I have 3 years of experience competing in Public Forum debate in high school. I mainly want to see comparative weighing of arguments and evidence, especially in the final two speeches. I would prefer to see analysis driven debate rather than evidence dumps. Speed isn't really an issue as long as you speak clearly. If you have any questions for me please feel free to ask before the round.

As far as experience goes, I did Policy for two years and PF for one year in high school. I've been judging PF (novice and policy) for five years.

Just some general rules

Don't be mean. There's a difference between being aggressive in cross-fire and being mean, don't be mean.

Don't like or misconstrue your evidence. I'll probably read evidence if you ask me to, and if I feel like you're stretching something then I'll probably call for the card at the end of the round.

About cross-fire: I generally don't flow cross-fire, but if something spicy is mentioned I'll jot it down. If you're witty you'll get some speaker points, but there's a big difference between being witty and being mean. Mean bad, witty good.

Truth over Tech any day of the week, especially in PF. Something that will really help in clarifying how you win in that regard is by weighing your arguments in the context of magnitude, probability, and time-frame. I looooove impact calculus. That being said, don't just tell me that your argument is more probable, rather tell me why it is more probable

I think PF is at its best whenever it is focused. Don't bring up some argument that has been ignored the whole round back up again in the final focus. If it really is an important point then bring it up continuously in your speeches.

There's a lot of value in telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever the opposite things. Also if you have a DOPE piece of evidence tell me why it's a goldmine.

Overall I think debate is a fun time where we should learn a lot from. If I walk out of a round and don't learn anything, then there's a problem. If you can provide me some unique analysis that provides an impact that makes me really care about the topic, then you've done a fantastic job.

General

-You can address me as he, they, or judge

-I'm tech over truth

-Assistant PF Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School, freshman at UNL

-Debated 4 years in Nebraska circuit PF, competed at NSDA nationals, 1st year judging PF

-Somewhat knowledgeable on progressive debate, but don't expect me to be super knowledgeable about T-shells, K's, etc.

-I am open to most arguments unless they are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or any other morally reprehensible argument.

-I don't require second rebuttal to rebuild, but if you don't rebuild in second rebuttal I would prefer if you rebuilt in summary

-I don't write down card names, if you are extending cards do more than just cite the name of the card

-Any evidence/analysis that wants to be extended must be mentioned in all speeches post rebuttal. So extend defense from rebuttal to summary

-Links, impacts, and weighing please, not just card dumps

-Feel free to ask me questions about anything if it isn't clear in my paradigm. Most importantly have fun debating and be respectful to your opponents. Remember that this is an educational event and it is in my utmost interest to ensure that each round is a learning opportunity for both teams

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

Speaks

20 - There was something seriously wrong with this round and you should speak to your coach about why I gave you a 20

25 - You failed to do anything correctly in the round

26, 27 - You didn't do very much correctly in this round. Either you didn't form arguments correctly, failed to address framing, dropped your opponents' arguments, or missed something critical to the round

28 - Good round overall with some problems that weren't critical to the round, but improvement of these problems would make the round much better

29 - Very solid round. You either won a very competitive round against a solid team or had a very good round without much that I can critique

30 - Reserved for perfect rounds

I debated all 4 years in highschool. I debated at Millard West High School in Omaha Nebraska. I competed at plenty of tournaments in Nebraska and the national circuit. I've competed at T.O.C, Blake, nationals, and was state champion in Nebraska in PF.

I EXPECT THE SECOND REBUTTAL TO COVER BOTH SIDES! By this I mean that the second rebuttal must attack their opponents case, and defend their own case from their attacks from the first rebuttal. IF THE SECOND TEAM DOES NOT DO THIS, AND THE FIRST TEAM POINTS IT OUT IN SUMMARY THEN THE SECOND TEAM AUTOMATICALLY LOSSES! In my eyes not covering both sides is dropping your case. You have dropped all your opponents attacks and therefore it is too late to cover them in second summary.

Also new evidence in second summary is ify especially if its a new point.

EVIDENCE IS A BIG DEAL TO ME. I WILL CALL FOR CARDS AFTER THE ROUND IF THEY ARE IMPORTANT OR WHERE HOTLY DEBATED IN ROUND. If the card is shady, has poor methodology, or has any problems I will most likely not consider the evidence.

