for your tags).

2. I don't know any of your jargon (topic specific jargon or debate specific jargon). You'll need to explain your arguments using plain language for me to flow it or extend it.

3. Theory is good, theory in PF will almost always result in dropping the arg not the team - the burden is on your to prove otherwise if that's the route you want to go. Probably the same for LD, idk.

4. I'll vote on critical arguments in PF under the following conditions: you run them on the neg, you have clear links to the aff and you have impacts that can be weighed against aff impacts in the "game world" of the debate. For example, I won't use my ballot to reject the patriarchal language of the aff (although remember, if they're sexist/misogynistic/racist in the round they're getting the auto-loss) but I will use my ballot to vote neg if the threats the aff solves for are all inevitable because the models their authors use create a feedback loop that perpetuates a state of permanent war.

5. Stop abusing prep time

Short Paradigm [Congress] [Specific for Nats 2020]:

1. Debating makes up ~70% of your rank in front of me, speechcraft is ~30%. Argument quality is an important sub-element of debating (note - creative link chains are acceptable, you just need to explain them well). I am a human though, so masterful rhetorical skill can get you a good rank if you have it.

2. POs - I am PO friendly in the sense that I will rank a PO in the top 3 for a round if they make a) no precedence/recency mistakes (speeches /questions) and keep the round running at a smooth (not breakneck, smooth) pace. If you are able to do that, POing is probably a smart move for you in front of me. However, mistakes are punished and a PO that makes more than a handful of mistakes likely won't catch the ballot (unless the chamber is particularly bad at debating).

3. At an invitational tournament I can get down with parliamentary procedure shenanigans. At Nats (especially online this year), please refrain from these ploys.

4. I am probably one of the more friendly judges for you if you like to run critical theory arguments. I can't say this will ever be a good strat for you because I'm never your only judge, but if shooters gotta shoot - let it be you.

5. Please remember to have fun. If you aren't having fun there's really no point to any of this.

Michelle Harrosh Paradigm

7 rounds

Please offer strong narrative for your case and clear explanation of concepts/arguments. Please do not speak too quickly, as I am a lay judge and would like to take in the details of your case.

Jessica Hilbrich Paradigm

6 rounds

No, I don't care which side you sit on.

As of 2019, 15 years of debate experience as a student (Policy), judge (All events), and coach (PF)

Prefers traditional style debate. Evidence should be used to support arguments, but articulate analysis and explanation of your argument and why it is important is key

Tabula Rasa - I try to stay as neutral as possible on arguments. This means I expect you to explain your arguments and impacts during every round and you cannot assume that I will credit you with information that you did not say or extrapolate your argument/impact for you.

Prefer a well structured narrative carried through the round to a bunch of arguments which are kicked in later speeches - but some strategic collapse is fine

Impacts should be realistic - I am not voting on extinction

I do not like speed and speakers should be articulate

Stick to time

Be civil. There is a difference between being confident and condescending.

I almost never make a decision until the final two speeches. Weighing your impacts is important. I will not vote on something you did not say (and continue to say until the end)

Robey Holland Paradigm

7 rounds

I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain:

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.


· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.


· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.


· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.


· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.


· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.


· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.


· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Georgia Huges Paradigm

5 rounds

First thing to know about me, I am a lay public forum judge. I have judged around the circuit, but I emphasize to you, I am a lay PF judge. I am judging for Bronx Science.

I like delivery that is slow, tasteful, and artful. I prefer big picture analysis over a highly technical line-by-line approach. The role of the final focus should be to tell me who is winning the round clearly and concisely--narrative speeches are preferred. Extension is very important to me, and I will not take well to teams that extend through ink.

With that being said, ink will be limited. During speeches, I like to sit back and listen. Persuasion is very important to me, and for that reason, I value understanding your arguments over following them on the flow, and will take limited notes. I am not aware of arguments regarding topicality or kritiks, and plans are illegal in Public Forum, so I will not vote for them.

I tend to value style and argument equally, as both are very important. I will always vote for the team with the clearest arguments and delivery at the end of the round. I do not care much for how you structure your speeches, but all arguments that you expect to win on have to be in both summary and final focus--not grand crossfire. A second speaking team is not expected to cover their own case in rebuttal.


Sandeep Jejurikar Paradigm

6 rounds

I was a varsity policy debater in high school and am an experienced parent judge. I have judged over 40 varsity public forum rounds including the 2019 IHSA State Debate Championship and the 2019 National Speech and Debate Tournament. A few paradigms:

- I am a flow judge. I expect that debaters will extend evidence properly throughout the round. Any new evidence introduced in Final Focus will be disregarded.

- I am fine with speed. However, if I cannot understand your speech, I will not flow it. If you spread, you will lose!

- I will not flow Crossfire, but many rounds are won or lost here. If you have "won" in Crossfire, mention it in a later speech and it will be noted.

- I strongly encourage all debaters to weigh their impacts towards the end of the round. Success here will likely win you my ballot.

Best of luck!

Nathan Johnston Paradigm

4 rounds

Contact info: (Don't be shy. Any and all questions are welcome).

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

The Paradigm Proper:
First, debate is meant to be a fun activity! With this being said, in round humor is definitely a plus! Debate rounds often tend to get real boring. I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. Ask questions. Whatever. I'm pretty easy going. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. As a result, my threshold for you being rude or offensive may be marginally lower than other peoples. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I do not walk into the room with a predetermined framework on how the round should be evaluated. The debaters in the room set the framework and I will judge the round as such. This is not my first rodeo in the activity. I've been around for over a decade. I am fine with speed, jargon, etc. I do not have any preferences as many judges say before the round but my ballots most times always reflect the arguments I'm most familiar with. I am familiar with both critical and policy types of arguments so regardless of whichever team you are I can always adapt efficiently.

General Stuffs:
1. Yes, open CX is fine (This applies to policy, of course.)
2. Prep stops when the drive leaves the computer or the email has been sent (this is specific to CX, for PF and LD just don't steal prep).
3. I don't really want to be flashed cases (too time consuming), but if there is an email chain I'd like to join.
4. I don't really pay attention during cross. That's your time to get clarification/concessions. If you want those things to matter then put them in speeches.
5. I'm not waiting for you to pre-flow. Do it before you get to the round (this also isn't an excuse to be late).

Interpretation of the Round:
My default interpretation of the round is within the lens of an policymaker, evaluating the affirmative plan versus the status quo or a competitive policy option. If there is an alternative framework, or a clash of two different frameworks I will evaluate the round based upon the winning framework. Each team should focus upon the warrants as to why their framework is favorable for the round; otherwise ‘winning the flow’ becomes difficult to assess. I believe that the affirmative should defend a stable advocacy whether or not they have an advocacy text and if they should be held accountable for not having one is up for debate. If there is a theoretical objection in the round I will evaluate as per a offense/defense paradigm. I will adapt to whatever is presented in the round as long as it is defended and explained (as long as it doesn't become offensive). My default method of risk calculus is always based upon an offense-defense paradigm, strictly on the flow and what was argued. I will not make extrapolations by myself, and will only assess what’s given to me. That being said, judge intervention is inevitable- however I will not allow for biases to intervene in my judgement All in all, there are other frameworks, and it is up to the debaters in the room to determine which framework I should prefer.

I love k debate. I'm familiar with the literature. I only ask that if it is something a bit out of the mainstream (though my version of mainstream includes a whole lot of stuff, so ask in round if you aren't sure if you're in it) or being used for its non-traditional purposes that you slow down on the taglines. I expect really good link analysis.

I'm cool with K affs, too. In fact, I enjoy them a lot. Though I do think that they should at least be in the direction of the topic.

Blippy theory arguments are not convincing, and a team must win explicitly that the other team should be rejected instead of their argument. I generally believe that conditionality can be easily defended. PICs and PIKs are in most part competitive. I need genuine in round abuse to pull the trigger on theory.

Impact Calculus:
This is an essential tool to win. Hands down. Comparative analysis FTW The rebuttals should primarily focus on this, because it is the selling point of the debate. Also, for debaters favoring a “probability” style of debate, I believe that probability serves as an internal link to assessing the magnitude of a given impact.

Disad/Status-quo/Case Strategies:
Politics Disads are fine as long as you know what you’re talking about. I have seen politics disads debated very well, and very poorly. The more specific impact calculus the better. The negative should prove how their impacts intersect or outweigh the impacts of the affirmative in any type of DA. Specific warranted analysis on the case turn debate is a must. Case Defense is also a very important strategy in neutralizing the impacts of the affirmative. If the negative wins good ‘defensive’ arguments against the Affirmative’s advantages, it puts their DA impacts to a higher standard of evaluation in comparison to the Aff’s advantages. The same applies for the affirmative using “defensive” arguments against the DA.

