Please treat me like a lay judge.

I will vote on arguments I find more persuasive

At Carrollton High School, I am a Varsity PF debater.

In general, I favor "tech over truth." If you tell me anything, I want proof and an explanation, but it ultimately boils down to your opponent's ability to reply. Please provide a signpost to keep me on track with your arguments.

Debate can become intense, but strive to maintain civility. My decision will suffer as a result.

Please provide trigger warnings for graphic material.

I don't flow CX, so if you think it's significant, bring that up in your rebuttal/summary.

To help you earn my vote, please make sure I flow the way you want me to: signpost, mirror summary/ff, and tell me how to weigh. If the affects aren't measured and a weighing system isn't provided, I'll have to rely on my personal prediction.

I am a 2nd year at Georgia Tech (Go Yackets!) studying civil engineering and sustainability. I debated VPF for three years in both the Georgia and National circuits and was part of the State Championship team while at Carrollton (2021 & 2022).

I prefer for the teams to share all cases and called evidence into one email chain started before the round. email: andrew.herndon17@gmail.com

Timing- I will time and expect you to do the same

Speed- No spreading no problem

Ev- I view debate as an essential activity for developing skillsets and tools to find the truth, simply don't lie intentionally or otherwise. Your evidence should be reputable, reasonable, relevant, and most importantly: extended. That is obvious. However, If it is bad evidence, it is still up to your opponent to prove that to me. I am a tech judge, and the "game" of debate is won by extending winning arguments and strategically dismantling your opponents' shakiest evidence.

CX- Debate IS clash; I do flow CX out of interest but all arguments and responses should be briefly reiterated your in speeches.

Collapsing - Extend the most contentions you can into the later rounds, I allow lots of collapsing but (hopefully) you wrote multiple contentions to argue them, not to cut potential losses in the round.

Theory- I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop. Yes, FW and Ks can be harmful to you, teams that are abusive with the them to make a debate about a non-resolutional (non-resolvable) issue are not likely to get voted up. But, you can run them if they stay within the broader themes of your contentions.

Weighing- As early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate.

Frontline- 2nd Rebuttal onwards. Nothing new should be read 2nd summary onward.

Signposting- Good debaters are good at signposting.

Comedy- The best debaters are able to make it fun... and get higher speaks

I am a TECH judge. If it's not on the flow I won't take it into consideration. Make your arguments and nuances explicit and tell me throughout the entire round, doubly so for prime links and accessed impacts.

Best of luck

Hi!

I am a pretty chill and laid back judge. I myself do PF, so I know most of the ins and outs of how a round should go. Below are a couple of answers to common questions and some things you should know before beginning your round.

• I am 100% tech over truth. If you don’t give me anything technical to go off of, I will vote where I believe the arguments were the most convincing.
• If you or your partner concede something, it will automatically go to the other team. Spending time on it will not help, so I recommend spending time elsewhere on the flow. Try to win other points.
• I do not have any issues with speed. If you plan to speak at a speed that isn’t normal for Public Forum, please start an email chain with myself and the other competitors on it in order to ensure we all understand what is going on.
• In order to make sure that I understand all of the arguments in full, I may stop the round to ask a quick question or two. Make sure you have a good explanation because if I don't understand your argument, how am I supposed to vote for it?
• I don't vote on solvency just name dropped. You need to prove how YOU solve as well.
• I will not tolerate being rude or overly aggressive towards your opponent. I understand cutting someone off because they have been talking for too long, but being plain rude is unnecessary and will be reflected in your speaker points.
• Please DO NOT bring race into a debate in an inappropriate way. If you attempt to use my race as an advantage to win the round, you will lose and receive the lowest amount of speaker points the tournament will allow.
• I love jokes during the round because it makes it a lot easier for me to watch. With that being said, any offensive jokes made will cost you and your partner the round. If you have to question whether or not the joke was offensive, DO NOT MAKE IT.
• Make clean extensions of your link story if you want me to vote on a certain point in the debate. Just extending an uncontested impact or an uncontested response will not help. Tell me the story behind the point and if you can give me the card info as well so that i may draw the line on my flow.
• PLEASE COLLAPSE. I AM BEGGING YOU. Collapsing makes the round better for literally everyone involved. If you try to go for everything and miss one key extension it could cost you the round and no one wants that. Soooooo collapse.
• I welcome questions after the round to try to clarify why you won or lost the round, but please do not attempt to change my mind about the decision I have made. I attempt to make the best possible decision based on the flow and the content of the cases. Trying to change my mind will just aggravate me. It is what it is.

