I have done Public Forum Debate for 4 years and am familiar with the format. I will primarily be judging the round based on the technical aspects, focusing on what pieces of offense are left by the end of the round by the teams and then weighing these arguments based on a framework to determine my vote. Narratives and rhetoric will affect the frameworks I choose to adopt in my judgment of the round. I will not consider new arguments and evidence developed during and after 2nd summary unless they are clearly interacting with previous statements made.

I am a parent judge. When presenting your arguments, claims, evidence, and warrants should be stated clearly and in an organized manner. Please, speak clearly and at a conversational pace, or I will not be able to flow your arguments. Do not assume I will understand if you use jargon. Show respect and do not talk over your opponents in the crossfire. I prefer speakers to crystalize their extensions at the end of the round and expose any major inconsistency your opponent makes. Finally, I am looking for clear impacts on your claims.

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Please speak at a conversational pace. If I can't understand your argument, I can't flow your argument.

Prefer quality over quantity. One solid argument will persuade me more than a dozen undeveloped arguments.

When speaking, please introduce evidence with the author’s full name, qualifications, publication, and publication date. This information is essential to evaluating the strength of your evidence. While last name/year may be the minimum requirement per NSDA rules, it is not sufficient to win the ballot. Each piece of evidence should be introduced with a brief pause or by saying “quote/unquote.” This is necessary to distinguish between evidence and analysis.

Please signpost with arguments, not authors.

Please ensure that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Disconnects between claims and evidence will seriously damage your credibility.

I am a lay parent judge. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I may ask for cards at the end.

Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!

Hi debaters,

It's not easy competing in tournaments via video chat (what a time to be alive, am I right?). So take a moment and appreciate the fact that you are here!

I am your judge, Shoilee Banerjee, and I am currently a senior in college and a novelist and singer, but I did debate all throughout high school. I, too, have the experience of competing in big tournaments such as this, so don't worry--take a deep breath and do what you're best at :) You all are amazing!

I don't mind if you spread--I just ask that you stay polite and respect each other and each other's time. I flow every speech except keep in mind that Cross is mostly for you all to sort things out with each other.

I cannot wait to hear all the thoughtful and intelligent arguments you provide. You all will do wonderful!

P.S I also have a heavy background in science and pharmacology so any arguments you run, make sure you are sure of their scientific basis if they have one

Yours truly,

Shoilee Banerjee

BACKGROUND: I am a junior at Harvard College who competed for Regis High School with moderate success (some bids, a lot of elims) in PF for four years on the National Circuit.

PARADIGM: Be kind, be honest, be clear, tell me a story that makes sense, and engage specifically with your opponents' arguments. Try not to do anything that I would likely view as excessively progressive, technical, or inaccessible given that my understanding of debate remains normed to what this activity looked like when I was introduced to it roughly 5 years ago. Don't make ridiculous arguments or misrepresent evidence. I will almost certainly not vote for progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc.).

Most of the time, the team that does the smartest things analytically (great comparative weighing! response grouping! weighed resolution of clash!) wins. If you have to speak super fast, you're probably missing the point. I don't enjoy speed, but I can certainly flow it, short of spreading.

While I have not formally done debate, I have participated as a judge multiple times, and I work as a Professor and Dean at a University. In debate, I am fine with speed as long as I can understand what you are saying and the arguments are coherent. I vote based on who is doing a better job with the argument. I preference a better debater over an argument that I agree with. The presentation of data and the use of strong sources is important. I will not vote on racist, sexist, homophobic arguments. I appreciate the strategic use of cross-examination, not for personal attacks. I am not familiar with the use of theory and it will not be a successful strategy.

hi! my name is devanshi (she/her), i'm a current junior at mcgill university (it's in montreal) and i debated policy at lexington before that. if you're reading this, i'm probably your judge.

if the round's about to start:

- email: devanshisbhangle@hotmail.com

- be organized - subpoints, good line by line, etc.

- tech > truth - if you win the flow, you win the round.

- p l e a s e be clear. if you don't think you can be clear, slow down a little: you're better off going at 80% speed where i can understand everything you're saying as opposed to 100% where i can understand maybe half. i'm not shy about asking you to be clear but tbh it's not a good experience for any of us so please let it not come to that.

- pf specific: speed is fine. theory is fine, progressive args are fine, identity args are fine: i'll vote based on what's on the flow; simply reading any of these arguments doesn't guarantee a ballot for or against you.

- my topic knowledge is p limited - i study microbiology + immunology, so i get epidemiology / pandemics / public health, but outside of that, assume my understanding is what you'd expect for ur average college kid

- please don't make arguments or engage in behavior that threatens the safety and wellbeing of the people in the room or marginalized folks writ large. this includes, but is not limited to: making racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic comments, deadnaming / (intentionally) using incorrect pronouns, saying slurs, etc. i will not tolerate it, and doing so will result in an automatic loss, laughably low speaker points, and a word with your coaches.

- if your opponents are making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, please let me know! i believe every video conferencing system has a function where you can privately send people messages. you can also email me. similarly, if there's anything i can do to make your experiences better (including using correct pronouns, avoiding certain topics, etc.) please let me know in whatever way is comfortable for you.

- disclosure = good - show me you disclose, and i'll give you + your partner +0.2 points

- speaks are fluid and arbitrary, but i do my best to default to higher speaker points :')

- for pf specifically: i have 0 idea what defense being "sticky" is ??

other stuff / if you have more time:

- an aff has to do two things: 1) create change; 2) be tied to the resolution in some way. beyond that, i don't really care whether it's a k aff or not. either ways, you should be able to defend your model of debate.

- i won't meticulously comb through your evidence for you. if there's a specific card that's really good for you or damning for your opponents, point it out to me in round.

- kritiks --> i'm minimally familiar with antiblackness, cap, and feminist literature, but beyond that, assume i have a very basic understanding (except for pomo, in which case, i know literally nothing). either ways, i find jargon confusing + unnecessary - in my experiences, the best k debaters have also been the ones who could most clearly explain what their theories are and how they link to the aff

- i do my best to consciously distance my decisionmaking from any preconceived biases. that being said, here are the ones i won't budge on: death is bad, racism/sexism/homophobia/genocide/bigotry is bad, climate change is bad, cancer/disease is bad.

- impact calc <3

- i like when counterplans have a solvency advocate that's specific to what the text mandates.

- not a huge fan of dodgy politics disads; make sure they're extended well and supported by your evidence.

- try not to be aggressive?? especially to novices / younger debaters / people with obviously less power in the situation than you. if you need to make someone feel small to look better, you're probably not a good debater lol

- recommend me a book/show: if i've read/seen it, +0.1 points; if i haven't, +0.2 points; if it's one of my favs, +0.3 points.

- tell me how to vote in the 2nr/ar!

good luck, be nice, have fun! <3

I will be listening to the speakers carefully and looking for flow, consistency, evidence and sources of evidence. Will be noting down all the key points and assess based on content presented and will go by the data for final out come. I have judged in Berkley and other tournaments around Bay area before.

LD:

Background on me: I debated in high school, and then coached for several years after that. I've just started judging again, so keep in mind that I may be a bit rusty on the latest trends.

Types of arguments: If you can make a compelling argument, I'll listen to it. Want to challenge the nature of epistemological truth? Go for it, as long as you provide warrants. However, you also need to give me a framework for evaluating your arguments vs your opponent's, and weigh appropriately in that framework.

Jargon: I don't mind LD-specific terminology, but don't use it as excessive shorthand. For example, labeling something a turn is fine, but you do need to actually turn the argument - just saying 'turn' isn't sufficient.

Speed: Above 275 wpm, I'm likely to start missing things, so please keep your speed below that.

PF:

I'm coming from an LD background, so I know how to flow, I expect arguments to have warrants, I appreciate weighing and clash, but you should probably avoid any PF-specific terminology/jargon. AFAICT, plans/kritiks and similar aren't allowed in PF, so don't do that =) I would like crossfire to be similar to cross in LD - ask questions about your opponents arguments, set up lines of argumentation, but please don't use it as extra speech time. 'Don't you agree that <restating contention>?' is not something I'm going to find compelling as a judge.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a Congressional debate judge, I am listening for fervor, passion, and rhetorical integrity. Students who begin or lapse into reading their speeches will not receive high marks from me - extemporaneous speaking is key here with ideas presented in flavorful tones without the monotone elements that derive from reading a series of sentences. The proficient asking and answering of questions is key to receiving a high score from me. I listewnt to your words and expect clear pronunciation, medium pace, and enlivened debater from you and your peers. Once the session has ended, please accept my 'virtual high five' as a response to your gestures of 'thank you for judging' mantra.

DEBATE

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik in PF and tend to reside in that camp that believes such discussions violate the legitimacy of tournament competitions; that being said, I will entertain the argument as well as theoretical counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy, but be forewarned that shifting the discussion to another topic and away from the tournament-listed resolution presents serious questions in my mind as to the respect owed to teams that have done the resolutional research deemed appropriate by the NSDA.

I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking and see this practice as minimizing the value of authentic communication. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate by the NSDA underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot, as are diction, clarity, and succinct argumentation. The rationale that supports an argument or a clear link chain will factor into my decision making paradigm.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email, should a situation warrant. Also, Standing for speeches is my preference.

I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.

My core belief is that the winning team should make a logically better argument than the other team throughout the round and convince a lay judge like myself. The arguments need to be made logically, and with solid evidence. Speaker points will be judged based on clarity and appearance in cross. Rudeness/speaking over others will immediately bring your speaker points down! I also believe in teams taking the responsibility for ensuring opposing team's prep time and card management and in addition to managing their own.

I am a parent judge. For the past few tournaments that I attended, I immensely enjoyed the experience, particularly for the well prepared cases, arguments with well supported evidences from solid research. Students with the patience of letting the others finish their points impress me the most. A lot times, it is not just about what you argue, but equally important is how you argue. Because of the age and the passion, students sometimes spread, which in my opinion shows that you started to lose focus. Listening sometimes is more important, which is the basis of 2 way communication as supposed to just stressing your point of view.

Nonetheless, debating skills are highly regarded and critical in schools and work places. The tournaments provided an excellent forum for you to develop those skills. I wish that I had that when I was attending high school in China.