Counterplans should be competitive. They must be a better policy option than the affirmative. I may be a little AFF biased when it comes to evaluating the CP against the AFF. For a Counterplan to be a legitimate use of fiat it must have a solvency advocate or else it'll be considered as a use of utopian fiat. To win the cp you must justify its use of fiat especially if the counterplan has several planks and is international or is some random agent within the USFG. Regardless, I think that the Counterplan ultimately has one use: To disprove that the Affirmative plan is necessary to solve for the problems presented in the 1AC. This is where Advantage Counterplans that solve for the internal link to the Aff advantages are highly respectable. The Aff should be ready for this by having specific Add-ons that the Advantage CP can’t capture.

I like T a lot, but I'm not a big fan of multiple blippy shells just to do it. I've generally found 1 or 2 is best. I think reasonability is probably pretty solid, but I can be convinced otherwise in any given round..

Performance-ish stuffs:
Debate in my opinion is a very strategic and educational game. You play to be competitive and to win. Go Big or Go home. I believe that there is some truth about the educational aspect of both policy and critical types of arguments; but in round it is up to the debaters to sell the argument to me and prove why they should get my ballot. Especially on the aff, the affirmative team has to write my ballot for me in the 2AR, specifically they must explain what my ballot means especially in the context of their movement. Is my ballot a representation of an instance of coalition building? like what is it!? Bottom Line, debate what you're most comfortable with, slightly adjust to my paradigm and you should be fine.

LD Folks:
I don't mean to ignore you until the bottom. LD was my first love, and with the direction that LD has taken in the last decade or so, most of the above applies to you anyway. Just a couple extra bonus comments for you. 1) I think time skew is real. I think sometimes it sucks to be the aff. Which means I may be more receptive to theory arguments and AFC than many judges. I also think that it means you can justify an RVI a little easier to me. 2) If we are in a good ole value criterion debate, make sure that you're impacting everything through the framework really clearly for me.

PF Stuff:
Don't steal prep when asking for evidence (I wish we could just reach a point where you all would flash each other cases like other events). If you can't find a piece of evidence within a minute I'll have you start running your own prep to find evidence. This is pretty punitive but either PFers should start actually reading carded evidence instead of paraphrasing or you should have the cards accessible. This isn't this much of a problem in other events, it shouldn't be a problem in PF. 2nd Rebuttal: you probably should respond to offense or terminal defense put on your case by the first rebuttal. Yes, defense should be in first summary (especially now that you get an extra minute). You need to be doing some impact framing in summary and generally the majority of your final focus should be on impacts too. Give me an easy route to the ballot. If you just extend impacts/offense and don't put it into conversation with your opponent. I'm pretty progressive in other events, I'm not sure why that would stop in PF. So do whatever you want just make sure you're telling me to do with my ballot.

Anshul Joshi Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated for four years in PF on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough and coached PF at Bronx Science.


- Second rebuttal should preferably respond to new offense/turns from first rebuttal

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense unless second rebuttal frontlined it. In that case, first summary should extend defense on the relevant parts of the flow

Things I Like:

- Summary and the final focus consistency. This means proper extension of arguments (i.e. warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure your weighing is comparative (ex: strength of link, clarity of impact, etc) in relation to your opponents' arguments rather than just a bunch of pre-written reasons why your impact matters.

On theory/progressive argumentation:

I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (i.e. read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round) because of PF's speech structure. That being said, if someone says something problematic or does something unfair, definitely call them out for it. Feel free to try to amend my views on debate, just do so knowing that I'm not incredibly versed on progressive argumentation. If you do read progressive arguments in front of me, tell me exactly how they function within the round and should influence my ballot.

Finally, if you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue.

John Karnes Paradigm

7 rounds

Relax. Enjoy. Have fun. BREATHE!

I am usually able to set aside my personal bias to vote for the best argument. This is why you are here; to persuade. Being right in your own mind does not matter; convince me.

For the most part, I am a tech over truth judge, however, crappy link chains will not suffice even if dropped by your opponent. Further, I prefer traditional Lincoln Douglas framework debate over all else. This said, I am willing to listen to anything but cannot promise that I will understand dense phil or high theory. In essence, explain the argument and I will do my best to evaluate it.

If you spread, you should be very clear. I am not super comfortable with speed for I usually judge PF.

Use CX to your advantage. A strategic CX is key to pinning down your opponent and making the debate interesting.

Evidence is good but you have to impact it out. Don’t simply win arguments, give me reasons to vote for you. If you make a clear story, I will most likely vote for you. With this in mind I want to hear voters at the end of the round; explicitly tell me why you are winning.

Other than that have fun. If you make me laugh, your speaker points will go up.

Kieron Kessler Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a former policy debater. Debate is an educational event, therefore I assume that education is at the top of the debaters priority. You need to weigh you impacts in order for me to consider it to be a legitimate argument. I did k debate in high school so you can run a k, just do it right. I'm pretty lay but also expect to see the upmost respect given to your opponents.

Liya Khan Paradigm

6 rounds

I competed in Public Forum in high school for four years and coached for two year for Colleyville Heritage High School. I'm currently a fourth year at the University of Chicago and a concurrent Master's student in IR.

I'm open to any argument but have a few preferences with argumentation:

Framework: Super important! I think framework is incredibly useful in contextualizing all arguments in the round. Linking your arguments through your framework and then proving why I should buy the framework is the clearest path to my ballot. But also make sure to engage in a framework debate, not simply read different frameworks against each other. Weighing arguments under your framework = critical to my ballot.

Summary/Final Focus: Make sure to set up arguments in Summary that will be weighed in Final. Extend offense from turns or disadvantages made in rebuttal, and don't simply tell me 'extend' things for you, do the weighing to convince me of the argument. Collapsing is key here, and your approach to Summary can't be to go for everything in the round-if you go explicitly line by line you lose a lot of valuable time that can be spent weighing.

Impact framing: You need to frame and weigh impacts in the last speeches for it to count as a voter. Simply repeating an impact from your constructive is not enough to win it; you need to weigh it against other impacts in the round and frame why we should be prioritizing those impacts first.

Defense: Answer it! I will weigh extended defense that goes unresponded to if your opponents do the work in weighing it. If you simply repeat your arguments without interacting with your opponent's responses, I'll be hesitant to buy it.

Evidence: I wil call for evidence that either 1) I know it is being misrepresented or miscut, 2) your opponents advocate is being misrepresented, or 3)sound exceptionally sketchy. Even if I think a piece of evidence might be untrue or unconvincing, I put the onus on the opposing team to call for the card and for me to evaluate it if they think it is critical to my decision in the round.

Speed: Don't debate at the speed where you have to do that weird breathing thing with your voice. I really dislike that sound.

Keep the debate space inclusive and accessible to all. I'm highly sensitive to racist, sexist, or misogynistic behavior, actions, or speech, and will intervene in exceptionally egregious circumstances.

Nick Klemp Paradigm

4 rounds

Public Forum


Coached PF and LD for the past 5 years at Phoenix Country Day School in Arizona where I also teach economics. PF and LD competitor in 2003. I have judged Public Forum and LD at all levels over the past 15 years.


I do believe that Public Forum should be accessible to all levels of judge experience, and I am less inclined to see arguments that serve to exclude the general public amicably. That being said, I hate intervening in rounds, so it is your opponents' job to explain why those arguments do not meet the spirit of public forum, are antithetical to the educational purpose of the event, and/or create levels of abuse that tip the balance towards one side or the other.

General Philosophy:

Tabula Rasa - I'll only intervene if something egregious or offensive occurs that an educator needs to step in and correct. Otherwise, I'll vote on the arguments in the round and weigh the impacts through the frameworks that are presented. If there are competing frameworks in the round, show me why you win through both of them.

Devesh Kodnani Paradigm

3 rounds

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

**Optional Section**

If any individual in the round would prefer these rules not be applied, let me know at the start and I'll waive them for the round, no questions asked.

1. Effective use of Kanye West and/or Frank Ocean lyrics will be rewarded with a bump in speaker points ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 points.

2. I will be enforcing the #WORLDSTAR section of Hebron Daniel's paradigm:

Have fun, and best of luck! Seriously. Have fun. Otherwise it's not worth it.

Rodney Kornegay Paradigm

6 rounds

Speaking clearly and at a speed so that I can understand your argument is imperative. I prefer a debate exhibiting quality over a debate exhibiting quantity. Be kind to your fellow debaters whether in or out of the debate room.