I like real world examples, and cross-applying. Warrants and impacts must be likely and probable. Speaking I dont really care. I debated four years so I can handle speed. Summary is a summary sign post, summarize the points, and dont do a rebuttal part 2.

As a judge, I would like students to be

1. Clear in communication. Students who talk too fast tend to mumble words/sentences and it becomes very difficult to comprehend what points they are trying to make. The pace of talking should be such that judge is clearly able to make out what they are saying. They also should be loud enough, especially in environments where multiple teams are debating in same room on different tables.

2. Students should provide clear, succinct evidences and avoid repeating same point again and again.

3. Students should be cordial and respectful of other teams points.

Hello my name is Marie Danysh (she/her) and I am a lay and parent judge, this will be my 1st tournament judging

1. Don't be unnecessarily disrespectful or interruptive in crossfire, I want to see a round in good faith

2. I know little to nothing about the topic and a surface level understanding of geopolitics, so make sure to explain in depth your responses, cases, and narrative. Please explains terms and lingo if you insist to use them, even simple arguments like nuclear proliferation I've never heard before and will be need explained. I feel that sometimes debaters will rush through extensions in the backhalf of the round and usually by the end I'm unsure how the topic (NFU) links into your impacts which makes it very hard to vote for you, so be sure to remain clear and calm. There is no reason to rush, I know nothing of tech but do flow (not very well however as I sometimes miss some things), so I'm looking for a more narrative/warrant centered debate.

3. I'm looking for quality over quantity, so I like collapsing and 2-3 good/clear responses instead of 7-8 fast read/poorly warranted prewritten blocks. At the end of the day image your parents sitting in this chair, how might you explain it to them? I'm an outsider looking in after all.

I will be explaining who I vote for to the best of my ability and please ask questions if you like.

Background

• Did college NFA LD for 4 years

Miscellaneous

• I like talking to debaters. Feel free to come chat.
• If I make a face at an argument, I'm confused. It's never personal.

Bias

• Note: I'll vote on any of the arguments below if you win the flow but you may have to work harder depending on your choices. Here are some of my biases. 
• I like real-world policy action. My favorite debates affirm or negate a material action/policy to reduce suffering.
• I'll vote on the K but I like alternatives that do something. Any alt that meditates on the nature of human suffering kinda sucks. I'm easily persuaded to disregard it.
• I don't hate philosophy debates but if it's not relevant to the rez, join a book club.
• Don't like pessimism arguments. 
• Won't vote on death good/racism good/etc

Paradigm

• Please FRAME THE ROUND! I really don't want to decide which impact I like more.
• Tech > Truth but my BS detector is pretty good too.
• If you want me to look at your opponent's evidence, call it out in your speech
• No sticky defense. If it's dropped and you wanna go for it, extend the warrants. I'm not going to do it for you
• I can do basic cross-application of arguments (not the same thing as warrant extension). That also means contradictions deck overall offense.
• I like Double binds or "Even if" argumentation
• Warrant debates are the best debates. Evidence is good and necessary but you shouldn't hide behind it.
• Speed is fine but proportional clarity is required. I'll yell clear a few times. If you go fast, you better use up all the time.
• If you want to be super aggressive and condescending, you better not suck fam. Don't yell. Ad hominem = 25 speaks
• Don't make faces or talk during the opponent's speech
• A trigger warning for sensitive arguments is good but opponents can't prevent you from reading an argument
• If you bring outside drama into the round I will listen very very closely so I can gossip in the judge's lounge but I won't vote on an accusation I can't verify. If it's an ethics issue contact the tournament. 

NFA LD 

• K: Not super familiar with most of the literature but walk me through the argument and explain why alt solves the aff. Some kind of material action in the alt is probably recommended. I will vote on a vague alt-bad provided the warrants are good(time skew/allows aff pivot/etc).
• DA: Not much to say here. Win the link. Win the impact. Weigh/Frame. 2 good DAs > 4 bad DAs. 
• AFF: Pretty much an auto-lose on T if you aren't doing a material action through the actor of the rez. Neg just needs to say you are stealing neg ground and robbing everyone of topic education. 
• T: No proven abuse needed

PF 

• No new evidence in summary. New analysis based on evidence that has been read is acceptable
• 2nd Rebuttal is expected to attack and defend. I believe that having all new arguments in rebuttal makes the round clearer, and more educational saving grand cx for final clarifications
• If you wanna read theory in PF, I'll listen but it better be clear and good.
• Don't talk to your partner during their speech

I'm a former Congressional debater (with some PF experience) who did debate for all four years on both the local and national circuit (including finals at nationals).