I'm a senior at Brown studying economics who debated 4 years of Public Forum for Acton-Boxborough. I'll flow to the best of my ability, but I've definitely become more flay as time goes on. In particular, I believe that the debate round can serve as a space for meaningful discourse around important issues, and as a result, I'm not afraid to admit a preference for arguments based in truth as opposed to squirrelly ones meant to catch your opponents off-guard without any basis in the real world. That being said, I have no qualms voting against my own beliefs or for untrue arguments that are insufficiently rebutted. If teams make claims that directly contradict one another, I'm often compelled by evidence comparison that specifically explains why one argument should be preferred. However, please still extend the warranting underlying the research throughout the round.

2nd Rebuttal: Must frontline turns, everything else is optional.

1st Summary: Please extend defense! If it wasn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, you can be very quick about it—just be clear and concise.

Theory/Ks: I'll evaluate any argument you make in the round, but I'm not very receptive to these types of arguments and have never voted for a team that's read one. I don't believe theory/Ks belong in PF and strongly prefer a substance debate.

Trigger Warnings: Please provide them if you're going to discuss any sensitive topic. If you're unsure, read one.

Topic-Specific Jargon: Although I'll try to have some level of understanding of the topic, please define any topic-specific acronyms or jargon for me (or avoid using them completely).

I will always analyze the round to the best of my ability, so please don't post-round me—the burden is on you as the debater to win my ballot. Asking me questions is totally fine though, of course.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Please be kind to your opponents. If I think you're disrespectful or making the round an unsafe space, I'll tank your speaks with no hesitation and potentially drop you. Good luck everyone!

I started debate judging in 2020.

I am a parent judge with experience as a federal law clerk and a corporate lawyer. I focus upon logic, persuasion, and evidence. Secondary issues are civility (required), clash (essential), and quick thinking (responsive and on-point argumentation score high).

I value quality of argument over quantity - rifles beat shotguns. I do not insert my personal views but will penalize abusive, imaginary, or hyperbolic claims. Lying with statistics or misrepresentation of evidence are also red lines. That said, teams need to take care to address every argument their opponents make; if you drop an argument, I will presume that it has been conceded, but I will listen to arguments on why conceding that argument is not fatal to your case.

As a judge, I prioritize substance over theory.

I don’t fill in the blanks on topicality. If you want to argue it, then be sure you spell it out - I will gladly listen. As for kritiks, I do not judge from a technical background -- you may run them at your own risk.

Debate is practice for citizenship. I want polite disagreement. Nothing is personal, but if you attack the other team as people, it will cost you speaker points. Being respectful is not sufficient to win, but it is necessary. Chronic poor sportsmanship, rudeness, or bad-faith interruptions can decide a round that is close on substance.

I appreciate directness, clarity, and common courtesy . Good luck and remember that debate is persuasion, not mixed martial arts.

I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.

General Ideas

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.

I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Add dcigale01@gmail.com and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com to email chains.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Flow Judge.

Worlds Is My Fav Event. (This should tell u a lot ab my debate phil)

Ask me anything else before the round starts.

U can post round me, but I pay attention so you probably won't change my mind lol.

good luck lol

PF:

My background as a debater is in parli, and that tells you a lot about my philosophy: evidence matters, but logic/reasoning/narrative is what I'll remember.

WEIGH. Weigh and meta-weigh. If you only take one thing away from my paradigm, let if be this!

Collapse your arguments in summary/FF. Give me voters that bring out major themes. I love FFs snd summaries that begin with, "Here are the three most important reasons you should return an aff ballot," instead of "I'll do their case and then our case."

I don't love jargon-heavy arguments in PF. I do sincerely believe that PF rounds should be intelligible to an educated lay judge. I *love* a good progressive argument, though, as long as it's explained clearly.*

*(more information if you're curious: my standard for 'clearly' is, your opponents could make a reasonable refutation of your argument by thinking on their feet based on a reasonable HS-level amount of background knowledge about capitalism/racism/whatever, without having spent a ton of time studying theory/Ks in particular. I won't buy the response in rebuttal that progressive arguments are intrinsically unfair to competitors from small programs; I would buy the response that your opponents have not explained their arguments clearly and were tech-y enough that you can't reasonably respond without specialized knowledge.)

Speed is fine if you signpost well and your arguments are clear. (If you're making a complicated or subtle argument, slow down for that argument.) I won't read your speech doc, though. If I didn't hear it, you didn't say it.

If you're consistently interrupting your opponents in cross, I will ignore what you're saying when you interrupt them. Be courteous! Win on the strength of your arguments, not your aggressiveness.

Generally truth ≤ tech. Exceptions: I won't count it if you throw out an obviously objectively terrible response to an argument in rebuttal so that the argument's not officially conceded (that counts as "basically conceded" to me). I also can't bring myself to vote for arguments that are intrinsically and obviously offensive ("racism good").

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

World Schools:

Don't give me a PF/Policy/LD round! I really sincerely will base 40% of my decision on speaking style. Tech ≤ truth in WSD.

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

I hear some extempers are reading paradigms so they can use judges' personal interests in their AGDs. So: I love American football, particularly the Saints and the Patriots. Basketball: Celtics and Pels. I'm a math teacher and I have two cats. I'm non-binary. I will look kindly on references to Star Trek, The Good Place, Community, or the missed PI call in the 2019 NFC championship. Pineapple is great on pizza; hot dogs are not sandwiches.

I am a High School English Teacher and this is my first year teaching/judging PF Debate. Please speak slowly or at least with average cadence.

Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks

Please time/record yourselves and each other

Email: maximilian.dittgen@gmail.com

Hunter '21

Hi, I'm Max! I did four years of LD in high school, reaching a few bid rounds and attending NCFLs twice.

It's been a bit since I've last heard spreading so please start at 70%ish and work your way up from there.

I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. The online format makes it pretty hard to catch blippy arguments. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.

I mainly read Idpol Ks in high school (setcol and abolition), but when reading a K to me make sure link, alt, and impact are all very clearly explained in the 2N. I don't necessarily know what your K means--I like brief (~15-45 seconds) overviews (plural!) on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense. I like unorthodox alts if they make sense in the context of the K and will reward them with higher speaks if they're good.

--

Update after Ridge: I'm open to hearing disclosure theory, but my threshold for voting for it will increase as the violation becomes less egregious. If you forego substance debate for a disclosure theory shell, either explain your voters extremely well, or make sure there's a legitimate abuse story.

--

Update for Big Lex and Columbia: Although I've never competed in PF, I have been teaching it to 5-10th graders for two years--please don't feel like you need to adapt for me and I'll try to evaluate your arguments as fairly as possible! However, I don't have any topic knowledge, so please be a bit patient with topic-specific knowledge and acronyms.

--

Update after Big Lex: I won't vote on explicit counterplans in PF--however, I believe that if the neg side proves an alternative to legalizing drugs that is happening or has a possibility of happening in the status quo solves case and avoids disadvantages, I'll vote on it

I am a debate parent in my first year of serving as a judge. I am a partner at a small environmental law firm in Boston. I was a middle and high school History teacher for 7 years before going to law school. I expect debaters to listen to and be directly responsive to the arguments of the other side. I look for each debater to get involved in every aspect of the format, including Grand Cross. I do not need debaters to provide an off-time roadmap previewing what they are going to say during their allotted time. If you believe such a roadmap is important enough to spell out and use as a framework for your comments, you can devote some of your time to it. Debaters can use timing devices during the debate, but they should not use any alarms while tracking their opponents’ time. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I appreciate debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I will deduct points for any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class.

bellaire '21 | ut '25

he/him

put me on the chain: wfan042211@gmail.com

general:

tech > truth

trad is good, theory is a coin flip unless violation is blatant

constructive:

send a doc if fast

rebuttal:

quality > quantity

no offensive overviews in second rebuttal

summary:

make it clear what ur going for

final focus:

be clear, should cover what summary covered

Judging History

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF before. This is the first time judging LD.

Preferences

Please speak slowly and please use common terms.

If you want to send documents in advance, my email is jsfang@yahoo.com.

I am a parent judge with very little experience. I value comparative analysis and well warranted arguments. Please do not make any offensive remarks and remain respectful towards your opponents throughout the duration of the round. I do not flow cross and I keep time but please keep your own time as well. Above all, have fun!

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

I am a parent of a current debater. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. Please do not hold me responsible for anything that doesn't get written down because you may be talking too fast. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to weigh your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe that the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another! Please signpost through your speeches so that I can follow. I may not flow crossfires but I may take notes if there is an important point made. Most importantly, have fun!

I'm a parent judge, former litigator, and currently a bank regulatory and policy attorney. I'm also a volunteer firefighter.

I'm fine with moderate speed, as long as it's clear and isn't spreading. Please frontline in 2nd Rebuttal, and weigh in Summary and Final Focus.

For the round, please time yourselves, and when time ends, then simply complete your sentence and defer.

Be respectful of your opponents, and during crossfire and grand crossfire please strive not to speak over your colleagues and remember to always ask questions (and not soapbox your contentions).

Best of luck!

Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail.

When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.

Please do not spread. If you do, I may miss an argument or response.

Do not be obnoxious with evidence transfer. Be efficient and do not eat up time unnecessarily rushing to find pieces of evidence. By the same token, only ask for those things that are crucially necessary to your responses.

Read Keith Macias's paradigm - I agree with him

I would generally consider myself tech over truth, but I will be at least somewhat upset if you say crazy stuff

Will call for sources even if they were not disputed, but dw its more out of interest than any attempt at intervention

I debated in PF in high school for four years.

Please stick to the spirit of PF by not speaking excessively fast.

I find arguments that are realistic to be more compelling than long link chains that hang together by virtue of obscure evidence quotations.

I debated for four years at Lexington High School, and am currently not debating in college. I have little to no topic knowledge.

Please add me to the email chain: justinh4033@gmail.com

PF:

- Disclosure is extremely important.

- Debate whatever style you are comfortable with. I'm experienced with speed but do what you are comfortable with. Seriously. I just want a good debate.

Top Level

I'm a firm believer in the strategic aspect of debate. My favorite part of judging a debate is watching what kinds of unique strategies you can have come up with, the research you have done to support it, and how you execute it. I'm pretty open-minded and enjoy pretty much any type of debate, so run whatever you want. I would much rather you run what you're comfortable with, rather than trying to over-adapt to me.