Nicole Kroepel Paradigm

6 rounds

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for ten years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged national circuit tournaments, including the ToC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Round specifics:

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me. I will stop flowing if you are speaking too fast, so please pay attention to that.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

I expect that extensions are clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact withtout warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist. I am tech over truth, so I go based on the round and what is true in the scope of the debate.

For Nationals specifically:

This topic needs weighing; you will have to weigh your argument against that of your opponent. There are people at the heart of both sides, so that should always be part of your calculus in the back half of the round. Interact with your opponents' case as much as possible. This topic is an evaluation of the status quo and how it impacts quality of education. I expect you talk about about quality of education and how it is helped or harmed. DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. Conflicting evidence on this topic is plentiful. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

Sophia Lam Paradigm

6 rounds

I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep and I'm a soph at uchicago

- if you have offense with a terminalized impact and you outweigh with said offense, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna weigh myself and you probably won't like that.

- I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round (abusive interpretation of the resolution, evidence issues).

- I like warrants. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.

- speed is mostly fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.

- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline but I like it when you do.

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech

- I don't time but if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing.

- If the default iphone timer sound rings at the end of ur speech I'm docking 1 speaker point.

Marina Leventis Paradigm

5 rounds


I competed nationally for Colleyville Heritage in PF debate for four years.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

TL;DR Weigh your arguments in summary and ff, what's not in summary should not be in final focus, and the second speaking team must do case defense in the second rebuttal on offense from the first rebuttal.

1. The team that does a better job weighing the offense they're winning is going to win the round, you know this. Just don't go for only defense at the end of the round, because that's not a reason to vote for you, that just might be a reason not to vote for your opponent.

2. Any offense in the final focus that is not in summary will not be evaluated. If you're a "new in the two" kinda person, you will get lower speaks, and you will more than likely lose my ballot.

3. If you don't answer offense (overviews, turns, whatever it may be) from the first rebuttal in the second rebuttal, I will consider that offense dropped. You don't have to answer all the ink on the flow, just respond to turns and overviews and you'll be fine. I would prefer all of the first rebuttal to be answered, but I will not punish you for not doing so. If the second speaking rebuttal answers the entirety of the first speaking rebuttal, the first summary should extend defense. If the second speaking rebuttal only answers offense, then the first summary need not extend defense.

Other Concerns:

Overviews are great; if you read an overview that goes unanswered you will probably win my ballot unless it's terminal defense. But tell me where to flow them before you start reading it or I will likely miss a lot of what you're saying. Also please answer frameworks if you don't agree with them, don't expect me to ignore what someone else has presented.

I appreciate taking the time to weigh responses way more than I appreciate card dumping. If I catch a team powertag or strawcut stuff or any other funky evidence misrepresentations, I will be very mad about it and at the very least you will be getting bad speaks.

I personally think grand crossfire is a waste of 3 minutes so if both teams agree to throwing it out I will be much nicer with speaks. Let me clarify, this does not give you extra prep time. I will not at all be angry if you decide that grand cross is important to the round for whatever reason, I simply just want to extend this offer that I would have appreciated as a competitor.

Recently I have noticed a speed trend in PF which is fine and I can keep up with, but most teams sacrifice weighing and clarity simply to go faster. Please note card dump statement above: if you read 20 responses that aren't articulated well or weighed etc., you are not gaining any points with me.

Hunter Martin Paradigm

5 rounds

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

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

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

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

John Mast Paradigm

6 rounds

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise. Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague. Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc. Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

Elisa McCartin Paradigm

7 rounds

For email chains/evidence exchange at online TOC:

I debated for four years at Walt Whitman High School (MD), where I now serve as the Head PF coach. I have been judging for two years. The best thing you can do for yourself to cleanly win my ballot is to weigh. At the end of the round, you will probably have some offense but so will your opponent. Tell me why your offense is more important and really explain it—otherwise I’ll have to intervene and use my own weighing, which you don’t want.

Other preferences:

- First summary does NOT need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, it WOULD be necessary. You do need to extend turns though if you want to go for them.

- Second summary needs defense and should start the weighing part of the debate (if it hasn't happened already) because I don’t love when a second speaking team comes into final focus with all new weighing.

- I will only accept new weighing in the second final focus if there has been literally no other weighing at any other part of the debate.

-I highly suggest collapsing on 1-2 arguments; I definitely prefer quality of arguments over quantity.

- I am super big on warrants. For any evidence you read you should explain why that conclusion was reached (ie explain the warrant behind it). I love a good warrant comparison. Obviously in some instances you need cards for certain things, but in general I will buy logic if it is well explained over a card that is read but has absolutely no warrant that's been said. I also really hate when people just respond to something by saying "they don't have a card for this, therefore it's false" so don't do that.

- Speed is okay but spreading is not.

- Don’t just list weighing mechanisms, explain how your weighing functions in the round and be comparative. Simply saying "their argument is vague/we outweigh on strength of link/we have tangible evidence and they do not" is not weighing.

- Not big on Ks and theory is only fine if there is a real and obvious violation going on. Don’t just run theory to scare your opponent or make the round more confusing. With this in mind, please trigger warn your cases to avoid triggering anyone in the round. Trigger warning theory is probably the theory I am most likely to vote on.

-if you say anything like "uniqueness controls the directionality of the link" or any like absurdly jargony thing I will tank your speaks.

-In general, I highly encourage you not to run arguments in front of me about people on welfare having disincentives to work, or any other type of argument like that which shows a clear lack of understanding/empathy about poverty and the lived experiences of low-income people.

- I like off-time roadmaps, but if you are going to give one, make sure you actually follow it (lol) and don't make it ridiculously long/overly indepth. Saying like "I'm starting on my case and then going to overview and then their case" or something is perfect.

The only time I’ll intervene (besides if you don’t weigh and I have to choose what to weigh), is if you are being sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or are blatantly misrepresenting evidence. I’ll drop you and tank your speaks so don’t do that :)

Also, I know debate is often stressful so try to have fun! I love when jokes are made in the round and debaters look like they are having a great time… that’s why we do this at the end of the day! Let me know if you have any other questions before the round or if there is anything I can do to accommodate you and make you feel safe.

Cale McCrary Paradigm

6 rounds

I care most about the round being safe, so let me know if you need any accommodations beforehand at

Debate how you're comfortable. I’m tab, so I'll evaluate anything that's frontlined, fully extended, and non-exclusionary, including progressive arguments.

At a minimum, frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal. You don't need to extend defense until the speech after it's frontlined. Dropped responses will stick. Speed is totally fine provided your opponents are cool with it, you're clear, and, if you spread, you send a doc to my email.

Kevin McDougal Paradigm

6 rounds

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

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

Sherry Meng Paradigm

6 rounds

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.


General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you need to explain the logical reason behind your argument.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.


I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off a K that is not directly related to the topic. Education value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as its on topic per NSDA website for the tournament.

Jesse Meyer Paradigm

5 rounds

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain.

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Connor Meyer Paradigm

6 rounds

Munster HS, IN 2014-2018: 4 Years of Public Forum Debate (3-Time National Qualifier, IN State Champion, TOC Silver PF 2018)

1 Year of Congressional Debate

Indiana University- Bloomington, O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Class of 2022

he/him; jargon-friendly, speed-friendly, overall I want the round to be accommodating to different styles of debating and debaters of different backgrounds


I have no issue with theory, pre-fiat args, kritikal framework debates, but hit them early and make them stick (nothing after first summary unless its to counter egregious abuse). Also, PF is PF, so if you make an argument like this, it ought to be directly related to the topic being debated (workers' rights, poverty commodification, etc.). I will find it difficult to vote on a generic cap or random philosopher argument

Terminal D/Turns

Not that complicated, second rebuttal should respond to turns and start to tell me what you're going for, so that second summary and ff can be about weighing. First summary should do a lot of the same and extend some of the turns, but I could grant leeway based on the speed/structure of the second rebuttal


Feel free to paraphrase cards but it better say what you claim it says because I will call cards based on when its extended/if I'm asked to call for it. Cut cards are acceptable, I will only ask for more based on an accusation of clipping or something similar.


A sin I committed as a debater that I'm attempting to atone for now is being unnecessarily aggressive in crossfire, especially towards teams with debaters of different genders. Crossfires are important rhetorically and can be funny and exciting but I will dock points for either side being overly dismissive/aggressive. I also prefer crosses to be about substance rather than in-round strategy. Bonus points if you can indict evidence at the start of crossfire.

Also, for the love of Ashtar, tell me what to weigh, tell me how to weigh it, tell me why I should weigh it. I'm a judge, not just a flow

As always, any deliberately offensive (racist, sexist, classist, ad hominem) argument will get you docked.

