Background : I have experience in debating and judging since school.

Advice for speakers:

1. I appreciate Off time road maps and good structure

2. Debating should be done in the politest manner. I am strict against Stereotypes, rude comments, Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone.

3. I appreciate good and valid evidence and clear statements from them.

General Contention Advise:

1. Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis.

2. Clear flagging of main argumentation is necessary.

3. Good rebuttals and good responses with comparatives are always good.

4. Try not to knife your partner.

5. Summary speeches should have great focus on clashes.

Marking scheme:

1. Analysis and comparative engagement would enhance marks.

2.Quality of speeches even if you win or lose

3. Bad and unsolicited behavior would tank your scores and even make you lose.

Hello! I am a traditional/lay parent judge and this is my first time judging. Please speak slowly, clearly, and explain each one of your assertions to me. I tend to vote for debaters who show me why they should win the debate. This means that you should not speak fast to say more arguments; develop a few key arguments you want to focus on. Also, please make sure to weigh. As a judge, I want to see direct comparisons between you and your opponent's arguments as this will show me which side is winning the debate.

Quick Summary

Things you should do:

- provide strong evidence

- explain your evidence

- speak slowly

- weigh

Things you should not do:

- spread

- use unwarranted claims

- read any progressive/tech arguments

- be rude to your opponent in round

Thank you!

Updated for Western JV Novice Championship 3/10/2022:

I am a parent judge an

d I will be taking notes.

What I like:

Voter issues: Tell me why you should win the round in clear and concise reasons. I don't need you to repeat over and over that climate change will be resolved through this one fantastic piece of evidence. I want you to tell me why it's an issue for me to vote for you. For example, "A key voter in this round is on my climate change argument because it solves back for the impacts on both sides."

Weighing: Give me terminalized impacts. Tell me what poverty leads to, don't just leave it at 100 million people in poverty. Why is bad quality of life a terrible impact? While I definitely use truth over tech, I want to see you fully flesh out why something is bad instead of giving a 50% explanation. It makes the round easier for me to judge and that should be your goal. Make the round easy for me to give a decision.

Reasonable Arguments: This effectively cuts extinction/nuclear war scenarios that are poorly fleshed out. If you are making arguments in immense magnitudes, then please make the logic behind that reasonable. I'm not going to buy that a single asteroid collision is going to somehow result in nuclear war without the proper backing/uniqueness levels (why is this specific scenario going to work? what outside factors impact this?). For example, you giving a specific timeframe as to when your argument is going to happen or an external factor like COVID or global warming tipping points will change the way I look at an argument dramatically.

What I don't like:

Speed: Absolutely no spreading. I genuinely believe there is no real-world value in spreading as it does not enhance argumentation and makes the debate inaccessible. Especially since there are novices competing at this tournament, I will be very unhappy if you choose to spread or speed through your speech at rates I cannot follow. I will not take into account arguments I cannot understand due to speed. This is extremely important because I cannot give a fair decision if I don't understand what you're saying. I will say "clear" twice (meaning you need to slow down) before I stop listening to the speech. This is my biggest pet peeve especially since we are doing online debate and it can be difficult to understand even conversational levels of speed due to connection issues, etc.

Theory: Not a fan and my threshold for evaluating such arguments is very high. Only if there is actual abuse in the round will I take into account theory for my RFD. When it comes to disclosure theory, I don't care for it on this level of debate. You should get used to thinking on your feet and especially if your opponents are not spreading, there is immense educational value in coming up with arguments on the spot. However, I would still like to see speech docs being sent before you start your speech via an email chain (tkdcity@hotmail.com) or file share.

Plans/Counterplans/PICs: Debate should be accessible to everyone and at the novice/JV level on the very least, I think one of the best ways to close the divide between big and small school debaters is through staying resolutional. It's unfair for a small school debater with very little resources to be unable to answer a hyper niche part of the resolution because it's not necessarily something they can prep for (one person versus fifteen).

Delaying evidence: You should be able to produce your evidence for your opponents on time. If you start taking three or four minutes to look for a singular piece of evidence, I'm going to take that out of consideration because it's ridiculous to spend your whole prep time to try and send a card. It should take only a couple of seconds for you to show a fully represented piece of evidence.

Debate jargon: There's so many terms flying around the community, so please simplify them to make it easy for me to judge the round. Explain what the name of an argument means and what it does to your opponent's argument.

Being rude: This should be very obvious, but given the exciting nature of debate and how easy it can be to get carried away, I really want to see some respect between you and your opponent. Just because there's a lot of clash over an argument doesn't give you an excuse to be disrespectful or rude. I will dock speaks if you are overly aggressive/hostile to your opponent.