I will not accept any discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). I generally believe that you are good human beings and will be respectful to each other, so don't prove me wrong.

Tech over truth. How well something is debated determines how much truth I assign to it. While the truth level can lower or higher the threshold of tech required to persuade me, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. That means it must have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Draw comparisons. Explain why your impacts are important outweigh those of your opponent. This also goes for every part of an argument, like uniqueness, the link, etc. Compare evidence and warrants. Draw a distinction between the alt and the perm. Explain how each argument implicates your opponent's arguments and the rest of the debate. The best rebuttals will break down the core issues of the debate and write my ballot for me. Debates that lack comparison make it difficult for me to write a decision, which will probably make one side unhappy every time.

Evidence quality. Evidence is incredibly important, but it can also be trumped by sound, logical arguments. I value good spin of your evidence. That being said, I strongly dislike when people highlight words out of context or jumble together random words to form an argument. So many teams get away with reading bad evidence, but if you don't mention it, it will continue.

T

I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but this is totally up for debate. Reasonability can definitely be persuasive in the right circumstances. Lots of impact calc needs to be done on both sides, and the internal links to your offense should be clearly explained.

DA

Have good turns case analysis at each level of the disad (link, internal link, impact). Make sure to have good, recent evidence because these debates often come down to evidence quality. I don't have any strong opposition to the politics disad – the internal links may be silly, but it's probably a necessity on this topic and I will evaluate it like a normal disad.

CP

While it is very helpful to have them, CPs do not need carded solvency advocates, especially if they are based on some of the aff's internal links. All CPs need to have a clear net benefit and must be competitive. I would like an explanation of the perm and how it shields the link to the net benefit, and this explanation should be happening early on in the debate. PICs are awesome, especially ones that are specific to the aff.

K

I enjoy a good K debate, as long as there is good analysis and explanation. I will typically allow the aff to weigh their impacts. That being said, what does it really mean to weigh a fiated extinction impact against your epistemology? I believe affs should have a stronger framework push than just "weigh the aff" because most neg framework arguments will implicate this very process of impact calculus. Specificity to the aff is extremely important, but not necessary. However, generic link arguments without sufficient analysis will make me much more receptive to the perm. Don't read super long overviews - put the explanation of the K's thesis there, maybe an impact explanation, but the rest can go on the line-by-line.

Planless Affs

I think fairness is an impact, and probably the most convincing one. However, you still need to explain to me why that matters. Impacts that rely on some spillover to institutions (i.e. Lundberg 10) are unconvincing to me. If you are going for T, you should answer relevant arguments on the case page. I think TVAs are strategic and don't have to be perfect.

The aff should have a mix of offense and defense to defeat framework. Most of the time, the impact turn approach is a lot more convincing than trying to win a counter-interpretation, but this depends on the aff. Leverage your aff against framework – impact turn the aff's model of debate or read disads to it based on the thesis of the aff. Defensive arguments can also mitigate a lot of the risk of the neg accessing their impacts.

Theory

If you're going for theory, in-round abuse is extremely important. I think the only the thing that can rise to the level of a voting issue is conditionality. 3 condo is fine with me; 4+ is pushing it. Counterplan theory objections are much less convincing if you have a good solvency advocate. I will lean neg on agent cps and 50 state fiat because of the lack of great neg ground on this topic. I lean aff on consult cps, word pics, and certain process cps. Unless there is a 2NR argument for it, I will not kick the CP for you.

I prefer debaters who articulate clearly instead of word speeding.

I prefer debaters who reason not only logically but also have factual data to back up the reasoning, instead of only having factual data.

I prefer debaters who use common logic instead of convoluted reasoning.

I prefer debaters who understand not only your own contentions but also your opponents contentions.

I prefer debaters who can come up with good counter arguments to their opponents contentions using pertinent evidence and reasoning instead of going in circle.

I prefer debaters who are respectful to their opponents. Aggressively interrupting your opponents during cross should be avoided.

This is my first time judging any tournament and my first time encountering public forum debate. First and foremost, although I have been speaking english for years, it is my second language so please speak SLOWLY––I cannot emphasize that enough. Slow. Secondly, just assume I know nothing about the topic and explain your arguments thoroughly. Doing these two points will only help me understand your arguments better, which makes it more likely I'll vote for you. I recommend you collapse your arguments so you have time to explain them and make it really clear why they're most important. Please avoid debate jargon because chances are I'm not going to know what you mean. And finally, please be polite and respectful to your opponents and remember to have fun!

Debated for Bronx Science for 4 years (2015-2019) and been judging for three years in college; polsci and public policy major at Hunter College

DISCLAIMER FOR CAT NATS: I am completely new to the water topic (haven't researched, coached it, etc.), keep this in mind while debating in terms of technical terms and knowledge of topic Ks, CPs, etc. I have also not judged policy in over a year so chill with the spreading

Feel free to run any argument in front of me. I want you to tell me how to vote and how I should view the round. Besides that, I'm down for anything.

Quarantine edition edit: My connection isn't the best so please send the analytics and/or spread like 5% slower so I can flow it, if the argument isn't on my flow I can't evaluate it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

tl;dr: run what you want

I decide rounds pretty quickly so I usually disclose right after the 2AR.

This is more for policy rounds but don't just card-dump, I hate it when teams just spew a bunch of cards at each other and expect me to do all the work.

If I’m on a panel with Eugene Toth there is a literal 100% chance that we will vote the same way.

My paradigm has been greatly influenced by my god-tier debate partner in high school so if you want to give it a look: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=46818

TKO: If you think you 100% won the round at any point in the debate (i.e. other has no path to a ballot bc of conceded off case, etc.) then you can call a TKO and the round will stop. If I buy that the opponents have no path to the ballot, I will give you the win and 30s. If you are wrong, you will get an L and 25s.

DA

DA should at least have a aff-specific link and not just "Protecting water resources means Biden loses political capital". Make sure impact calc is tight, and good evidence comparison will notch up your speaker points. I want you to tell me a story of how the aff actually triggers the impacts.

CP

Haven't gone for that many CPs, not really my favorite argument. Please slow down for the CP text, especially if it's one of those really long ones. Whatever you run, make sure that you have a clear net-benefit.

FW/T

Unless its not even in the direction of the topic, I won't automatically vote down an aff because it violates your interpretation of framework and the resolution. If there is no significant impact and there is sufficient response from aff, I will weigh education over fairness.

I like to hear cleverly thought out T arguments against K affs that aren't just USFG, but an explanation, again, is necessary.

K

I run Ks very often and love a good K debate but I also hate it when the links for the Ks are not explained well or are just generic. Most of the K debate is rooted in the link debate and you have to be able to do this well in order for me to understand how the kritik functions in terms of the affirmative.

A side note: I am not a judge who thinks you need to win the alternative debate in order to win the round. As long as you can prove that each link is a non unique disad to the aff, and those disads outweigh, I will gladly vote neg. However, winning the alternative debate definitely makes your job a LOT easier. If you do go for the alt, I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. You have to be able to explain the alt well, a lot of debaters do not read the literature behind their kritik and this means they cannot explain their alternatives well or just summarize the tags of the cards when explaining the alt.

Love creative K args, topic-specific Ks are really cool too and I've been finding myself voting for more eccentric and high theory Ks so take that as you will

Ks I've ran: Cap (almost every variant of it: logistics, Dean, historical materialism, etc.), academia (Moten and Harney, Tuck and Yang, etc.), ID stuff (set col, queer theory), psychoanalysis.

K affs

I have read K affs the majority of my debate career. Love them, they great. But if it is a nontraditional aff, an EXPLANATION is necessary. If I don't understand what the aff is, what it does, or why it's good, then I will absolutely default neg

Theory

Have judged a fair amount of theory debates at this point and have voted for condo and ASPEC, so I'm down w it just make sure you have interpretation, violation, and standards esp in the last speech

Troll args

Been there done that, just don't be reading random files you found in the backfiles or online without knowing what they mean

Hi everyone,

I'm a college junior from the Bay Area and debated for 5 years throughout middle and high school. I primarily competed in Varsity Public Forum (3 years) but participated in Varsity Lincoln Douglas as well (2 years).

I judge on logic supported heavily by credible evidence. Please do not spread. I will flow speeches but will not cut you off. Respect your opponents; do not raise your voice. I enjoy a good cross-examination. I'm comfortable with framework debates and am open to hearing counterplans in LD only. Weighing is critical, especially in summary and final focus.

Please share with me a document where cards for each of your speeches can be found. Please also share a copy of your case so I can follow along as you read.

I will award speaker points as I see fit based on your rhetoric and eloquence and will not discriminate on the basis of accents/speaking disabilities.

Good luck and see you in round.

Used to do PF in high school, I now judge and coach sometimes.

Standard tabula rasa judge

Strategy and analysis are the most important factors for me: Please do comparative weighing and explanations between your arguments and your opponents - this is where I end up voting 90% of the time.

If you have any questions about my judging preferences or requests to make the round more accessible, please let me know. Thanks and I look forward to judging you!

Hi! I’m writing this for my dad (who doesn’t believe in paradigms). A couple things you should know:

He’s a parent. Treat him as such; you know what to do.

He’s a professor who gets paid to evaluate students. You’re debating in front of someone who definitely can tell a good and bad link chain apart.

He says he understands speaking quickly. However, he doesn’t think that fast speech is persuasive. I wouldn’t go fast, and definitely not spread.

He doesn’t know any debate jargon. Use at your own risk.

He is a historian, and knows a lot of history. Same for public health -- be careful that what you run would be accepted by an academic in the field.

Be polite & fairly formal. He just spent 15 minutes complaining to me about informal paradigms.

He wants debate to be fun. I'd recommend smiling.

He doesn't believe in off-time road maps. He says that he has never seen them in the rulebooks, and that debaters simply say "first I will rebut the opponent's case, then I will make our case" -- which isn't either surprising or helpful.

Overall, debate like you would in front of a teacher ready to edit your case. Good luck and good debating!

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013. I have also been a practicing attorney for over 35 years. I am looking for a thoughtful exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize technicalities often associated with high school speech and debate. I do not like K’s.