Anika Mirza Paradigm

7 rounds

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit for the Blake School from 2014-2018. I currently attend UC Berkeley where I am studying political science and economics. I'm also an assistant Public Forum Coach for the Nueva School in San Mateo, California.

If I don’t answer one of your questions in this paradigm just ask before round :)


If possible have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.

I will flow, but I won't catch the name of every author you read so don't just extend the author name also extend the argument itself.

I’m fine with people watching the round.

Probably the most important thing for you to know is to have warrants (I don't care if they're analytical or carded but I care that they are there!)

Second rebuttal: I prefer second rebuttal to respond to turns on case from first rebuttal

First summary: Defense should be in first summary if it is front lined in second rebuttal, if it isn't then it doesn't need to be in first summary

Speed: I rather you speak at approximately an average PF speed (or slower, if you want). I say this because in my experience really really fast PF rounds can lead to a lack of clarity/articulation of words and/or debaters dropping warrants. Even if that's not you, going super fast still risks me missing arguments.

Speaker points: Things that will improve your speaks besides generally debating well include making jokes/being entertaining!!, strategic cross fires, and weighing especially if you start early (like rebuttal).

Evidence: Paraphrasing ethically is completely fine with me. If a team calls for a card you should be able to fairly promptly give it to them. If for some reason you don’t have a card I’m fine with you giving a PDF if you highlight what you read in the PDF.

Please don’t hand an entire PDF over to your opponents and say you summarize like 5 pages of it because there is no way they can read that. In other words if you are reading a summary of a card and it’s 2 sentences you shouldn’t hand your opponents a card or PDF with 3 paragraphs highlighted.

If teams read a card and cannot produce it I will take it off my flow automatically. If their opponents then argue that not having cards you read is unethical and I should drop the team that did it I will definitely consider that argument.

Prep: Keep track of it.

Kritiks and Theory: Run what you want to run I'm open to any good argument, but disclaimer I have little background in this, so if you do run it please explain your arguments and assume I don't know the jargon.

Additionally: this shouldn't have to be said but of course don’t be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc

Adrian Mitchell Paradigm

5 rounds

I am a former public forum debater. When you make arguments, make sure you understand what they mean. Impacts are always benifical throughout the entire debate. But extend the argument not the card. If you believe you have won a point, you should be able to summarize why you have into a brief statement as opposed to not mentioning it. By the end of the final focus I should have a clear presentation of why your team won the round. If you use evidence in the round, please have that evidence ready to be shown in case it is called for by the opposing team or me.i will give a verbal RFD about what need to be worked on or give suggestions for possible help.

Please be respectful, speak well, and remember this activity is one for education and fun

Megan Munce Paradigm

6 rounds

4 years debating mostly in PF, graduated in 2018

updated for BR: I am old now so pls don't assume I know anything about this topic and also speak not too too fast thank u <3

  • If you need any accommodations to be able to access the round, such as keeping it below a certain wpm, let me know before the round and directly in front of your opponents
  • I can understand theory and am willing to vote on theory, but I have a particularly hard time voting for disclosure theory

  • I won't evaluate unrelated DAs/new contentions/new impacts past case. Additionally, if your argument is one thing and constructive and suddenly becomes something new (adds an impact, changes an impact) in the final focus I'm not evaluating it.

  • No defense in first summary or rebuild in second rebuttal required.

  • I'll call for any piece of evidence you tell me to in a speech if it'll make an impact on my decision even if you don't say why. However, if you explain why it's misconstrued or otherwise bad I'll be more likely to see the problem.

  • I don't vote for impacts that aren't terminalized.

It should go without saying that if you say something offensive that passes the threshold of an innocent mistake your speaks are getting dropped, and if you get called out on it and continue to do it you’re getting the lowest speaks possible from me.

My email is if you have any questions before or after the round!

Stephanie Oakland Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Baku Patel Paradigm

6 rounds

I was a policy debater in high school and also debated at the college level. I am currently a trial attorney and managing partner of my own firm, but also the head coach of Urbana High School.

I vote strictly by the flow and heavily weigh any arguments that are dropped as long as it's extended by the SS and FF. I do not consider "generic" framework arguments such as cost/benefit, who will save more lives, etc. so do not waste precious rebuttal time making those as main voting issues. Also, simply restating your constructive contentions is not an effective "main voter" issue, rather focus on where the main clashes are in the round and why it should be favorably weighed. I also weigh actual turns of contentions and arguments if they are done effectively.

Speed is totally fine. I can flow spread if done clearly but needs to be well organized. In other words, let me know where to specifically link your arguments to on the flow. Therefore, use speed to your advantage.

I do not need a road map unless you are going outside of the norm. Please do not call for every piece of evidence unless you are really questioning the source or context of the card. Also, I do not note the source, but only the content during the round, so please DO NOT just refer to a card in rebuttal, SS or FF by simply stating the source. You will need to state the content the card in your argument.

Please avoid debate jargon and stick with weighing/impacting to carry a round.

The 2nd speaking team should cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal. Otherwise I will consider the arguments dropped. Its up to the first speaking team to point this out and extend in the summary.

Marc Poissonnier Paradigm

4 rounds

I am a junior at UW-Madison where I am on the Policy Debate Team. I also competed in PF for two years at Chanhassen High School.

Public Forum: I believe that the judge should have to intervene as little as possible when making their decision. That means that impact calc is really important (ie, you should tell me what impacts are important and how they relate to the other impacts in the round).

Speed: Any speed is fine with me as long as you're clear.

Disclosure: I will disclose and the end of the round and provide an RFD.

Speaks: I ask myself 3 questions when giving speaks

- Is the debater being respectful and reasonable?

- How good is the argumentation?

- How articulate is the debate speaking?

EDITED: today

Natalie Polanco Paradigm

7 rounds

Image result for much serious very debate

Neil Press Paradigm

6 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raj Purohit Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated public forum for four years on both the national circuit and MN state circuit. I am two years out and currently a private pf coach for Eagan PS. I specialize in lay appeal. On the spectrum of lay and flow, I am two standard deviations below the average judge here. I've been known to squirrel, but I know my decisions are the best!

Please don't bullshit me on this topic. Conflict of interest! I interned as a healthcare consultant at Horizon (pharma industry) and have worked on drug pricing projects for hospitals. I am also a future doctor and have done clinical research.

Tech -----------------------------------x----- Truth

Lay ------------x--------------------- flow

Parent ---------------- Christian Vasquez------------x------------------- real pf coaches

Generally confused face ------------------------X------------- confused by you face

Matthew Redler Paradigm

7 rounds

Background Experience

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

Now coach @ Ransom Everglades

How I Evaluate The Round

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

How I Evaluate Arguments

Use your warrants, please. I can't evaluate an argument that I cannot understand, and I cannot understand arguments that are not fully explained. Note, empirics are worthless without logical backing. I respect great logic far more than I do what some random study found. Here's why

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

Gabe Rusk Paradigm

7 rounds

PF Paradigm 2019-2020 Season:


- The narrative surrounding Actor A reacts X when the US pulls out is a very messy one. If we are going to have a comparative debate that says when the US pulls out and Saudi Arabia/Iran/Israel are going to react in a certain way I need you to do comparison on how I determine that is the probable action. It might be something like a mix of precedent, game theory, empirical studies, internal politics, etc. Idk I'm infinitely tired of seeing debates that are like: No pull out makes Actor A more aggressive/less aggressive because they want to expand/the existential threat is gone. How do I reconcile competing reasons why a country may escalate or de-escalate? What if you have precedent and the other team has evidence on the internal politics of the country? How is one factor more important in determining how a future actor will act? The debate cannot be here are three reasons why they do x and the other side is three reasons why they will do y. Why are those reasons more illustrative of a trend or action than the other? Help me out.

- I consider myself tech>truth but I have been approaching a closer equilibrium between the two lately due to how poor evidence ethics have been become.

- I'm going to read the cards in the email exchange if you do evidence comparison in the round. Do not lie, miscut, or egregiously paraphrase. This could be an independent reason I vote you down.

- They asked us to keep our video on during rounds. Unless y'all start significantly lagging I will abide by this requirement. I may turn off my video if things are slowing down.

- Read my analysis on theory below. I'm less inclined to vote on theory arguments more than ever before. That being said in the last three tournaments I have voted for a handful of theory based violations but the vast majority of the time the other team has either won the standards or impact debate on theory. I just want to be honest and let you know I don't think PF offers the time to handle these claims properly but I will evaluate them sincerely as they come.