Overall, just be kind to your opponents and the judge. If you have any questions, please ask them before the round starts. It never hurts to ask. Happy debating.

link to long paradigm:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HcSqhYenfQKOeNMdn57Ucj1iemLDqma7gjpRYGhkGfI/edit?usp=sharing

tl;dr:

Safety and accessibility are my top priorities. Email me at arthurli@sas.upenn.edu with immediate concerns.

Background: traditional LD debater, dabbled in PF, judged sporadically for 3 years.

Voting: flow judge with a traditional background.

Speed is fine, but please add me to the email chain and speech doc if you’re spreading. Slow down for taglines, card names, impacts, KVIs, etc.—key points that you deem crucial to your strategy.

Argumentation: your arguments should be clear, well-warranted with analytical logic and/or reputable evidence, impacted, and weighed with respect to the round’s framework. Extensions into later speeches should be clear, and I will not evaluate new material in 2AR.

Formality does not matter, so you can take off your jacket, stay seated for speeches, and use profanity or jokes. Do not, however, be disrespectful. Also, unless it makes you uncomfortable, please just call me Arthur!

Hello! My name is Eden (he/him), and I am a former PF debater from Carrollton High School and a current first year student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!). I debated 3 years on the Georgia and national circuit. I won several GA tournaments and broke at quite a few national tournaments so I'm familiar with lingo and norms.

Add me to email chain: edenlong42@gmail.com

Summary: Tech>Truth. Arguments need to be extended through every speech and evidence must be used to support your speeches. I will always vote off the flow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighing: Please weigh your impacts. If you don't give me a framework I default to util. I'll vote on any framework as long as you win it on the flow. If the link chain is strong and you defend it well I'll vote for your impact.

Theory: I'm willing to vote for theory arguments just make sure you actually win the warranting. I'm not going to vote for you the second you start reading theory just because your opponent doesn't format the argument the way you think they should. Whoever warrants the best gets my vote. RVI's and IVI's are fine.

Disclosure: I'll vote on disclosure at TOC bid tournaments only. I ran it a few times and know how it works. Same theory stuff applies though about warranting. I won't vote on jargon alone. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit. This is not the norm and extremely abusive. The Georgia circuit should be a space for anyone to feel welcome and disclosure only rewards teams who have the resources to run it.

K's:I have less experience with K's than I do with theory so keep that in mind but I am willing to vote on it if you warrant it. I don't have an issue taking debates outside of the topic as long as you prove to me why we should. I enjoy when debaters read K's they truly care about and I think it brings important discussions into our event.

Tricks:I really, really don't like tricks. I think the only time we should take things out of the topic is when we really need to. I hate when debaters want to be lazy and read out tricks to confuse their opponents. If you decide to run friv theory just be prepared for my rfd.

Structure:I think rebuttals need to respond to everything in constructive. I don't want to hear a new response to case in summary and I probably won't flow it. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No new evidence in 2nd summary and final should only extend what's in summary. Don't be abusive in 2nd final.

Evidence: I'll only look at evidence in the chain if you ask me to. Don't be hesitant to call for cards in the round. I don't get judges who are annoyed by this. Please have evidence ready to be sent, I love evidence sharing but I hate ending a round 30 minutes late.

Timing:Don't really care if you go over a little bit just don't be hypocritical. I've gone against way too many teams who go 20 seconds over then start complaining the instant their opponent goes one second over. Don't be that team.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to help you get better so please feel free to ask me any questions about debate or the topic after the round. I'll probably be flowing on computer and I'd be more than willing to send you my flow after the round. Good Luck!

Im Will Roberson this is my third year judging/competing in PF

• let me know if you drop anything
• No new evidence in second summary
• have evidence prepared
• im ok with normal vernacular
• pls extend all evidence I firmly believe this is critical to keep a link chain intact
• pls be respectful in all cross i don't mind if you tell during speeches though
• im okay with spreading just don't go crazy with it
• Tech>truth

I am the PF captain at Midtown/Grady High School this year and am not competing.