Speak clearly and avoid spreading. I cannot credit arguments that I miss because you were speaking too fast. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

I like signposting and prefer quality of evidence and argument over quantity. Teams should do their best to collapse and weigh.

Explain why I should vote for your side, including why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

email chain: samjones@college.harvard.edu

PLEASE EXPLICITLY WEIGH AND EXTEND LINKS - IF YOU DO NOT I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE TO DECIDE WHAT WARRANT/IMPACT IS MORE IMPORTANT AND NO ONE WILL BE HAPPY.

Update Harvard 2024: For some reason, everyone keeps reading extinction impacts without internal links and no link weighing. I like extinction as an impact when done well, but it isn't an excuse to not read links and not weigh. "There's no internal link in case" is a valid response. If both teams go for extinction, please give me explicit link weighing. "Our impact happens first" isn't weighing unless give me a reason to care. I'm more likely to vote on weighing over extinction than a sketchy link into extinction. Maybe I'm old, but one person per speech and first/second cross.

Day 3: I have not been getting enough sleep, so the more coffee I get brought the better my decision will be. I'm not going to vote on arguments for which I don't understand the internal links - this is the most likely to be true on conflict scenarios.

tldr: debate is a game, tech > truth, and warrants > cards.

Respond to offense and concede defense as soon as possible. First rebuttal defense is sticky until frontlined. I'm almost always going to prefer a warrant over a card. A round where everyone gets 30s is a round where I vote on high-quality warrant comparison.

Without metaweighting, I default uniqueness > magnitude. I won't flow off docs. If you're reading prog, assume I have no background. I'm open to ROTBs which have an explicitly defined way for your opponents to win under the ROTB. I default fairness > education, i'm truth over tech on most shells, and I will vote on RVIs.

Wear whatever and say whatever you want. I don't really listen to cross, but it makes me sad when people talk over each other. I'll vote on anything.

G'Day!

My name is Meg Kandarpa, and I am a Cornell ILR student in the Class of '23. I currently debate for Cornell in British Parliamentary/Worlds debate. (It seems counterintuitive to list BP qualifications on a site that is not used for BP but if you truly want to know ask me).

In high school, I primarily partook in APDA/parliamentary debate but also competed in world schools, congress, public forum, and MUN/speech.

Judging Paradigm

My judging paradigm is relatively simple - If the round doesn't say it, then I don't judge in it (this is 100% based off the flow - not my intuition). This includes not pointing out contradictions, missing links, and other case failures. I'm not one who believes in "punishment judging" - eg if a first speech fails to provide a needed definition, I don't take "away" points.

Refutation is also a good practice - direct responses to teams and telling me why you win also does help!

Also - please weigh/impact. I always see myself questioning "so what" at the end of most cases. Don't let that be your case.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible for you in any way please don't hesitate to let me know before (or even during) the round.

Specificities to Online Debate (Credit to a University of Rochester buddy - Ali Abdullah who wrote this)

Please please slow down a bit; online debate certainly isn't conducive to blazing fast speeds (especially when most of y'all aren't even enunciating properly in person). This doesn't mean you can't speak fast, just be sure to slow down enough that I can make out every word you're saying. I'll try to tell you if I can't comprehend you but chances are by the time I do I've already missed something important.

Please try avoiding speaking over each other during CX; I love heated CX but 2+ people with their microphones on become incomprehensible in an online setting.

On video, you certainly don't have to have it turned on when I'm judging you. There are a multitude of reasons for this from privacy reasons to personal comfort, etc. Basically, you do you. I may also ask you to turn your video off if my internet is being slow, but I'll never ask you to turn it on. I find myself paying infinitely more attention to what you say and the tone/form in which you say it than your facial expressions anyway.

On that note, my video will most likely be on as it makes me stay connected and focused - and for debaters to feel comforted knowing that I am not watching Netflix in round. I never make facial expressions when I'm judging anyway so it wouldn't really be useful to y'all in that sense.

Debate Etiquette

I make it effort when doing introductions to offer a space for pronoun preferences. This is by no means required, but helpful if needed. If someone discloses pronouns or doesn't - always best to defer to the speaking position over assumptions.

I'm all for heated debates, but behavior that can frankly be determined as just jerkish is not something I stand for. This includes aggressively cutting debaters off, excessive facial expressions (if it's that ludicrous, 99% sure I caught it as well) and any generalizations/insinuations towards an entire group of people.

Again - generalizations of groups of people - bad and unpersuasive. That goes for debate, and just life advice while we are at it.

Cheers, and thanks to all who have read this far (good luck if I'm judging you!)

Meg Kandarpa

I am a parent/lay judge. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

Debated PF throughout high school, now a freshman in college. I'm pretty out of the loop since stopping and definitely not up to date on jargon/topics.

1. Include lots of analysis with your evidence (i.e. don't just read a card I want to know why it matters)

2. Voters! Please give me clear voters, it will make it easier for me to weigh the debate and more inclined to give you the win if you neatly lay your points out.

3. Please do not spread.

4. I used to be tech > truth but it's been a little bit so take that with a grain of salt.

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

MICHAEL KEANE PARADIGM

Background:

- A litigator in trial and appellate courts in New York since 1988, I have also taught legal writing and argumentation, and designed and judged moot court competitions.

- I have judged Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Policy Debate (and Speech) since 2014 in New York City, New York State, out-of-State Invitational and National Tournaments.

Debaters:

1. Speak clearly: debaters cannot be credited points for arguments that are not clear.

- To enhance clarity, avoid talking so fast that you cannot be understood, and thus present an incomprehensible argument that fails to score points for your team.

- To enhance clarity, avoid jargon that judges may not understand and that you may misapply, and thus present a confused argument that fails to score points for your team.

- To enhance clarity, avoid "spreading," which usually sacrifices quality for quantity, and thus present a disjointed argument that fails to score points for your team.

2. Provide support for arguments: try to provide identifiable authority for assertions made, with citation to both author and publication (and show appreciation for the relative reliability of different sources).

3. Demonstrate that you have listened to the arguments of you opponents by responding to and pointing out the flaws in those arguments, in addition to promoting your own arguments.

4. Show respect for your opponents and teammates.

5. Have fun.

Greetings to All,

I am a fairly new parent judge to the Public Forum debate. Few things below:

- Keep an eye on the time.

- Present in an orderly fashion.

- Speak slowly and clearly. If you are too fast I will miss what you are trying to say.

- Respect each other.

- In case you are planning on sharing your evidence please share them with me too.

- Relax and have a great round.

I wish each one of you all the best for todays tournament.

Wishing each one of you a Great Round and Happy Debating!

Speak slowly and clearly so I can understand your arguments; if I don't understand them, I cannot vote for you. Use only realistic arguments.

It's helpful when you frontline and give implications in your speeches. Make sure to weigh in summary and final focus with consistency.

Do not run theory or any type of progressive arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents.

Looking forward to listening to your round!

Hi! I'm Anita (she/her), a freshman at Northwestern University. I recently graduated from National Cathedral School in Washington D.C., where I debated Public Forum for four years. I'm definitely not a lay judge but i'm also not super comfortable with speed/prog. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know! My email is anitali2002@yahoo.com.

Please keep track of prep! Also I don't flow card names so if you say "extend Bob," i'm not gonna know what you're referring to.

Some things I like:

· Second Rebuttal has to frontline everything you're collapsing on and address all turns your opponents put on your case or concede to the delink.

· Weighing is super important! Weighing needs to be comparative (don’t just tell me why your impacts are important, tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s impacts). Please start weighing in summary. No new weighing in Second FF.

· Please signpost + give off time road maps! Tell me what you're responding to.

· Please explain your arguments! Don’t just read statistics and then expect that to stand on itself, explain to me why that statistic is true. (warrants are important!)

· If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be in speech and extended across all speeches

· In second half, tell me what you're winning off of, whyyou’re winning, and tell me why I should be voting for you!

. 1st summary is the last speech where I will accept new arguments. New weighing and cross-apps are still okay after tho. New implications? I'll think about it.

. PLEASE make sure impacts are terminalized and quantified!

Theories/Ks

· I don’t really understand Ks and Theories well so if you do run one please explain it well and in a manageable speed.

· If I feel like you’re running theory/ a weird overview/underview just to get a easy win, the chance of me voting for it is pretty low, especially if your opponents point out that it's abusive and explain why. But if you’re running theory because your opponents are actually being abusive, I can vote for it.

Behavior

· There’s a difference between being assertive and being aggressive. If I see you being overly aggressive, especially during cross, I’ll take off speaks and I’ll comment on it in my RFD. Also it can decrease your chances of winning.

· If you’re speaking quickly and make sure you ask your opponents if that's okay. I will try to flow to the best of my ability but I will most likely end up missing stuff. Having a speech doc is not an excuse to speak as fast as you want. I will only look at your speech doc for the duration of the speech.

.I'll only look at a card if you tell me to look at it.

. If you incorporate a tiktok dance or kpop choreo into a speech, I will increase your speaks up to 3 points.

. If you can guess my BTS bias or Blackpink bias, I will boost your speaks (prob only like 0.5 max lol)

for vbi philly:unfortunately i cannot evaluate any attempts to earn speaks based on thestipulations in a google doc that may or may not be linked somewhere in my paradigm. (sorry!)

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

I'm a parent judge. Will try to flow. Please be patient with me and slow you pace a bit.

Hi everyone! I'm John (he/him), a first-year in college concentrating in the life sciences. I debated in LD and PF during my junior year of high school.

I'm still working on developing a judging philosophy, but here are some basics:

- Do not spread. Please speak at a reasonable and clear pace. I will try my best to flow but cannot do so if I cannot understand what you are saying.

- I have no experience with theory or kritiks, but I'm not going to stop you from running any. However, please explain it clearly and help me understand how that strengthens your argument.

- I will primarily vote off of (1) warrants + why your defense is important for you, (2) presenting a clear and logical initial argument, and (3) weighing and impact (in reasonable terms).

- I obviously don't like misrepresenting data, so if your argument utilizes data, please contextualize your numbers in relative/comparative terms. Also when weighing, please compare apples to apples.