PF: While I typically judge congress, I have PF experience both in competing and judging (I have judged both on the local and national circuit). When evaluating arguments, I value clear links throughout your arguments (and for these arguments to be carried through!), direct refutation, and weight on impacts. Directly explain to me why you're correct and your opponent is not; make sure every claim you have has warrants to back it up. I don't have a preference for speed (I make sure to thoroughly flow the round), but just make sure that if you're attempting to speak at a faster pace that you enunciate clearly.

Congress: I judge based off of quality of arguments and speaking style fairly equally, but you need both to be successful. I don't want to see rehash of arguments, and students who can effectively respond to other speakers and further debate are more likely to win my ballot. I value structured speaking with lots of signposting as well, and it's really important that you're engaged throughout the round and asking good questions. Please be respectful to your competitors as well! :-)

Debate is supposed to be a learning environment & a safe community; with that being said, be respectful. Please don't be a jerk to your opponents & in cx, that's a way to lose speaks quick. Rounds should be fun & comfortable, if there's anything I can do to accomplish this for you, don't hesitate to email me or ask questions before the round. gilles5@stolaf.edu

please sign post & have clear line by line

theory is fine but don't spend too much time on it

explicitly weigh your arguments & impacts against your opponents

the second rebuttal should respond to the first

clearly tell me how to vote in FF(say why u win!!); line by line or voters are chill in summary

don't expect me to vote off of something that was dropped earlier in the round. & i prefer to vote off of logical/tangible arguments versus an analytical/theoretical argument

do not paraphrase, read me the evidence clearly, if your opponents are paraphrasing, call it out!

most importantly, have a fun round :)

she/her l the g half of sf roosevelt GH and g half of sf roosevelt GS

past experience - varsity debater, second speaker, above average student most days, state champ (sd of course so take that as you will), nsda nationals 2019, circuit tourney stuff, toc gold tourney all that jazz

weighing will win.

i will give +0.1 speaker points for every tabletote height setting used above the first.

sexism, ableism, racism, any negative isms ----> voted down.

interrupting, not tolerated. just kidding. go ahead, but don't mansplain or waste my time.

about my vibe: i am nice. i promise. my thinking face is grouchy. relax, y'all are wholesome.

if I shake my head profusely, change the topic.

on debate: use your prep time. prep, get to know your partner, do your calc hw, cry. i don't care, but use it wisely.

if your impact is so HUGE or TERMINAL that you will spend an hour trying to convince to care, act like you care. (EX: if global warming is going to kill us should make me want to buy a new prius after the round)

if you can not provide your evidence within 2 minutes, it does not exist in my mind sweetie.

policy on ev exchange: exchange EV, take prep, read it, stop prep, hand it back.

as a judge, i will set my bias aside to the best of my abilities. BUT. let me acknowlege one. to my fellow female debaters, y'all are killing it. don't forget that.

As a debater I was in PF for 4 years and spoke second so I am a large advocate for shooting down arguments and pulling your argument through. As a judge I focus on evidence and how you pull it through the entire round. Bring up good solid points and continue to pull it through the flow. If your opponent drops your points continue to bring them up and I will pull it through the flow. If you fail to pull your arguments through I will fail to pull them through on the flow so please do not be afraid of mentioning the same point or expanding the same argument it will help you win the round. I personally am not a fan of frame work so if you attempt to use framework do not make the entire round about argumentation on framework. I will continue to judge the arguments and flow both sides of the argument regardless of the framework for the round. When giving voters explain the importance and the weight they bear on the round and impact the outcomes of your arguments. I am pretty laid back and kind so lets have some fun.

Happy 2024 everyone!