Big Things

  • What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
  • Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
  • Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
  • I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical and/or theoretical roads. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become more tired of bad or unfleshed out theory debates in PF. I will be especially incredulous of your theory argument if I discover your application of theory is principally inconsistent. For example, you are running disclosure or paraphrasing theory against one team for violating but not another team who violated (assuming both judges would have equally been receptive.) There may be other extenuating circumstances that explain the discrepancy in application but they need to be addressed. Lastly, if you look back at the last 20 rounds or so I've judged with theory as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced theory in the round 6 of 20 rounds. All variables being equal I would prefer topic specific rounds but in principle remain tabula rasa.

Little Things

  • What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time.
  • If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
  • Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
  • Calling for cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Smh y'all.
  • If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear.
  • My favorite question in cx is: Why?
  • My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
  • Don't read "framework" at the top of case unless it's carded. Rarely is it warranted or carded. It's almost always asserted. If you have a card and have an independent warrant go for it. Otherwise don't waste our time in the speech when we know the debate will end with CBA. You can run overviews and weighing but that's different than framework as some approach it. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.
  • Don't read definitions if the judge is familiar with the topic. Waste of time.
  • I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
  • I understand the desire to ask for quantifications or quantitative brightlines. It can be helpful in some debates. However, if you ask for a specific quantification then the burden on you in turn is to provide quantifications for your argument as well. I can't tell you how many times I see teams ask others to quantify their impacts and little if none of their own meet that same standard.
  • If you run a percentage increase in an impact or effect you better have the original baseline or original percent if asked. Saying something increases by 845% is misleading without context. If my tea drinking increased by 200% per day and the original amount was 2 oz that isn't significant in context.
  • Offtime road maps fine
  • Pre-flowing in general should be done before the round. Especially if it's second flight. Like what are y'all doing outside the room lmao.
  • Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me!
  • To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit:

Gabe Rusk

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at Oxford Debate Union

Coaching Experience: 10+ years of coaching, instructor at 12+ debate camps, debate camp director, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, Director of Debate at Fairmont 2018-Current, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Majored in Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas of familiarity include Buddhism, comparative religion, free speech, art law, copyright law, & SCOTUS history.


Ahhhhh! You made it this far. If you want a free First Amendment sticker let me know! They are an exact copy of the one on my laptop.

Russ Rywell Paradigm

6 rounds

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

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

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

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

Basanth Sadasivan Paradigm

7 rounds

I am a current final year student at Durham University in the United Kingdom studying Politics and International Relations. I previously attended Georgetown University and Cranbrook (High School, graduated in 2016). I have participated in both Model United Nations and Debating during my High School/University Days. Feel free to ask any clarifying questions to if you still have any concerns after reading this paradigm.

I am a pretty relaxed flow judge, and generally try to be flexible/accommodating to both sides during the debates. However, there are a couple of pointers you should be aware of before coming in for a VPF round with me:

1. Delivery

It is fine with me if you go fast. However, please make sure you are clear at the same time. The number of teams I have judged who prioritize speed over me actually being able to hear their words has been remarkable. If I cannot understand what you are saying or if I am not sure what word you just said, it is wrong.

2. Evidence and Cards

I am fine with the use of evidence and cards, and would recommend their use wherever needed. However, please ensure that it is actually related to what you are talking about! Ask yourself this question before running a card during this debate: How much does it strengthen my argument/ weaken the argument of the other party? If the answer to either question is "Not much", then maybe consider utilizing a different approach. I am also alright with paraphrasing. However, do ensure that the key points of your argument are still retained! Otherwise if your opponent/myself decides to call for your card, it would mean serious issues for you. Dates for these cards are also very important.

3. Structure and Delivery

Always ensure that your points are supported by evidence, and I would also recommend the use of proper signposting so that both myself and your opponents can follow your argument. In addition, please avoid delving into descriptive language when delivering your arguments (If you find yourself using a lot of connectors such as "Also", "Furthermore" etc...) this is when you know that your structure is not at its best. Essentially, arguments should be delivered as follows: Main point-Supporting Evidence- Why it is relevant/What it shows. It is also fine to quote external sources/key figures in your arguments. However, please do not turn your speeches into glorified shopping lists! I have had too many teams who simply list arguments from other sources/speakers without substantiating them with any of their own opinions/arguments. As mentioned earlier, always connect these to the wider scope of your argument using clear signposting, and you will be fine.

4. Rebuttals

This is where a lot of teams tend to lose points. It is natural to attack your opponent's points and state what is wrong about them. However, what is (consequently) right about YOUR argument? It is fine (and necessary!) to criticize your opponent's argument, but what makes yours better?

5. Final Focus Speeches/Summaries

As evidenced from their names, many teams have a tendency to re-run their previously used arguments, which is fine. However, if you are looking to raise your score by just a little bit (which could well be the difference between a W or L), highlight some of the new (if any) points which transpired during the course of the debate, as well as bring in a few of your opponent's arguments. Explain why your arguments make more sense than theirs if you can. This is evidence that you have been listening to the debate and something I appreciate a great deal. The prep time you have is the perfect opportunity to get this sorted out.

6. Conduct during debates

Nothing much to say here other than be professional, respect your opponents and by no means talk down/denigrate them during the debate. It is perfectly possible to dispute/call into question their arguments in a proper manner without coming across as a Class A jerk. If you have concerns regarding the conduct of the other team, call them out on it. Please also stay professional at all times (keep your jackets/shoes on, no loud chatter in the room before the start of the debate, and no phones to be used during the debate unless you are using it to time yourself). Feel free to come into the room early to get set up. I expect both teams to be all set up and ready to go at the start of the round. I will assist with formalities such as the coin toss so there is no need to worry about that.

7. Prep/Timing

Feel free to use your own watches/phones to time yourselves during speeches. However, please refrain from using them with sound (especially the watches which beep continuously when the timer hits zero). I will be timing you and the time on my laptop/phone will be the official time. I will start the timer as soon as you say your first word and will also give you cues when your time is about to run out (one knock on the table for 10 seconds left, two knocks which means your time is up). Do not attempt to squeeze in another sentence or two once you hear two knocks as anything you say after the timer hits zero will not be considered in your score. In addition, you will be delaying the rest of the debate (and annoying me severely)

Good luck to all of you during the tournament and I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible.

Sharan Sawlani Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated for Cypress Bay High School in Weston, Florida for 4 years, all of which in Public Forum (2013-2017). I'm currently a junior at the University of Central Florida.

a couple things:

- im sick please don’t shake my hand

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. thats whack

- please don’t speak too fast. I can handle some speed but just know I only flow what I can understand

- First summary should extend defense if second rebuttal frontlined the argument. I think it is strategic for second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically. I'll probably be on twitter.

- 3 min summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Ay panini, dont you be a meanie. (seriously, if you're excessively rude you will lose)

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

- Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged. Just don't make fun of your opponents, unless y'all are tight in which case use discretion.

- A clever Young Thug/Migos/Kanye/Big Mouth reference might just get you a 29 or higher (assuming ur not a bully). Likely 30 if you can convince me UCF will make the college football playoffs. Might not be strategic because im losing faith but if you can you should go for it.

- Reading theory as a cheap way to win a round is whack. Don't read it unless there's an actual violation. With that being said, I'll listen to just about any argument as long as it's explained well AND relates to the topic OR spreads meaningful discourse. I'm not familiar with K literature, so keep in mind that if I don't understand the argument you're trying to make by the end of the round, it's going to be difficult to vote for it. If I find that the argument is excessively abusive or exclusionary you will lose.

- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the round I will presume neg.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well. Hated my decision? send all complaints to and hold nothing back.

Wayne Selogy Paradigm

5 rounds

Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).

Gavin Serr Paradigm

7 rounds


Actor analysis is really important on this topic. Please give comparative reasoning as to why I should prefer your analysis to your opponents'.

I won't read the email chain unless you tell me to and you give me a specific card to read, because I still think calling for evidence is interventionist in most cases.

I am a gay socialist from the farm (literally). You do not want me to "gut-check" your arguments. Stop telling me to do that.

Argumentation in debate – particularly on the national circuit – is often very enthymematic. This is normal, natural, and understandable, as debates tend to be very short and the time crunch forces certain premises to be omitted from the discussion. Nonetheless, the team with the fewest enthymemes will probably pick up my ballot.

As it relates to theory/Ks, I think that engagement should be the rule of thumb. If your strategy avoids clash, it's probably not a strat I'll appreciate. That means if someone reads a K, you should probably just answer it instead of reading T or Theory. It also means that you shouldn't read frivolous theory or a K that inhibits meaningful engagement or dialogue (note: I don't think many Ks do that). That also means I'm going to be more appreciative of a K that is disclosed, so as to improve the clash in the round -- that's a different standard from stock cases, which should be fairly debatable to begin with in PF.