- At the end of the day, debate is about having fun and learning something new. While I know that rounds can become heated at certain points, I am strongly against a round devolving into toxic yelling matches (speaks will suffer if this happens): volume is not strictly directly correlated with the quality of the argument. I will not tolerate any sort of xenophobic, racist, and/or sexist behavior. Please be kind to each other.

- If you have any questions or need any clarification, feel free to contact me at johnlin2021@gmail.com - I will do my best to address any confusion or concerns you'll have.

- Besides occasionally reading the news about it, I have absolutely no experience with this topic, so please explain any esoteric ideas clearly in your case.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly. If I don't understand it of catch it, I can't evaluate it.

Do:

• Warrant everything, explain what your arguments mean

• Weigh and tell me why your argument is more important

• Be respectful, especially during crossfire

• Give offtime roadmaps and **signpost**

• Try to briefly explain cards instead of extending them

Do Not:

• Run any progressive arguments; if there is a clear abuse in the round, tell me outside of a speech.

• Bring up new evidence/arguments late in the round; this is abusive and confusing

• Speak quickly

• Be racist, sexist, or any other ist

I'm writing this paradigm for my dad

He's a parent judge but has judges multiple times before and I have ranted to him about rounds before so he knows some things.

Don't go too fast. Your speed doesn't matter as much as quality, quality > quantity.

Be respectful of your opponents, don't be too loud and don't insult anyone. No racism/sexism/homophobia/etc

Your arguments don't matter, no preconceptions in this round, you can read anything you want with a warrant. Explain more complicated arguments slowly and make it make sense, because my dad won't have any biases.

He sort of flows, but it's more of a note talking, so don't focus too much on the line by line.

Just treat him like a lay in terms of speed and jargon and explanation, but you can run whatever non-discriminative arguments with him that you want to(including things like spark, I confirmed this myself, you just really need to warrant it out and always articulate reasons clearly). Don't forget to weight, slowly and clearly, like you would on a normal lay.

Hello. This is Xiaojin Liu and I'm a parent judge at Newton South High School. I prefer logical and concise presentation. I will judge on both the content and how the content to be delivered. I vote for the team that show direct evidence to support your arguments.

"It’s one thing to study something, but it’s an entirely different thing to actually experience it." -- Dr. Shani Tahir Mott

i value debate for its ability to teach students about issues and literature that are unlikely to come up otherwise. i hope that this activity shapes the activities and education you pursue outside of it!

-------

i debated in a small region with many outdated practices and graduated with no accomplishments. i'm currently the head policy coach at georgetown day school. outside of debate, i'm studying public health and africana studies at johns hopkins university.

if you’re an asian debater looking for community and resources, i welcome you to apply for the asian debate collective!

-------

i am exhausted and frustrated with how long rounds take, and it's usually avoidable. prep time ends when the email has been sent. document compilation and attaching the file is not free time.

the 1ac should be sent by start time, even if i am not in the room. if it is not, the aff's speaker points will suffer. if the neg has failed to be present and offer their emails in a timely manner, the neg's speaker points will suffer.

-------

quick and easy: i am mediocre to bad at straight policy, theory, and topicality debates. i will try my best though! on the other hand, i am much better at evaluating kritikal and clash rounds.

good and better debating > any of the preferences i list below.

-------

general:

georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com — add me to the email chain.

simdebates@gmail.com — for other inquiries.

go as fast as you want. i will clear each speech no more than twice and if you fail to adapt, you’ll just have to accept that my flow will have missing pieces.

if you want me to flow something, it needs to be read out loud — this includes re-highlighted evidence.

everyone needs to weigh and layer more.

clear extensions for core parts of an argument are absolutely necessary — if you jump straight into the line by line, don’t expect me to extend the rest of the argument for you.

-------

kritiks & fw:

i believe that judges use ballots for kritikal arguments to remedy racial guilt/anxiety, but that is not me. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, particularly when it relies on unwarranted or circular claims, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays, and i am uninterested in listening to rounds where arguments would not even be defended by the authors of evidence.

being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot.

there needs to be far more substantive explanation in these rounds and far less jargon/made-up words.

framework always determines these rounds — at the end of the round, i need to have a clear way to evaluate between the 1ac’s impacts and criticisms of their scholarship.

specific links to the aff’s mechanisms are fantastic, and i love it when there’s evidence that shows you clearly researched and strategized against a specific aff.

you do not need an alt in the 2nr to win. if you are going for one, please give me a reasonable explanation of what it does rather than vague grandstanding.

i think debate is a game, one that have epistemological implications and consequences, but you can debate otherwise.

both teams need to provide a workable model of debate with clearly defined roles of aff/neg teams.

i have a mild preference for clash and education impacts over fairness, but i’ve voted both ways. just weigh well and explain why procedural fairness is an independent good.

a lot of k affs read DAs to fw that are functionally the same thing — labeling arguments differently does not make it a different argument. have distinct and explained warrants.

-------

policy:

this is not my forte so i definitely have a higher bar for explanations.

impact turns are very fun.

-------

theory & topicality:

i evaluate t violations using the plan text and nothing else.

explain very well and don’t be blippy — not fantastic at judging these.

hidden aspec is fine as long as it’s not hidden to me. i flow by ear and won’t go back to the speech doc to double check if it’s there.

Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Thank you!

Hi! I am a parent judge. I like students to present cases that cover the the most pertinent arguments for a topic. The presentation should be clear and easy to follow, supported by strong evidence. The debaters should be active and make strong comments and responses during cross. Debaters should be respectful throughout. Clearly tell me in summary and final focus why your team has done the strongest job, be specific. Please weigh your arguments against your opponents! Good luck and have fun!

.

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Hello! My name is Jack McGuire (he/him) and I am thrilled to judge y'all. For some background on me, I debated 4 years of PF at Walt Whitman High School and had a bit of success on the circuit. I now attend Middlebury College and am theoretically a part of their debate team. Anyway, here is the important stuff...

TLDR:

-Flow judge.

-Truth over tech for the most part.

-Don't be mean!

-For email chain or questions: jfmcguire11@gmail.com

Constructive:

-If you don't have warrants or impacts, I will be quite sad.

-Don't read too fast! It's really annoying, and I will "clear" you. If your case is over 750 words long, I will be quite sad.

Rebuttal:

-Go line by line.

-If you want a good chance if getting my ballot, you should probably start weighing here.

-If you are speaking second, you absolutely need to frontline. It is really unfair in my opinion if you don't!

-I would be pleased if the team that speaks second collapsed on one argument in their case in second rebuttal, but this isn't necessary.

Summary:

-Please try and collapse on one or two offensive arguments! It will make the round really messy if you go for anything more than that.

-PLEASE, PLEASE read extensions! I will not vote for an argument if an extension isn't read.

-If you don't weigh in summary, that is a big mistake!

-If you interact with other team's weighing, or do meta-weighing that I understand, I will be pleased!

-You don't need to have defense to win my ballot as long as you're winning your offense and weighing.

Final Focus:

-No new arguments (obviously).

CX:

-Be nice.

-Try and make your questions concise.

-Make me laugh.

-I am open to using grand as prep time, but ask me first.

Theory, Ks, etc.:

-I think these arguments are bad for debate! They are not the topic you are debating, and oftentimes I think these rounds are really confusing and not fun to watch. Also, in my last round ever, I didn't respond to theory well and my judge was really mean to me about it, so I will forever hate theory.

-If the other team is actually being problematic or abusive, you can just call them out without reading a shell, and if I agree with you, I'll drop them. But don't drop your substance!

General:

-If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you and tank your speaker points.

-If you are obnoxious, I will probably drop you and tank your speaker points.

-Off time road maps are dumb. Don't do them.

-I will time y'all and I'll stop flowing if you go too far over. If your opponent is going really far over, don't feel compelled to show me your timer, or make over the top gestures.

-During evidence sharing, I don't care if a card is cut, just get it quick.

-Don't steal prep, or I will be quite sad.

-Signpost!

-Feel free to ask me questions about the round, but if I feel like you're post-rounding me, your speaks will be tanked!

Speaks:

-Speaks would always make me feel sad, so I am open to 30 theory, so you don't feel sad.

-If you are obnoxious, I will deduct speaks. For instance, every time you say, "my opponents conceded X," when your opponents clearly front-lined whatever the response was, I will deduct 0.25 speaks.

Out rounds:

-If I'm on a panel with a lay judge and another flow judge, go lay. Let's be inclusive here!

Fun:

-Debate is game! Have fun!

-I am truth > tech, except I will vote on joke arguments. Ideas: pirates solve global warming, anything related to baseball, Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher.

- +1 speak if you aren't wearing dress clothes .

- +1 speak for using British slang (bonkers, off your rocker, etc.)

- +1 speak if you make me laugh.

- +1 speak for references to the New York Mets (or baseball in general), It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, or I think you should leave.

- +1 speak for inclusion of a Bruce Springsteen lyric.

- +1.5 if you correctly identify the full names of "Big Lennie" and "BBR".

Dabbled in Congress and trad LD in High School (zero PF experience)

- don't run anything progressive (K's, Theory shells, etc.) - you're welcome to do LD or policy if you want to

- pls pls don't spread - if I can't understand you (a little faster than speaking pace), I won't flow you, it's pretty simple

- tech > truth - I'm looking for clear link chains and clear warranting - whoever does that best wins the round (esp considering I have zero prior topic knowledge)

- pls pls pls signpost - If I have no clue where I am on the flow, well rest in peace to you

- on timing, feel free to do whatever, but my time is the law of the land - pls don't be a bum and go way over (I will cut you off)

- unless one side really really messes up cross, it won't be a huge factor in my decision - I won't flow it either, but I'll be listening

- weigh weigh weigh

On PF:

- constructives go over contentions with clear warranting and IMPACTING

- rebuttals - just go down the flow and refute (jumping around the flow makes my life so much harder as a judge and I could miss something so it's up to you)

- summary I honestly don't prefer line by line - pls just collapse on the biggest args and WEIGH - also know that unless you're the first team and you're frontlining, you shouldn't be bringing up new stuff (bc ideally as the second team you would frontline in rebuttal)

- final focus - your time should be spent on voter issues, impact analysis, and weighing - all your offense HAS to be extended from summary - if it isn't then I'm probably not flowing it

Obviously, all this is assuming you are polite and courteous in round. Being rude gets you the L, so maybe don't be rude.