Email: miranda.cannon@gmail.com

Background:

- From Lincoln, NE ; competed in the NE circuit

- Have coached and judged various circuits

- Debated in college

- I graduated from law school in 2023 and am a licensed attorney

Public Forum

Some judges are tech and some are truth - I would say I'm about 60% truth, 40% tech, but ultimately will judge you based on what happened in the round.

Regarding speed: it's fine? I guess? I don't PREFER it obviously, but as long as there is clear signposting we should be good. I'll let you know if it's a problem.

It's PF so if you do some wild K or framework argument I am probably going to be heavily side eyeing you the entire time lol. That's not to say you are barred from doing this in front of me, but I just don't know if it's ever going to really work out that well in a PF round? Idk! Prove me wrong!

I judge novices a majority of the time, and my goal is to HELP you - I don't want anyone to feel bad about a loss, but I will try to educate you on the reasons that it happened! My ultimate goal is for you to walk away with more knowledge than you were coming into the round.

Please email me any cards you specifically want me to see, or physically bring them over to me.

Some general things to keep in mind when debating PF in front of me:

- Make sure you know what the resolution is asking you to do. I often will enter a judgment in default if one side is not adequately fulfilling their burden.

- Make sure your speeches are structured correctly - if they are, it's less likely you will drop arguments! Often the tide turns for me in summary just because a lot of debaters don't do this speech correctly.

I have a passion for debate and will help you with anything, please don't hesitate to reach out to me between or after rounds, even if I haven't judged you.

Public Forum: I make my decisions based on the presentation and content of the round.

1. Be a funnel! Be an *effective* funnel. Take stock after each round of what the most important arguments were. Slowly narrow the debate to one or two issues that I should vote on. And then convince me that you won the debate. Don't speed through six arguments in your final focus and expect me to give them all weight and attention.

2. Don't drop arguments. If you want to pull it through the round - mention it in every speech.

3. PF is a layperson event! Sell your arguments to the average person. PF is a practice in persuasion.

4. Understand your case. Make sure I understand your case. This includes speaking at a pace that allows me to flow your arguments. If it doesn't make it on to my flow - I am not voting on it.

5. Be thorough with your evidence. It will not hold weight in the round if you do not tell me who said it and when they said it.

6. Act professionally. This is great practice for the "real world". Be courteous.

Congress:

1. Make sure your speeches are applicable to the language of the bill/resolution! I want you to touch on the actual impact of the legislation in each speech! The underlying social issues matter but the actual text of the legislation matters more.

2. I want to see actual debate! Speeches that feel like an island will get lower scores. Interact with the speeches of your peers. Don't just reference their arguments, debate them. The more clash the better!

3. I look for generally active participation! If you give a speech or two but don't engage in questioning that will impact your overall rank.

4. Be very cautious of your language when speaking about disenfranchised populations. Be respectful, use person first language, don't tokenize diverse identities for emotional appeal, etc. (Some examples from this season: No person is illegal. People with disabilities are capable humans. People who are incarcerated still deserve human rights.)

5. Lastly, have fun with it and be conversational! The most persuasive speakers are those that don't read from their screen.

I debated PF in high school and have been judging the past few years.

Evidence is a huge deal to me. If important in round, I may call for cards after the round is completed.

The second rebuttal should cover both attacking opponents' case and defending attacks. Bringing in new points of defense/offense during summary will not be weighed.

While evidence is crucial to me, explaining to me why it matters (impacts) is just as important as the evidence itself.

Speed is fine, just speak clearly.

Former PF debater for Westside High School, Warrants + Impacts.

I did both speech and debate for 4 years at Creighton Prep High School in Omaha Nebraska. I've also debated for the University of Sydney in Australia. I mostly have experience in PF, Congress, Extemp, Info, and BP debate.

Policy:

You're pretty much screwed... I know absolutely nothing about it and probably never will.

LD:

I don't have a strong background but I've seen enough to be able to judge a minuscule amount. Probably should treat me like a lay judge to be safe

- I am a huge fan of creativity in argumentation. I want to see nuanced argumentation with impacts that aren't basic (this applies to all forms of debate)

Speed

- I'm usually able to keep up pretty well but if you're just dumping arguments to dump them don't expect a strong speaker score or a vote for your side

- Whether you go fast or slow I really value fluidity

PF:

- In terms of argumentation as long as you can impact it back to the resolution I'm good with it. Make sure to impact all arguments though

- Please explain the impacts. Why should I care that the gold market will collapse? If you don't explain I'll just assume it means no bad impacts and the argument was just smoke

- I expect more persuasion and spin instead of spreading. If you do go faster there should be an equal ratio of analysis to justify why you needed to spread to create that extra time.