Director of Speech and Debate at Park City (UT)

If you're the type of person who think this matters (it doesn't), I qualified to the TOC in PF during high school.


It's not an argument without a warrant.

Critical arguments are underused and generally mishandled.

Weighing is super important, but it's a waste of time if it isn't comparative and contextualized to your opponents' offense.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Defense is sticky if second rebuttal doesn't frontline; it isn't if it does.

Your speaks will be dramatically higher if you send speech docs.

'Evidence' only counts if it's a cut card.

Crossfire is the worst part of PF. You will be rewarded for making it productive/not annoying.

Be warned: I have aged several decades since graduating high school. I am now grumpy. I will casually give you 26s for irritating me, even if you probably deserve 29s.

I usually vote for the team that is less annoying.

Send me a Facebook message if you have specific questions. You can also peruse the following paradigms for more examples of judges/coaches that have influenced my thinking:

Christian Vazquez, Robbie Allison, Marybeth Ehlbeck, Cale McCrary, Mike Shackelford, Bryce Piotrowski, Ilana Cuello-Wolffe, Jack Gladson, and Nathan Witkin.

Christian Sheerer Paradigm

5 rounds


I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a freshman at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely ask me any specifics before the round and everything in Hebron Daniel's paradigm applies, especially the World Star section.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost.

- Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. The 2nd rebuttal should answer all offense, including turns.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). You don't need to read full shells or anything for me, I'm totally fine with paragraph theory.

- Making absurd arguments. This event tests your ability to gain and disseminate knowledge and that needs to be done with integrity. If part of what makes debate an activity is discerning between misrepresentations and realities of the world and communicating them to the general public (in a forum), then I reserve the right to disregard silly arguments that blatantly misrepresent how the world works in my attempt to tell who has done the better debating. For example, impacting strictly to GDP growth as a good thing would be an argument I could not evaluate (ask me in person for why this absolutely makes no sense).

Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think. It's harmful to think they're unequivocally at odds.

Alina Shivji Paradigm

6 rounds

Debate is meant to be an educational activity, so on that note 2 things:

  1. Don’t read certain arguments to EXCLUDE your opponents from the debate (ie progressive arguments such as Ks, theory, etc). If you want to improve, stop looking for cop-outs and learn to engage with the substance in the round. If you read an unwarranted violation or act like an asshole against teams who don’t know what you’re talking about, expect your speaks to be no greater than a 25.

  2. Feel free to read arguments about any of the -isms. But, make sure in the process, you’re not otherizing. For example, if you are not a Muslim woman who identifies with the LGBT+ community, don’t read arguments about it. Also, if you are reading any arguments concerning sexual harassment/assault/suicide/etc., I expect a trigger warning BEFORE the round. It should be some variation of “is anyone uncomfortable with us reading arguments about…”

Generally, it’s not hard to win my ballot. Extend the link AND the impact consistently, frontline (don’t extend through ink), and weigh. But, for more specifics, keep reading:



Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.



I really enjoy these arguments because they push boundaries in debate, and bring issues to light that we typically stray away from. That said, these arguments don’t typically function well in PF due to the time constraints. So, I do prefer substance in PF. If you do debate progressively, make sure your arguments are well warranted. Just like traditional PF, if you scream “EXTEND THE FAIRNESS STANDARD”, you’ve added nothing to the round. It’s still as underdeveloped as it was at the beginning of the debate.



I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.

Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined

Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until second FF.



respond to offensive responses and terminal defense before you access weighing in second rebuttal



Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents (not just “MAGNITUDE”). If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (metaweighing). If neither team weighs in the round, I default towards what argument is most probable.



I try not to intervene as much as possible, but if there’s no offense in the round, I’ll default neg aka the status quo. I believe the aff has the higher burden of proof in the round. That doesn’t mean I’ll lean neg every single time. Just do everything I listed above and you should be fine, regardless of the side you’re on.

I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. If the evidence is miscut, I won’t evaluate it and I will penalize your speaks for it.


IF there’s anything else I didn’t cover, feel free to ask me!

Robert Shurtz Paradigm

6 rounds

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy - let's avoid kritiks, disads, plans, counterplans and theory arguments.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kirtiks or critical affs.

Mehak Sikka Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated PF for three years at Acton-Boxborough. Treat me as your normal flow judge – signpost, collapse, weigh, etc.

Important things about me:

  • I will evaluate any argument as long as it is well warranted. But if the argument is extremely jank and/or abusive, my threshold for responses goes significantly down.
  • I have little to no experience with theory, Ks, or most other forms of progressive argumentation. That being said, I'm not opposed to it and I'll evaluate it if I understand it, I guess. lol.
  • I would prefer that second speaking teams address responses from the first rebuttal in the second rebuttal. Allocate time however you wish. That being said, I don’t require defense in first summary, unless it has been frontlined in second rebuttal.
  • I am not a huge fan of long offensive overviews, especially in second rebuttal. I find it unfair for the first speaking team to have to respond to an entirely new contention in summary, along with the rest of it. Read me a nice weighing overview though.
  • Collapse/Crystallize. Don't go for every argument on the flow. It just makes both of our jobs extremely tedious. :( Commit to an issue or two and tell me why it’s the most important in the context of the debate.
  • Warrant. I will most definitely always buy the logical reasoning behind your argument over a sus piece of evidence that just claims that something is true.
  • WEIGH. Please!! You would probably benefit more if you explained to me why your argument is more important than your opponents', rather than having me do it for you. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal is nice.
  • Please don’t spread. <3
  • Preflow before you walk into your round. I don’t wanna wait.

Something to keep in mind: I will probably tank your speaks if you 1) act offensively and 2) lie about your evidence.

This isn't very thorough, so please ask me before your round if you have any questions! Good luck!!!

also, don't shake my hand lol.

Gurveer Singh Paradigm

6 rounds

Did PF for 4 years, ask specifics in-round.

1. Absent other framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.

2. Quality of arguments > quantity of arguments (esp in the latter half of the round).

3. I really value strategic decision-making. Basically, make choices for what argument to go for in the summary and weigh heavily.

4. Please don't misrepresent your evidence. It's your responsibility to ensure it says what you say it does.

Joe Uhler Paradigm

7 rounds

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have been coaching speech and debate for nearly 20 years. I focus on speech events and PF. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters end up talking more about how the debate is going down rather than the actual issues at hand. Try your best to avoid debating debate and debate the resolution.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Jakob Urda Paradigm

6 rounds

Background: I competed for four years in high school for Stuyvesant. I have coached for four years for Poly Prep.

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.

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. Signpost please.

Jack Votava Paradigm

7 rounds

All you need to know: Weigh.


Less relevant information:


Experience: 4 years mostly circuit PF, congress, extemp; college APDA

Criteria justifying intervention:

1. New arguments in 2nd FF

2. No weighing or implicating = forces me to make value judgements

3. Multiple routes to the ballot without weighing = I'll usually pick the cleanest


Speaker point criteria, in order of importance:

1. Be very clear and articulate with your explanations and each extensions; blippiness loses you points and clarity wins you points and rounds.

2. Be fluid and graceful as a speaker; persuasiveness.

3. Have a good strategy during crossfire and don't be a dick.



1. I don't care if you come back in 2nd rebuttal; sometimes it's effective and sometimes it's not.

2. Important defense really should be in 2nd summary and it's not a bad idea to have it in 1st summary.

3. I can follow speed but if you don't talk well at high speed I probably won't be able to flow well either.

4. I'll vote off any argument, including theory, but you must have good/persuasive theory (as you would any other argument).

Gigi Wade Paradigm

5 rounds

I did PF for four years at Evanston Township HS, and I'm currently a freshman at Columbia.

I'll flow, I can handle speed, and I'll listen to anything as long as it's not offensive/violent -- I will not vote for your argument if I perceive it to be either of these things.

I'm most likely to vote for you if 1) your argument was extended in its entirety (warrant and impact) through summary and final focus, and 2) you weigh. The best weighing is comparative, so merely repeating an impact from case, even if you're doing a great job explaining why that impact matters, isn't enough if it doesn't engage the other half of the debate.

Have fun & make jokes if you're funny :)

Owen Weber Paradigm

6 rounds

FOR Varsity PF:

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '12-'16. I consider my experience to be pretty national circuit friendly. I need pens and paper. I would really prefer you not give me spiral notebook paper.

You should shake your opponents hand but not mine.

Always let the coin hit the ground.

Do not try and delay the round to write a preflow.