Lastly, have fun! Whether you're a new debater or a pretty experienced one, I've been there trust me. Just make sure you learned something walking away.

I'm looking forward to judging you all!

This is my fourth year as a citizen judge, and I take my role in the tournaments very seriously. It is such a joy to witness well-prepared debaters making contentions with respect and grace. I base my decisions on your ability to convince me that you have the sounder argument in this particular round, and on your professionalism and respect for your debate colleagues. I don't need to see your cards, and I trust you to take responsibility for timing yourself. Bring on the debates!

Parent judge and have been judging public forum for a year. Affiliated to Chelmsford High School , MA

Go slow and use lots of warranting

I have no background in high school or college debate, but I have been a practicing attorney for more than 35 years and have been judging PF debates for 8 years.

I am a great believer in the “citizen judge” roots of Public Forum. The debater’s job is to persuade the man on the street, with no background as to the resolution of the month, that pro or con should win. Thus, clarity and focus are paramount. Your job is to persuade, not confuse, me. Well-structured arguments and effectively utilized evidence are key, but so are articulation, modulation, and engagement. A glance up from your laptop from time to time can work wonders, as can staying in the Zoom frame in a well-lighted room.

I do flow arguments, but not in a very technical way. A dropped argument will only count against you if it is material to your overall presentation and not offset by more meritorious arguments that make it through Final Focus.

Spreading and the pointless acceleration of pacing it engenders are strongly discouraged. You should choose your arguments carefully and deliver them at a pace, and with an energy and focus, that are designed to persuade.

Use your evidence fairly and judiciously. Do not overstate its significance or twist its meaning beyond recognition. I will only ask to see your card if the outcome of a round turns on an evidentiary dispute, but, if it comes to this, you want to be confident that your card can be read as presented. Also, feel free to request your opponent's cards, but do so sparingly and only when necessary to dispute a material contention or buttress a key argument.

Unfortunately, only one team can win; that’s the way it is in real life and in every courtroom I have ever appeared, so try to roll with the punches.

Most importantly, have fun. Few things are as satisfying as a hard-fought win; or as motivating (for the next round) as a too-close-to-call loss.

My name is Sapna Palla. I am a lay/parent judge and not a seasoned debater or debate judge - so not a great judge for spreading strategies. I encourage you to speak slowly, loudly and logically so that I may follow your arguments and properly account for them. To me, good reasoning supported by solid evidence is what wins. I believe that talking over your opponents or treating them in a disrespectful fashion detracts from your argument and from the high level of discourse we all seek.

email: sanjitap2003@ucla.edu, pronouns: she/her

hello! i debated in pf at dougherty valley for 3 years (doughtery valley kp and dougherty valley rp) and am now a sophomore at ucla. i'm a flow judge that will buy basically anything, but above all please make sure you are inclusive and kind.

- first: make sure you are reading content warnings with opt outs for sensitive topics (if you are unsure if a topic requires a content warning, better safe than sorry). if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory in any way i will drop you regardless of the content of the round.

- tech>truth, i love unique arguments that bring new perspectives to topics, i will not call for any evidence regardless of how sus i think it is if you do not prompt me to (i think that's intervention) HOWEVER, if i do call for the evidence and it is terribly misrepresented, i reserve the right to drop you

- second rebuttal should frontline, at least all of the offense, if you don’t i consider it dropped

- no "offensive overviews" in second rebuttal please, pf speech times were not built for this, if you are reading turns they must be implicated when you read them, i will not buy new implications into second summary and final

- i love love love weighing and think it's the best part of a debate round! please do it as early as second rebuttal. PLEASE please collapse on ONE argument in second rebuttal

- speaks are started at 28.5, i think speaks are arbitrary and allow biases to creep into judging so i will only go up based on strategic decisions made in the round or if you make me laugh , not speaking style

- you can talk as fast as you want but if i say clear 2 times and still can't understand you i'll stop flowing

- i prioritize WARRANTS over an evidence throwing party any day. good analysis > unwarranted stats

- i really really don't like when people get angry and mean during debate rounds. there is no reason to be mean over a round you won't remember in a few weeks.i will tank your speaks heavily for this :(

- summary and final should mirror each other and extend your case and impact. i will not vote off of it if the full argument and impact are not in both speeches. 

- i have experience with theory arguments but if i feel even slightly that you are reading the argument to win ballots, not because there is abuse, i will not vote on it. i have slightly less experience with Ks but i can understand and judge most if you explain the warrants and framing.

above all, have fun! let me know if there's anything i can do to make the round more comfortable for you :)

The quick version: I flow, better for policy than for the K or theory but fine with most things, be smart and thoughtful above all else.

The most important thing to adapt to me: please make complete arguments. If you are not explaining things, you will be very frustrated by my decision. In all honesty, I think my bar on this is now well above the average PF tech judge, so adapt accordingly, at least if you'd like high speaks. I reserve the right to think about your arguments.

Background: I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I now compete in APDA and BP for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

My primary academic interests are related to insurgency, state violence, and terrorism. This does not mean anything except to say that I will be happy if you evince a nuanced understanding of these issues and be disappointed if you butcher them.

To be upfront: I have not judged PF in half a year, nor have I done topic research in quite some time. I am still fine with speed and can evaluate a flow, but it may behoove you to spend just a little extra time on explanation instead of presuming I know the nuances of arguments even if you think they are obvious.

General: tech > truth, I guess. I am really uninterested at this point by arguments that are facially untrue or implausible, but I won't intervene since I know debaters don't like that. I will reward smart debating-- in-depth analysis of actor incentives, clever technical setup, genuine impact comparison, and analytics that point out internal flaws in silly arguments-- with speaker points. I like to see debaters that are knowledgeable about the topic and the world at large. I do not like to see debaters that try to win by purposefully tricking their opponents or dodging clash, and in my experience these people end up getting far less value out of the activity.

Mechanics: defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal must answer the 1st, any speed fine but I won't flow your doc, you must bite defense in the subsequent speech to which it is read to kick turns, I will not evaluate defense you read on yourself, no offensive arguments, you'll lose if you're rude (seriously) or if you cannot produce evidence. Feel free to post-round as much as you like.

Progressive debating: I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think the vast majority of critical authors have deeply wrong and ill-advised views and I would like to see more teams make that argument (of course I am also fine with a methods debate or T, do what floats your boat, just flagging that I'll vote on threats are real/capitalism good/X theory is bad if you win them). I have no priors on theory. I do think that cut cards and disclosure are good but I'm well past the point of caring enough to intervene. The only arguments I will actively disregard are IVIs or aggressively frivolous theory; these are an abomination, please refrain.

Two tips for these debates:

1. I would encourage you to read theory against K alts that seem to violate the PF rules on negative fiat (hint, there are a lot of them)-- not an auto-win, obviously, but I think an underutilized variety of argument.

2. Procedural fairness is actually quite important. I'm not sure that a structural fairness first model of debate is a good one and I hope teams feel comfortable arguing that the rules of the game matter in and of themselves.

Arguments I dislike: "Fairness bad/irrelevant" -- these arguments are illogical because they presume fair evaluation. "Probability first because that's what policymakers care about" metaweighing -- this is both facially false and begs the question. "Do X thing to minimize intervention" -- almost invariably your attempts to reduce my intervention actually make me intervene more. "The resolution doesn't actually happen when you vote Aff"-- are you going to tell me the sky is blue next? "Discourse shapes reality"-- it kinda observably doesn't.

Any questions-- ask. I do actually have opinions on PF, I just don't think they are particularly relevant to how I judge anymore.

Put me on the email chain: drewpeterson2002@gmail.com

For some background, I have previously competed for 3 years on the national circuit, been coaching / judging for 4 years nationally and also served as the the Tournament Chair for the Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament.

I strongly prefer hearing smart arguments over a large quantity of them.

My threshold for warranting and explanation is likely much higher than you think. Warrant is severely lacking in PF. In order for me to vote on argument, all parts must be clearly extended and explained in the later speeches.

Do not just do impact calc just for the sake of doing it. Impact calc is not nearly as relevant / important to most of the decisions I make as it can be. Make your analysis truly comparative.

However, all of my rules and preferences are negotiable. Debate is up to the debaters. Go for whatever type of argument you want, but stick to what you do best. That includes theory and kritiks.

I am a parent judge and am new to judging debate rounds. As a result of this I may not be familiar with certain debate terms, so please bear this in mind when speaking. Please avoid spreading and make your arguments as clear as possible.

Good Luck Debaters,

I look forward to listening to your debate.

It will help me to listen well and make decision if you could

- speak clearly, slowly

- demonstrate team work within your team

- respect your opponent team

- show passion towards your case through precise arguments

Hi! This is her daughter! My mom is a typical lay judge whose main focus when choosing the winner is on HOW you speak (a.k.a DELIVERY OF SPEECH).

She listens to the quality of responses > quantity and also flows down which responses you extend through final focus.

Have fun! :))

I debated for three years in Public Forum at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts.

General Stuff:

• I am fine with most speeds. However, I definitely prefer the round to go at a moderate pace and I will not tolerate spreading.

• I like to think that I am tech>truth. That said, there is an inherent tradeoff with my threshold for responses on ridiculous arguments.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I do not think progressive arguments (Theory, K, Breaking Speech Times/Meta, etc.) belong in PF so I will not judge those types of rounds. On the other hand, if there is some outrageous violation, warrant the issues in a speech and I will probably give some credence to it if it is true. Just don't read like a full-blown shell on me.

• I default Neg but am willing to hear warranted arguments about why I should presume the first speaking team.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and I might make some heinous decisions.

• I also believe that weighing comes in tiers: you need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.

• I also love teams who use impact clarity well! Use it correctly, I often see this "weighing" mechanism done poorly.

Things I Do Not Like:

• I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments but I will have a super low threshold for responses and your speaks will likely reflect this.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions.

• 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.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts.

I’m a parent but have judged var PF.

Speed: I know you have 4 minutes, but if I don’t understand what you’re saying, it doesn’t go on my flow. (This is especially important for online tournaments, where audio quality is poor).

Evidence: I’d rather you not read 15 cards and expect me to understand what you’re saying. Also have cards ready so we don’t waste any time (if there’s internet issues that’s fine, just get them ASAP)

Rebuttal: Cover both as much of your opponent’s argument as you can. Frontlining is a plus!