In general, I prefer "tech over truth". If you tell me something I would like evidence presented and explained, but it ultimately comes down to your opponent's capacity to respond. Please signpost to keep me clear on your arguments.

Debate can get heated, but try to remain civil. It will affect your speaker points. Speaks will generally be 25-30 unless you are blatantly prejudiced.

Please give trigger warnings for graphic subjects.

I don't flow CX, bring up what happened in your rebuttal/summary if you believe it's relevant.

To help me earn my vote, ensure I flow the way you want me to: Signpost, mirror summary/ff, and tell me how I should weigh. If impacts aren't quantified and a weighing mechanism isn't given, I have to go off of my best assumption, which you don't want.

The most important thing to me in a round is that I want to see a genuine clash.

I won't vote off of nontopical arguments (abusive theory, Ks, CPs, etc.)

debated PF in high school local and nationally

if LD treat me like a lay judge

Hey guys! This is my third year competing in Public Forum debate at Sequoyah High School.

I can take some speed, but don’t sacrifice the clarity of your points just so that you can fit everything in. If I can’t understand something clearly, I can’t flow it. Be assertive and confident in your points, but expect to lose speaks if you say or do anything rude/offensive to myself or your opponent. This especially goes for crossfire, I won’t flow cross but it’s a good opportunity to clear things up and stump your opponent.

Try to start weighing in second rebuttal. In summary, extend your strongest standing points and try to start to collapse. If you are first summary, you should be frontlining. No new information should be brought up after summary. In final focus, I want to hear lots of weighing and tell me exactly why I should be voting for your standing voters.

Going line by line is easiest for me to flow all your points, but feel free to introduce an off time roadmap when necessary.

I really love hearing analytical and logical responses, but if y’all make an email chain for carded evidence, feel free to add ariannaycaza@gmail.com :)

To make this fun, follow me on Instagram and send me something funny for a speaks boost! @ariannaycaza

he/him/his

Hey, I'm Mark! I'm first year out of Carrollton (GA), where I debated PF on the local and national circuits. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals a few times, all in PF. I'm a first-year at the University of Georgia now studying political science, international affairs, and Spanish.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: mvzjr2@gmail.com.

Debate how you want to. This is your activity. It is my job to judge all forms of debate equitably. That said, I have found that I have certain unconscious preferences in the debate space. You can take these with a grain of salt, or you can try to adapt. That is completely up to you. I will never drop someone solely because they don't debate how I did or how I prefer. I never really know how to structure my preferences, so below are my best attempts. Let me know if you have any questions either through email or in person before the round.

_________________________________________

-100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is extended well. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact.

-Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful. Collapse as early as you want.

-Go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity. I debated really quickly and can handle speed, but I think spreading is kind of annoying. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but if you do, it needs to be REALLY well done. If you get close to spreading, send me a speech doc.

-I don't flow cross.

-Time yourselves, please.

-I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. If you run theory, ensure that it is not abusive. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop.

-Paraphrasing is probably fine (definitely not preferred), but if you misconstrue evidence, I will hardcore drop your speaks. I might also drop you. When an opponent asks for evidence, I will give you about 1 minute to send it in the email chain (as a cut card) and then start docking speaks (this can be altered at my discretion due to technology issues, etc.).

-PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer line-by-line in rebuttal and summary, but this isn't necessarily a "must-do to pick up my ballot" type of thing.

-Weighing is really important. Do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered in the way that you want it to be.

-Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or first summary. Nothing new should be read second summary and beyond.

-Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a really important educational opportunity and I believe that learning is the sole reason that this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I believe the punishment is warranted.

_________________________________________

I start speaker points at a 28 and then go up and down from there. I am usually pretty generous with speaks. You shouldn't get below a 26 unless you did something discriminatory or extremely disrespectful.

Feel free to (civilly) postround me, but make sure everything is submitted on my end. I think that post rounding is educational for both the judge and the debater, and ensures that judges are checked for bad decisions.

If you are funny I will boost your speaks. Please be funny.

I disclose unless the tournament tells me not to.

If you have any questions, please contact me. You can email me, send me a message on Instagram (@markzimmer_), talk to me, or send me a carrier pigeon. Anything works.