- I do listen to cross ex so use it wisely

- Be respectful. Speaking louder does not make you more right...

Speed

- refer to my LD section on this

Congress:

- This is probably where I am most experienced

- don't rehash, open wifi means that finding new arguments and evidence is so much easier.

- one of my biggest pet peeves is just a great speech with nothing else. Congress is not dueling oratories. Unless you are 1st aff or neg, I expect you to interact with what your opponents have said before you and extend.

- this is a debate so please actually debate. Sessions are long and I just like you must sit through them except I can't take personal privileges so please give me a reason to stay focused.

- Congress is the one event where speaking is so so important in terms of ability. I don't expect you to be the next Abraham Lincoln but please speak clearly and coherently. I value strong argumentation with strong impacts as well. If you give me 1 great speech that is worth 3 average ones. Someone once told me the greatest speech you can ever give is the one you don't give. This does not mean don't speak but rather don't keep speaking for the sake of speaking. Pick and choose your spots wisely.

- Puns. God do I hate basic cheesy openers. I mostly see this at nationals but please be unique and don't be stupid. Rapping will not give you the win and neither will singing your intro. I respect the theatre aspect of Congress but less is always more

If there's something I can do for you please let me know!

GOOD LUCK!!!!

fyi: i'm used to judging novices so please forgive me!

i debated novice PF for one year and varsity PF for two years at roosevelt high school in south dakota and am continuing my speech & debate journey at colorado college. i am double majoring in environmental science and political science. if you're looking for something to talk about pre-round, i have a dog, a cat, and five fish, i love the national history day annual competition (and plan to judge for that too), and i really like playing the sims 4!

hey, you! don't stress. i'm nice, i swear. just take a moment to chill. vibe.

you like extra speaks? show confidence in what you're saying. confidence is huge for me

most important speech to me is summary. weighing is important. extend key arguments into summary and final focus or i will not vote on that argument

i'll start prep time for exchanging evidence when you begin reading, and i'll end it when you stop. for virtual tournaments, please tell me when you begin and when you stop

watch my body language. i'm not subtle. if i'm shaking my head, you're not making sense (i've been there, just change the subject). if i look like i'm grooving out, you're doing great

no tolerance for sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

here's the deal with theory and k's. i'm not a fan of them just because i feel like you should be debating the topic at hand. i believe the most educational debates come from prepping, and running something like theory or k limits the amount someone can prep for the resolution itself. that doesn't mean i won't vote for a theory/k though. i still expect good responses from the opponents

don't interrupt your opponent in crossfire for no reason, but if they're overexplaining than please go ahead

i usually don't flow crossfire, so make sure you're keeping good eye contact. crossfires are great persuasion points for me

novices only: tell me your favorite song = +0.5 speaks

since i'm not a super experienced judge, please don't talk too fast, but i can handle some speed

also i know basic debater terminology but not as much as my more experienced peers so please go easy on me

evidence that can't be provided within two minutes will be marked off of my flow

also cheesy but please have fun (it's not that serious)

I am a mostly traditional-leaning judge. I am willing to hear non-traditional cases but I am not particularly familiar with some of the jargon/strategies and I will default to traditional voting framework when if I am forced to choose between a traditional and a non-traditional burden.

I am a pretty flow judge. Nothing super specific besides that I don't vote on disclosure as I don't know enough about it at this time and I don't feel there has been an explicit shift in the Nebraska LD community to disclosure. I can mostly understand spreading as long as its not like over 500 wpm as long as you are clear. Anything over will be a gamble, it pretty much just comes down whether or not I can understand you so tread carefully.

I understand debate jargon when related to PF or LD. I am not super knowledgeable about some policy stuff but I am getting better the more I see it and I accept kritiques and what not as long as the framework makes sense in the context of LD.