Impacts/Weighing: Don’t just give me arbitrary numbers and tell me that one is greater than the other. That’s boring. Tie in your evidence with your framework. Tell me why your framework should be preferred. Make offensive arguments whenever possible

Theory/K’s/progressive stuff: No (if there’s a blatant violation please just point that out)

Summary: Please extend in summary. Anything mentioned in final focus that wasn’t extended in summary will not go on my flow. Simply repeating your arguments is a waste of time though.

Good luck debaters :-)

Hey y'all! I was a PF debater for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School for 4 years, and am a first-year at Northeastern University studying neuroscience.

I was a flow debater, but do not understand any theory, K's, or extreme tech debate. I am ~alright~ with spreading but give a speech doc. I also have not done any debate activities for the last year, so take that as you will. If I cannot flow, your chances of getting down any arguments and winning them severely decreases.

I consider the debate in this order: Weighing, Link, then Impact. If you win the weighing, that's the framework in which I view the round. I then look to who wins the link in that context and ultimately whether or not you access your impact based on any remaining responses and whether they were frontlined effectively.

EXTEND. If you do not extend your entire case, it makes it EXTREMELY difficult to vote, and if both teams don't do that then it will become a very problematic decision because I will have to intervene, and no one wants that.

Make sure to signpost, it makes my flowing easier and will take less time to understand your responses.

If you are speaking first, I consider your defense sticky if not responded to. Otherwise, if responded to, please extend and also explain why your defense/offense is comparatively better than the opponent's response. If you want new implications of defense made, even if your defense has not been responded to, do it here. I will still extend it even if made in FF, it is just always better to have these implications mentioned earlier in a round and consistently extended, otherwise, it may be too late once considering weighing of implications, etc.

If speaking second, no new responses should be in 2nd summary or onwards. New implications of the ~same~ weighing are ok in the 2nd summary given the development of the round, but no outright new weighing mechanisms are allowed. All of the responses should be done in 2nd rebuttal. I prefer front lining in 2nd rebuttal, it makes the debate much cleaner for me to flow and reduces the stress of the first speaker, and also uses 2nd speaking team to its advantage.

I will not call for cards unless I am told to. Make sure your evidence is easy to access or speaks will be dropped a bit. For online tournaments, make an email chain.

Finally, no "isms" or you will be dropped, and speaks will be tanked. Debate must be an activity that is inclusionary for all and must be maintained with a high level of dignity and respect.

I am a parent judge for Horace Mann school. After a stroke 10 years ago, I am unable to write/flow in round, so unfortunately the round will be decided in a rather non-traditional fashion. I will do my best to keep track of the arguments you read, and won't intervene (although I will find it more difficult to vote for arguments that I think are particularly ridiculous) but if I can't remember the arguments you read I can't vote for them so CLARITY IS YOUR FREIND!

Don't read theory, k's, tricks, or anything silly obviously because I wont understand it. My stroke also left me rather hard to understand, I will do my best to give feedback in round, but if there is an issue I can also type it up. (My hearing and processing are fully functioning, and most people can understand me if I speak slowly, but please feel free to say if you can't understand me and I'll be happy to repeat what I said, or I will type up some rough thoughts.)

Strike me if you focus more on the technicalities of debate rather than the persuasive elements, you should treat debating in front of me as different than most other judges. Time your prep and your speeches, I obviously can't stop listening, but I may say something if you go egregiously (5-10s overtime), and your opponents should hold up their timers if you go over to remind me.

Good luck, have fun!

I am a lay judge and parent of a debater, but I am knowledgeable in this area. I do take notes, but it doesn't resemble a proper flow.

My only preferences are that you DO NOT spread and stay respectful during crossfires (no interrupting, yelling, talking over one another, etc.). I do like you to be respectful in letting your opponets finish their thoughts. The clearer and calmer your communication is, the better I will be at making an educated and fair decision. My overall decision WILL be affected by this.

Please keep your own time and hold yourselves and your opponents accountable. I do not base any decision on going slightly over time (due to my previous statements) but I do not want you to abuse it.

I feel that cross is for you all to work out your own thoughts with each other and it has very little impact on my decision.

Finally, make sure that your arguments and impacts are clear throughout the round. Having VERY clear impact statements with strong evidence is VERY important to me. I can not stress this enough. Good Luck to you all!

Was a flow judge, now I would say I'm more flay.

Pet peeve of mine: please do not interrogate me before the round starts regarding what I will or won't vote for. You should run the arguments you think are best.

If someone wants to start an email chain pre-round, use this email: Senghas.Jacob@gmail.com

Debate Coach for Wayland High School, 2019-Present.

Debate Coach for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2017-18.

Former Extemp speaker and PF/Congressional Debater with Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, 2008-2012:

MA HS State Championships 2012, Congressional Debate, 6th Place.

2012 Harvard Semi-Finalist.

Collegiate debater for the University of Vermont in the British Parliamentary/WUDC format, 2012-2016:

Binghamton IV 2012, Octofinalist, Top Novice Speaker;

Vienna IV 2014, Finalist;

Ljubljana IV 2014, Semi-finalist;

Pan-American Championship 2014, 2nd place;

Northeast Regional Championship 2014, Semi-finalist;

Northeast Regional Championship 2015, Finalist;

Brandeis IV 2015, Semi-finalist;

Empire Debates 2015, Semi-Finalist;

Malaysia WUDC World Championships 2015, Finished in the top 10% of teams but didn't break, took round a round from a world finalist (not an achievement but I'm proud of it so it's going here);

National Championships 2016, Octofinalist;

Winner of countless irrelevant speaker awards.

Background

I am a lay debate parent who has judged for 5+ years so far. I have limited experience debating in this sort of style but I have the knowledge to provide an impartial decision based on your debate capabilities.

PF Paradigm

It's better to go slow with logic than to talk as fast as you can without any real substance. Strong reasoning and a powerful rebuttal is the way to win. Make sure your evidence is accurately sourced and if you are overly aggressive, you will lose speaker points. Best of luck!

LD Paradigm

I have very little experience judging LD. Here are some pointers:

-Absolutely do not spread. If you speak even somewhat fast, please send me a speech doc so I don't miss anything important.

-Make the round as easy to understand as possible.

I have experience judging PF, LD, and Speech at national-level tournaments. For PF: I am open to a wide variety of approaches to a topic and try not to intervene in a round unless absolutely necessary. Generally, I encourage debaters to consider quality over quantity, making links between evidence, contentions, and impacts as clear as possible, and to avoid speaking at super-human speed. It is also helpful when debaters consider framework and make a case for what voting issues should be in a round and how the arguments should be weighed. Please be mindful of not speaking over one another during CF.

My name is Matt Shulman, I am a 19 year old musician. I have no formal debate experience. I generally find debaters who are aggressive and disrespectful to be too abrasive to be taken seriously, please honor your debate opponent and do not talk over them. My email is mattjshulman@gmail.com.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

Email for email chains: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

I am a game theorist and policy-maker judge. I will accept any arguments so long as you can prove that they are sound, relevant, and entail resolution-unique impacts. My background is in logic, rhetoric, and philosophy so I expect arguments to be well constructed with sound reasoning and appropriate warranting. I like to see progressive clash in crossfire rather than questions aimed at clarification or exposition. It is my belief that a debate simply cannot be won on content alone so I place equal weight on framework (theoretical) arguments and case (empirical/evidential) arguments. My win condition for debate is not only how well versed and dominant you are on a particular topic but also how well you can debate objectively; some criteria for this evaluation include but are not exclusive to effective use of turns and blocks, effective construction of counterexamples, effective elucidation of advantages and disadvantages of argument acceptance, and effective elucidation of fallacious argumentative methodology. In more empirical formats such as PF I see it as essential that debaters understand the respective fact-finding and research methods involved in their warrants; in other words, debaters should be able to quickly and accurately explain exactly how a conclusion was reached in an academic study, meta-analysis, etc. and furthermore how that conclusion uniquely addresses the claim or claims it is being employed to support. Overall I believe that the purpose of debate is to encourage more comprehensive and diverse education, thus abusive strategies (policy debaters I'm mostly looking at you) rarely win on my ballots.

This is my third year as a lay parent PF judge.

I am usually familiar with the topics as I am judging tournaments that my daughter participates in, and the AFF and NEG are discussed around the dinner table.

Speed is fine, but I find it much more interesting to listen to people talking rather than listen to people reading out loud.

When using statistics or quoting numbers, please explain why they are important and how they support your contentions and arguments otherwise I usually find those meaningless.

Intense crossfire is great, but please keep it polite and respectful.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

Flow judge who will adapt to the debaters. Debate in a way that you enjoy & makes everyone comfortable!

howdy! i'm lawrence (any pronouns) and i did pf at montgomery blair. i now study environmental studies at yale where i do a bit of coaching. if anything here doesn't make sense/if there's anything i can do to make the round more accessible, contact me at lawrence.tang@yale.edu!

short version:

• flow judge comfortable with progressive arguments

• make me intervene as little as possible

• less weight to arguments the later they are made

• time yourselves

im a bit detached from the debate community. i will still draw cool extension arrows but you shouldn't assume i know anything about the topic or ur uber-cool groundbreaking meta-strategy.

general thingies

i will evaluate any argument as long as it isn't violent, exclusionary or compromises anyone's safety (be it bigoted arguments or lack of warning)*. include content warnings and an anonymous opt-in process. all participants in a round (including judges) need to opt-in. here's an example of an opt-in form!

i can handle most pf speeds but i'm also a bit rusty. don't use speed as an exclusionary tool.

no big emphasis on evidence -- how you spin your evidence matters more. i encourage cards though. i'll avoid calling evidence unless it's impossible to resolve the round otherwise.

i have a pretty bad poker face.

i view debate as a game of probabilities with every round having some uncertainty left up to the judge (weighing impacts, evaluating defense, etc). you should minimize that uncertainty and maximize the probability that i vote for you. assume that i'll make some mistake -- i'm not a robot!

this means:

• really spell out how my ballot should look like

• signpost and respond to arguments in the order they're made

• err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, many args I've seen have been super blippy/unwarranted and have left me pretty confused

general rule: the later an argument is made, the less weight i'll give to it. defense is sticky for first summary. don't read defense on your own offensive. concede defense immediately after the speech it was read in.

tempted to say probability weighing doesn't exist. if both teams give me weighing that's cool but i don't know how to resolve that so please interact with the weighing already read.

everything you want me to vote off has to be in final focus even if it's conceded. you don't have to do as much work but please at least breathe on them.

if i can't resolve the round without intervening, i'll presume whoever lost the flip.

progressive stuff: above-average understanding, but don't be exclusive

my defaults are:

• disclosure good, paraphrasing bad, but theory on these is iffier

• fairness is not a voter, rvis bad, CI > reasonability, drop the argument over debater

Phil/FW - some background knowledge but not much. make sure you're not just regurgitating weird academic language and actually explain ideas in normal english.