SPEECHES: First speaking teams should never go over their own case in rebuttal. I have no place to flow it and it will ruin your speaks. Second speaking teams should cover both sides of the flow. If they don't its up to the first speaking teams to extend and point out dropped arguments. Don't feel nervous about kicking the case and going off turns, I'm a fan of this strategy when used correctly. Summary shouldn't be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order.

I give speaks based on strategy and arguments rather than the velvetyness of your voice. So in that way i will only give a low point win if you were extremely rude but destroyed on the flow. this hasn't happened yet and I don't want it to.

CROSSFIRE: I don't flow crossfire but it is really important and unless its completely ridiculous i'm going to hold you to what both you and your partner say in crossfire. If your opponent asks about a piece of evidence in CF "Idk you tell me" is almost always a bad answer. Questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

Do the correct standing/sitting procedure for crossfire please.

FLOWING: I'm a slow writer but I also like to write down card names. This makes it difficult for me to flow card dumps as well as the info they contain. I go by the flow but I would not call myself a "flow" judge. The solution to speech times should be better word economy not faster speaking. I like advanced nuanced arguments but I just like them to be delivered in a calm manner. "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?"

FRAMEWORK/ARGUMENTS: I'm open to tech but it needs to be explained why its necessary for the round as much as it needs to be on my flow. I'm not a fan of Kritiks especially ones that rely on personal narratives. I'm open to ones that have a broader look to why we should reject the resolution or whatever. I'm far more open to theory but would prefer ad-lib rather than a shell. Extremely willing to vote on morality or deontological arguments and don't really buy "countries cant have moral obligations" without a lot of explanation.

I HATE plans. I would rather you go 3 off than give me a specific implementation of the resolution. If you are showing an alternative you MUST show why it is the most likely one.

Bad: "Instead of affirming we should do this"

Good: "If you negate this will happen"

I want you to have a broad look at the resolution and really look on balance rather than giving one example that technically makes the resolution true.

I also hate anything that links into nuke war unless its relevant to the resolution

EVIDENCE: Evidence is extremely important. You need to know your evidence and interact with it. I like it when rounds get into the weeds on the nuances between studies. Don't tell me something is a study when its an article in Forbes.

Bad evidence often has the best wording for debates. If you don't compare and contrast your opponents evidence with your own i'll have to buy the strong language some nut job in the Washington examiner writes rather than the nuanced and cautious analysis from the Brookings Institute.


I may call for any card that sparks my interest even if it doesnt play a roll in the round. Feel free to call for opponents cards or even cases. If your opponents are dishonest about evidence make it a voter or explain to my why that undermines their entire case's credibility. Ill buy it and will give them a much harder time on the flow if you're correct about the violation. I will probably not intervene but don't run sketchy evidence in front of me.

Really, really not a fan of "Miller 16: Blah blah blah" and want evidence to be given with author institution and date. I will weigh "John Mueller in Foreign Affairs 2018" over Mueller 18 any day.


I'm not trying to impose my old event onto yours. I'm here for the ride and am open to any argument you want to run. That being said I have almost no experience with the event so you will need to explain things clearly if you want me to listen to them.

I do not understand spreading what so ever. You can run what you want just be clear and weigh. If it seems like you're just reading off of paper or don't understand your own arguments I will drop you or something.

Mike Welty Paradigm

7 rounds

I am an 8 year PF coach but never competed in debate myself. I love it when teams make arguments that make sense. I am not a fan of jargon and believe public forum debate was intended to be accessible to amateur judges so I hate spreading. I never vote for a team who cannot articulate an understanding of the opposing argument. I entertain framework arguments and definition battles but calls for evidence need to be followed up by a use of what you found or I will punish you for wasting everyones time. I don't flow crossfire and expect any admissions you reveal there to be used in follow-up speeches. The summary is for impacts and the final focus is for weighing voting issues. If you are still arguing cases after the rebuttal I will think you believe you are losing and I will agree with you.

You are young and intelligent and spend your leisure time on competitive public speaking. You are a nerd. Don't take this round, your opponents or yourself too seriously. Your future is very bright, so have fun, treat each other with respect and you may just earn my vote.

Leo Wong Paradigm

5 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

Do : attack your opponent's model from the outset

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

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

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

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

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

Do: offer POIs that are short and succint

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

Max Wu Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated for Mission San Jose High School for 4 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior year. I currently coach Lake Highland Prep.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered here, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I personally spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. You also may run the risk of too much speed hurting your speaker points.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense for it to be in final focus, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly; don't be caught off guard.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it's never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory arguments and Kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity.

- If you plan to make arguments about sensitive issues such as suicide, PTSD, or sexual assault, I would strongly advise issuing a trigger warning beforehand. If you don't know how to properly issue a content warning, ask me before the round. I believe debate should be a safe space, and while I don’t necessarily believe inclusivity should compromise discussion, the least we can all do is make sure everybody is prepared for the conversation.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Be nice to each other!

If you have concerns, reach me at

P.S. Keshav stole this

Carlyn Yang Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated for plano west and I coached for seven lakes.

For all intents and purposes, I am a lay judge.

Questions can go to

Mary Yang Paradigm

7 rounds

Not Submitted

Connor Yu Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated in public forum for the Blake School in Minneapolis, MN for four years. In that time, I traveled and competed on the national circuit where I did reasonably well. I graduated in 2018 so I'm newish to the judging game and this paradigm is largely lifted from the wonderful Ellie Singer's paradigm so feel free to ask any clarifying questions (

The Split

I believe the second rebuttal should cover turns from the first rebuttal. It doesn't need to be a full 2-2 split but you must cover important responses (turns and disads, really, though it's generally wise to also hit terminal defense). Speaking second is incredibly advantageous, and it's a waste to not cover responses in the second rebuttal and makes the rest of the round messier.


If you're clear, I can flow speed. If you're too fast or incomprehensible, neither of us will be particularly happy. I think there's a trend of people going very fast and being blippy just to try and "outspread" their opponents, whatever that means in PF. Fewer well-done arguments that I can understand will be rewarded more than a bunch of blippy stuff you just spew out.

Types of arguments

I tend to think things like theory and Ks aren't done well in public forum. Run what you want to run I'm open to any good argument, but disclaimer I have little background in Ks, so if you do run them please explain your arguments and assume I don't know the jargon. You can try to run them in front of me and I'll evaluate them fairly, but that doesn't mean I'll like them. Honestly, I usually don't. I think most theory run by PFers is pretty bad and makes me sad. It'll have to be done pretty well for you to both win and get good speaker points. That being said, calling people out for various -isms within the round is totally fair game.

I really don't like when teams run squirrely things just to throw off their opponents. I will vote off the flow but I will probably be displeased doing it if I think you're being sketchy. Your points may suffer.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" (eg the military spending topic) please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring. I hate when people run super obscure advocacies that make zero sense just because they can.


Please please give at the very least the year your cards were written.


I am okay with paraphrasing, but I am not okay with misrepresenting evidence. If your opponent calls for a card and it doesn't say what you say it says that's very bad news for you. Also, if your opponent calls for a card you should have it readily available. It shouldn't be an odyssey for you to find something that you yourself are claiming to cite. Furthermore, paraphrasing only goes so far. Can you paraphrase a paragraph? Ya, as long as you're being honest. Can you paraphrase a chapter? Uhh, no.

Summary and Final Focus

As an ex first speaker, I know that, while difficult, it is possible to have your summary have the same arguments as the final focus, so my standard for not dropping things is pretty high. PF is a team event so use dat prep time to coordinate with your partner on your arguments. If you're giving first summary, you don't have to extend the defense from rebuttal, but you should put defense on any giant turns or disads from the second rebuttal. I like clear voting issues in summary and final focus. I also like when teams collapse well in these speeches. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, weighing is great.

Not Being a Jerk

Be funny, be witty, but don't be rude. Don't snap at your opponent, talk down to them, or attack them. Jokes and puns are welcome, but trying too hard is less so. Be smart, not demeaning. This shouldn't have to be said but of course don’t be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc. If the other team is being problematic call them out :)


Keep track of it. My days of puzzling over timers and doing prep time math are over.





I could not care less if you enter the room or do the flip before I get there.

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/etc to be comfortable, I really don't care, and I won't dock you for it.

I will flow, but I won't catch the name of every author you read so don't just extend the author name also extend the argument itself.

While I don't have a particular agenda for speaks, I only will give out 30s if there is nothing I could possibly think of that you could change.

Josh Zacharov Paradigm

2 rounds

Hey, I'm Josh, I'm a senior in college. I did a bunch of PF in high school, have coached it a bunch, and have done a reasonable amount of debate in college (APDA). PF being what it is, though, I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me not as a debater or techily inclined coach, but as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.