Please addwilliamhsjostrom@gmail.com to the email chain

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020) - I led the country in TOC bids my senior year

I just graduated from the University of Georgia and I will be attending law school next year

***NATS POLICY UPDATE ***

I did pf for 4 years and have now coached it for 4 years. That being said pretty much any speed you want to go is good with me - spreading is fine with me - I'd probably say if you want to be extra safe go at a pace of 7 or 8/10 if 10 is your fastest spreading just because I haven't judged a ton recently.

I am very familiar with policy and the types of arguments made so don't change your normal strategy just because of me as the judge. I will vote for anything (case, counterplans, disads, k’s, t, etc ... whatever are all fine). If it is won on the flow as long as you don't do something really messed up or offensive etc... youll win the argument.

All the general stuff in my PF paradigm below also applies

PF Paradigm:

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go.

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

He/him/his or judge works

Public Forum Coach at Lincoln Southwest for the past 3 years, debated for 4 years on NE circuit, competed at NSDA Nationals

Feel free to send evidence/case chains to spethmansam@gmail.com

I prefer if second speaker rebuilds in their rebuttal, but if you have good coverage/ cross analysis/ rebuild in summary you won't be penalized.

Summary and final focus should mirror each other: be consistent in your story and impacts

I am not huge on card dumps and numbers being thrown around; if you want me to buy into your card/argument, I expect you to explain what the number or card means. Tell me why I should be voting for you based on your evidence (you need to do more than cite the name)

(!!!) IMPACT- some of the best rounds are lost because teams do not impact (weighing is equally as important, make the decision for me). At the end of the round I want to see clear voting points that have been pulled through consistently.

If you choose to run progressive arguments/theory-- please do so in a way that is accessible to all. I have limited experience with these ideas in debate but am totally willing to listen if everything is clearly explained and brought into the debate at an appropriate time. However, I am not keen on teams running theory as a tactic to confuse their opponents; I don't see it as making debate inclusive and accessible to all.

I am here to make sure everyone has a fun, safe and exciting experience with debate. Any hateful or blatantly racist, transphobic/homophobic, sexist, etc arguments will not be weighed in the round.

If you have any questions at all, just ask! I am open to helping anyone with their debate skills and ideas, no matter your success or failure. You can reach out any time, regardless if I have judged you or not :)

Good luck!

I am a former PF debater from Lincoln Southwest High School (2006-2010). I competed in the Nebraska circuit as well as twice in the Tournament of Champions and twice in Nationals, finishing in the top 25 teams my senior year.

1. Speak clearly and persuasively. Remember that a PF debate round is designed so that any person could come in and judge a round.

2. Strong PF debaters tell a story. I want to hear your contentions, evidence with strong analysis, and impacts. Don't leave anything for me to connect or weigh myself - this should all be laid out in the round.

3. Be respectful.

Experience: 4 years as a high school policy debater

Coaching: 2 years as a head coach (PF and LD), 1 year as an assistant coach

Judging: I’ve judged all forms of debate over the past 10 years with a focus on LD the past 5 years

I vote based on the debate presented and which arguments the debaters choose to close for, for example if you drop an important argument I will have to disregard it for my decision, when going for framework please make sure you also focus on the application of the framework on the contention level.

I was a public forum debater for three years at George S. Parker High. I am also not a Senator in any capacity.

Tabula-rasa, within reason. This is, however, not an invitation to insist that I buy your squirrely arguments.

Speak at a speed that leaves your diction in tact, do not spread. If you speak above 200 words per minute, know that I will ignore you.

Show grace, patience, and charity to your opponents. Address the best possible interpretation of your opponents argument.

I like the existence of framework, but I especially like framework that is meaningfully discussed and implemented.

Less is more. Less total arguments, more quality ones. Anything above three contentions is absurd, but one or two is ideal.

Flow judge, but uncarded analysis is totally acceptable and often preferred to mangling evidence for the sake of narrative.

Crossfire should be questions and answers, back and forth. Questions end with a question mark, and are not accusations.

The summary should contain all offense and defense you intend to weigh in final focus.

Collapse off bad arguments, tell me as clearly as you are able what weighing you are winning.

In final focus, specifically enumerate the voters of the round. Yes, that does mean you should tell me which ones you are winning.

ONLY if you want to (._.) Email chain for evidence exchanges, disclose your cases to me and your opponent.

*christianjamesauthor02@gmail.com*