T - tbh i don't think i've run across a pf situation that needed a t shell. you're fine just saying something is non-topical. i also disagree with the nebel t.

Theory - most shells in pf are fluff. absent legitimate abuse in round, i'll vote on theory but i won't like it. disclosure and paraphrasing are more valid but still iffy.

Kritiks - i wrote a cap k once. familiar with some lit (biopower, orientalism, setcol) but not from debate pov. your strategy can't rely on background knowledge or me reading your evidence. iffy on arguments that weaponize identity or structural violence for the sole sake of a ballot. if you're reading these arguments, be genuine.

other things

• ask as many questions as you want. postround me. i'm always learning and would love feedback!

• always looking for more music, book (literally any type of media) recommendations, so if you have any hidden bangers please lmk!

*given my positionality, i recognize that i'm not neutral and cannot operate under a veil of objectivity. i don't trust my judgment in determining what is violent. however, i fail to see a better alternative :(

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

I am a parent judge with a little bit of judging experience.

The biggest things for me that will help me in my decision:

-Please speak slowly so I can catch everything you are saying

-Lots of signposting so know what you are talking about

-Please don't leave anything unresponded to

-I value evidence, so please make sure to back up your arguments with evidence.

-Weigh your case against your opponents to really sell me on your argument

For evaluating speaks, if you speak slowly, clearly, and coherently you are sure to get good speaks

Please time one everything to make sure the debate goes smoothly

Any form of excess aggression or rudeness will result in very low speaks!

For evidence or case, docs use this email: parisvakili@hotmail.com

I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in the activity for 20 some odd years

LD

These days I tend to tab rather than judge so I am generally out of practice. Treat me as you would an educated parent judge. Go slow and clear. Signpost. Weigh

As a more traditional judge, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.

PF

i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info

I like the use of more current evidence that backs up your value criterion.

Speaking skills are also something important.

Make sure your arguments are clear and concise.

Often I choose who wins based on the argument that leaves me with the least amount of counter argument questions by the end of the round.

Spreading is fine.

Please weigh your impacts.

Be respectful to each other no matter how heated the round can become.

Hello debaters. To let you know, I only have judged a few HS PF debates before. Therefore, I would like to ask for you to speak at a regular pace. The faster you speak, the less of a chance I write your arguments on the flow. Anything I dont hear, I will probably not count to the round.

Here are a few preferences of mine:

1) Please signpost. This will make it much easier for me to understand the round, and will have a beneficial impact on your speaker points

2) Dont be mean or abusive in crossfire and be courteous when talking one another. Your points will be affected by your behaviour, and I could possibly drop you because of this behaviour.

3) I value warranting over a bunch of cards. Please explain why your argument is true and dont just tell me that so and so said it. Your link chain is important

4) I prefer you to collpase on 1 argument. When you collapse, it allows me to understand why you're winning more clearly.

5) In the end, the winner of the debate will be decided by who has the most cohesive and supported argument

6) This is something I realized very recently, but I tend to not like high magnitude impacts with low probability, so please steer away from arguments like that

I am a parent judge.

There are a few things that I would like to make clear when you are debating

1. This is probably the most important thing to note on this paradigm: Please speak as clearly as possible (and please speak at a average pace) Anything I don't hear, I will not count to the round. If you spread, I will not understand anything.

2. To help me understand better, please signpost. (It will also get you get higher speaker points)

3. I will be as impartial and as fair to this topic as possible, even though i have biases. If there is an argument I think is untrue, but you still warrant it well I will count it.

4. Speaking about warranting, if you want to win the round, I don't want you to dump evidence everywhere. Explaining and warranting is more important. When comparing arguments, I will evaluate on who has the better warrant first and then the evidence second

I will evaluate the round by going through these 3 things:

1. The most important thing is how well I understand your arguments and warranting. I probably don't know a lot of terms when it comes to this topic, so please explain everything. The more I understand and the more you explain, the better your chances are.

2. I secondly evaluate by the way you respond to your opponents arguments. Please address everything so you have the best chances at winning.

3. please weigh and don't just say you outweigh. Once again explain the weighing. Being comparative is probably the most important parts of weighing.

Some additional things:

1. Don't be rude or else you get low speaks

2. I like when people are intelligent and well spoken

3. Again to reiterate, please speak at a normal understanding pace. PF was supposed to be a debate where normal people off the street can understand it, so try to meet that goal as best as possible.

College student, debated national circuit PF for 2 years. Mostly flow, with a couple lay preferences.

1. Please enunciate your words and do not reach full spreading speed. Fast is ok, just keep things within the reasonable realm for PF.

2. I may not understand theory unless you explain it well. If you do read it, I will do my best to evaluate, but please don't assume I have a background in the theory you're reading.

General Stuff

- I will be blank slate as much as possible, but if an impact / arg seems absolutely outlandish from the common sense perspective, I will call for evidence and use my own discretion as necessary.

- Please pick and choose your arguments. Don't try to keep everything going into summary, though I won't automatically penalize you as a result. Just a good rule to keep in mind.

- Warranting requires logic and evidence. Summary & FF should collapse on warranting and impact. Weigh in both those speeches. If weighing mechanisms clash, tell me why yours is better.

- Don't make new arguments in cross. Witty humor may net you extra speaks.

- Please be polite to your opponents and respect the work they've put into prepping & practicing. No one round matters more than the overall experience of enjoying debate and having respectful discourse.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. Good luck!

Hi, I'm Kushan. I've done PF for four years, and I'm currently a freshman in college. I'd say I'm generally flow/flay and am receptive to almost any style of PF debate. Don't spread, though. Warrant and weigh anything you want me to evaluate.

I am a parent judge. Judged since 2016.

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

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

Don't speed, you may lose me.

Be nice in the crossfire.

I am a parent judge. Relatively new to judging PF. Be considerate of my experience levels.

I value logic and evidence. Being respectful to opponents matters too.

For email chain, please use: ly2005@gmail.com

I have debated in some capacity at some point in my life, current PF coach for Boston Latin School/APDA debater. Tl;dr normal tech judge. (My paradigm used to say flay judge but Ive come to realize I’m a lot more tech>truth than most judges. Read anything as long as it’s not racist or bad.)

my email is lemuelyu@bu.edu, please add it to the doc/email chain/carrier pigeon

At the end of the round, I will look down at my flow and do a few things, in the following order.

1. I will look at any framing, characterization, burdens, overviews etc. and evaluate the clash (or lack thereof) there. The winning arguments will serve as a filter for arguments in the round or as a way to determine the top layer of the round.

2. I will look at each individual contention or piece of offense within the round and determine what is won and how much it has won (i.e., how well it links to its impacts, a function of warranting, INTERNAL LINKS, uniqueness, etc). I will look at defense and evaluate whether it is terminal or mitigatory, and whether defense has been properly frontlined. Importantly, I will only look at offense and responses that are both extended and implicated in the final foci, and pulled directly from summary.

3. I will look at weighing. I often think about this as “layers” for the round, the side that best accesses (via probability, scope etc) the highest amount of the most important impact will win the round. This means weighing impacts over other impacts (i.e. death over poverty), and then weighing access to impacts/link weighing (i.e. more death over less death)

4. I will vote for the argument with the best link into the greatest amount of the best impact (not necessarily the greatest quantity).

some procedural stuff

- tech > truth but there is a threshold of believability for your arguments. if you claim that the sky is neon orange, you better have some EXCELLENT evidence for it. also, if you're argument is straight up racist, sexist, etc. i will not remain tabula rasa.

- I have never learned theory in my life, so I am not receptive to it. However, if you feel like running theory and get your opponent's ok to run it, you're welcome to run it at your own risk. Might make the round more interesting...

- light cussing is fine but full on spewing invective is not fine.

- I can generally flow relatively quickly but if you're gearing up to pull up speechdocs I will stop flowing. I will only flow what I comprehend.

- please don't be disrespectful. If you are disrespectful then I will be disrespectful to you :((. I don't care if you have fun or not, that's up to you. But don't make it unfun for other people.

- Weighing and warrants are important, they're what win rounds. Weigh before final focus and have a clear narrative. If no weighing is done throughout the round I will default to some stupid weighing mechanism like "who weaponizes the gay frogs". No one wants that. Also, I won't vote for an argument I don't understand.

- second rebuttal is required to at least frontline turns, otherwise they are considered dropped.

- Please signpost.

- Be as aggressive or passive as you want in cross, i'm usually not listening unless it starts to become whack. Aggressive =/= disrespectful. If both teams agree you can literally use cross as prep time if you want.

- Don't postround please, the round is over and you should have made it clear during round.

- If a card becomes heavily disputed in round, I will call it.

- If a warrant for an argument is not given, "this is not warranted" is a valid response.

- If the argument is well warranted and not empirical, "this is not carded" is not a valid response.

- if you concede defense to frontline a turn, tell me what piece of defense you concede and how it gets rid of the turn. Being able to wipe offense off my flow simply by saying “we kick out” is dumb.

- speaks start from 27 and go up from there. If I give you a 27 I think you were kinda poopoo. A 28 means you were aight. 29 means you were very nice, and a 30 means you were very very nice. Anything below 27 means that I think you're a terrible person

- Don't go more than 10 seconds overtime. I'll stop listening to what you say after that. Abuse prep and your speaks will tank.

Hi. My name is Wenhan Zhu. I have been judging debates for more than two years. I enjoy hearing debaters speak passionately about their chose topics. When debating I prefer if a debater allows the other side to finish speaking before they speak. This is especially true during crossfires.