I know people have a bunch of FAQs, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.

1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I won't have a ton of sympathy if you disagree with my decision.

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (e.g. don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

3) Defense in summary is a choice for the debater (as a general rule, if it's important, you should bring it up in every speech, but this is a matter of personal preference for the debater); responding to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal is a choice for the debater as well.

4) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks.

7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

8) If you postround me, your speaks will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. You're welcome to ask questions about my decision (everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but I try to make relatively few), but if you are going to properly postround me I won't have a ton of patience for it.

For LD, which I have judged from time to time, all of the above applies (except 3 obviously, and theory is fine but again needs to be well applied, and you can speak quicker than you would in front of a parent but still don't spread please).

Josh Zakharov Paradigm

7 rounds

Hey, I'm Josh, I'm a senior in college. I did a bunch of PF in high school, have coached it a bunch, and have done a reasonable amount of debate in college (APDA). PF being what it is, though, I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me not as a debater or techily inclined coach, but as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.

I know people have a bunch of FAQs, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.

1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I won't have a ton of sympathy if you disagree with my decision.

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (e.g. don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

3) Defense in summary is a choice for the debater (as a general rule, if it's important, you should bring it up in every speech, but this is a matter of personal preference for the debater); responding to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal is a choice for the debater as well.

4) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks.

7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

8) If you postround me, your speaks will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. You're welcome to ask questions about my decision (everybody makes mistakes sometimes, but I try to make relatively few), but if you are going to properly postround me I won't have a ton of patience for it.

For LD, which I have judged from time to time, all of the above applies (except 3 obviously, and theory is fine but again needs to be well applied, and you can speak quicker than you would in front of a parent but still don't spread please).

David Zell Paradigm

6 rounds

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a sophomore at the University of Alabama.

Debate how you want but I appreciate a few things:

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything in final focus (besides weighing, more on this below) must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Just picking and saying that you've won a weighing mechanism like scope, magnitude, etc is not enough. Narrow the debate down and carefully select where you want me to vote. Then, rather than trying to win every argument, use final focus to explain why those arguments are more important than your opponents'. This weighing can definitely start in earlier speeches. There is a flip side to this. Some teams use final focus, especially when speaking second, to do a lot more analysis than most "weighing" entails. Don't do this.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in the first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer: A) important turns that the first speaking team could collapse on, for example, case turns or link / impact turns B) significant offense (advantages or DAs), C) large overviews / extended weighing.

4. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive cross fires and rudeness, as well as any of the "-isms" (sexism, racism, etc.). Severe instances of the former and any instance of the latter will result in a loss with 20 speaker points. A safe debate space is the prerequisite to any benefits of the activity.

5. I wIlL iNtErVeNe. I don't care if its called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have pretty much decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect" wherein a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

6. Here's a quote from Pierce Hollier / Danny Wang's paradigm. Please read it. "All concessions of opposing arguments i.e. de-links must occur in the immediate speech after where they were introduced. For example, if someone reads 5 impact turns and then a de-link in the first rebuttal, you must explicitly concede that de-link in the second rebuttal. If you don't and then they extend the impact turns, you cannot come up in 2nd summary and then concede the de-link. If you do, I just won't flow it since that's incredibly abusive to force them to extend offense and then for you to kick it after they already extended offense on the argument."

In General

I love speed and tech debate, but do your best to make it accessible. If you're going to spread, check with the opponents and at the very least be able to send speech docs (send one to me, too).

I'm very down to hear progressive arguments, but you have to explain them well and weigh. I'll try my best to evaluate any argument you make, but please be clear and tell me how you wanted it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth -- Dropped args are true ones, and evidence is a necessity. Pairing that evidence with good analysis, however, is ideal.

Speaks will be based on a combination of good debating and good speaking. My average will probably be a 28.5

Stealing a bit from Max Wu's Paradigm, listed here. If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much, much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.

For any other details, refer to Max's paradigm or email me at

Rui Zhao Paradigm

5 rounds

Updated 1/7/2020:

In evaluating a debate round, there is the choice of evaluating strength of the arguments vs evaluating debate techniques. Of course one could argue that better techniques lead to stronger arguments, so they are pretty closely related. However, sometimes good techniques are deployed precisely to disguise a shaky argument. I vote based on strength of arguments as they transpire in the round.

I realize that given modern technology whatever case a team is running, pretty soon it is known to the entire circuit and every team starts running similar arguments. How do you judge when almost all teams on pro (or con) run similar arguments without being prejudiced towards one side? My focus is on how well a team responds and counter responds to opponent's arguments and counter arguments.

The following are some ways you can strengthen your case.

A) Logical link. Establish clear link(s) for your argument that opponent could not effectively overturn. Please note that merely saying there is a link between A and B or A implies B is not enough. It is up to you to establish and explain the strength of the link, based on logic, scientific theory, statistical inference or common sense. Offer clear logical explanation why opponent's links are weak.

B) Evidence. All pieces of evidence are not equal. It is up to you to explain why your evidence is strong and supportive of whatever you claim, and why your opponent' evidence is weak and non-supportive of whatever they claim. Evidence without clear explanation and context is not effective evidence.

C) Impact. You should weight impact whenever possible. I like numbers but will take them with a grain of salt, especially when you refer to large numbers of lives or huge sums of money, until you explain their plausibility. The better you explain how you arrive at the numbers and in general the better you explain the plausibility of your predicted impact, the more favorable your argument would look to me.

D) Abundant words and last words do not win the round by themselves. However, repetition does help me remember things so please feel free to repeat your key points (don't overdo it), especially in Summary and Final Focus.

More info from earlier version:

I have been judging Public Forum debate for a few years. I have a background in economics. Consider me a rigorous lay judge if that makes sense to you. Some general principles I vote on:

1. Soundness of your logic. If your logic is not clear, your evidence is likely not being used correctly.

2. Evidence. We are not talking about laws of nature. Social outcomes are rarely inevitable just because they seem logical, at least not along a predicted path. Good evidence makes their occurrences seem more likely or reasonable. Please cite your evidence clearly: who said what where and when. Explain how the evidence supports your argument.

3. Weighting impacts. To weight impacts, it often seems like you need to compare apples with oranges. It is your job to find criteria that help me compare apples with oranges. As an example, if you convince me we should only care about sweetness and nutrition of these fruits and oranges are both sweeter and more nutritious than apples, then I will accept that oranges are better than apples. Look hard for common characteristics of different impacts.

Style. It is hard for me to appreciate style if your logic is flawed or your evidence is misused. Having said that, doing somethings right will help you get more speaker points:

a. Be polite. Don’t shout. Don’t try to shut the other team down.

b. Keep your time and opponents’ time well.

c. Keep your cool and remain calm.

d. Humor can be a powerful argument…at the right moment.

Doing the opposite of a, b, c will reduce your speaker points.

Kelly Zheng Paradigm

7 rounds


I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook or ask me before the round.

General Stuff:

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal because I find them to be abusive

- If you're speaking second, I think you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary a little abusive

- Be nice to your opponents!!! I cannot stand people who are rude, cocky, obnoxious, etc. in round. I will tank your speaks if you are rude

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whatever you're the most comfortable with

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. If you don't feel comfortable asking in front of your opponents, feel free to message me before the round or come up to me privately.

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be in first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.


Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).


I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision. If you have poor evidence ethics, depending on how bad they are, either your speaks will be hit or disqualification is possible.

Creative (?) Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round, explain your argument well and I will try to evaluate it the best I can. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K. These arguments just need to be run in a way that I can understand. But generally, please please please don't read theory because you'll probably be unhappy with the result, sorry :(


Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!

Andrew young Paradigm

7 rounds

I have coached and judged a lot over the last few years, and will adhere fairly strictly to the flow. The only time I should be doing any work for anyone is if the round necessitates it by a lack of weighing or critical comparison. In those instances, I may have to make decisions, so I would prefer to always avoid that. A few general rules:

1. Anything that needs to be on the ballot, needs to be in Final Focus.

2. The first speaking team should be predicting the offense in first summary that needs to be responded to, and putting defense on it then. This ALSO means that the second speaking team has to frontline in the rebuttal. Any arguments/defense that are not in the First Summary are dropped, and any arguments that are not frontlined in the second rebuttal are dropped.

3. Summary to Final Focus consistency is key, especially in terms of the relevance of arguments, if something is going to be a huge deal, it should be so in both speeches.

Speed is fine, I'll evaluate critical arguments if they have a solid link.

I evaluate theory if it's needed, but I'm semi-skeptical of how often that really is.

Feel free to ask for anything else you need to know.

You should also probably pre-flow before the start time of the round, that will help your speaks!