I am very excited to help out younger minds in reviewing their debate and ideas. I have judged several science projects and research paper. I personally have participated in several debates during my college days and looking forward to starting a journey in participating the tournaments as a judge. I would appreciate if you could make sure that I understand the discussion and accent as I always want you to understand me as well. I want to encourage and be fair in my judgement and recognize talent and provide opportunity for those who demand. I would prefer if you did not speak incredibly fast as I am new to judging and would prefer to understand the ideas within the round. I have participated in different events like math league, science fair, school fund raising events, volunteering opportunities and helped out in any way I can. These venues keep me energetic and educate me in many different ways. I am so glad and appreciate the organizers to help out the kids in their journey and giving me an opportunity to be a part of their journey.

I am a former competitor for Middletown, Ohio in Lincoln Douglas Debate. I graduated this year from New York University with a degree in Public Policy and minors in Teaching Education and Politics. I am now a substitute elementary school teacher. In regards to the SEP/OCT resolution on single-payer healthcare, I feel it’s appropriate to disclose to you that I was a legislative affairs intern for Senator Bernie Sanders when I was in college. That being said, I will not allow my personal opinions on healthcare to affect the debate’s outcome in any way.

While I am very familiar with this category and healthcare policy, I won't be hovering over the flow and hanging on every sub-point. Please speak at a rate of speed and in a tone of voice that you would use with a regular person who’s never heard a round of debate in their life. I am, of course, glad to start from the traditional Value, Criterion, and Contentions, but I don’t find terms like “cross-apply”, “extend”, or “flow” persuasive at all. "Cards" should be dealt with by their content only; The Author's name, unless it's someone like Gandhi or Malcolm X, really doesn't matter in a debate. I think the most effective debaters will maintain strong coverage of the contentions, but really focus on the values at hand by using their time in a strategic and convincing way. That's what Lincoln Douglas is all about.

Most importantly, have fun and be kind to one another. Even in the face of such a grave topic, feel free to let loose and tell a good (or even bad) joke, and just have a pleasant round!

I award points off of quality; the way you speak, how you conduct yourself, the strength in your arguments, clarity, and organization. Do not spread.

Throughout the round I will be keeping notes, but if there is something you would particularly like me to take more notice to then communicate that during the round.

I will leave it up to you and your opponent to correct and bring up any rule violations you notice, unless I find it necessary to step in. I will be sure to note them down so be sure to not violate the rules.

If a topicality argument is brought up I will listen to and consider it, but it will not be a sole reason for decision.

Evidence is of importance to me, I expect each debater to be prepared with correct and sufficient evidence. If you show me that your evidence is better than your opponents I will hold great value to that.

I am more likely to vote for you if you show me your ability to debate with quality and provide strong arguments. Tell me why I should vote for you!

Overall I want you to be able to leave the debate with more knowledge and practice. Be kind and learn!

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.

Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.

Tech>Truth

Good luck and have fun!

Hi, I am a parent judge. Speak clearly and at a "real life" normal speed, as if you were trying to convince your parents or friends of something that was important to you. Don't spread.

State clearly your value and value criteria at the beginning. Link your arguments back to value/criteria.

Please speak to the resolution. Do not run a topical cases, or theory/trick cases.

I'll try to keep this as brief and concise for you all as I can! I debated LD for 4 years in high school (along with dabbling in a bunch of other events) and now attend Harvard University. I was able to debate on local and national circuits, so I'm comfortable listening to honestly anything you want to read from traditional to progressive.

Feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we'll be good. I like hearing all types of unique arguments! It's your round, and you should read what you feel most comfortable reading! I am willing to vote on stupid tricks or spikes if you give me a reason to do so lol.

Also, side note, if it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly different level/style than you, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you.

Bonus speaks if you make me laugh! :)

If you have any questions or want to add me to the email chain, my email is: megan.gole@yahoo.com

About myself: I'm a biology and environmental science teacher, while also an assistant speech/debate coach.

Email Chain: lizjames2010@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional style of argumentation that is well supported with evidence. Please try to speak at a pace that allows me to understand you and take notes about your case (quality of cards over quantity). Please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow.

Good luck and have fun!

Updated for states '23:

I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago

Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu

Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)

Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.

Background:

I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.

The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.

*********

novpol:

tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.

impact calc is also super important to me!

please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.

use analytics - don't just rely on cards.

extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.

extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!

stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.

i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.

GFW!

jvpol:

tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.

long:

general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!

one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.

speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.

CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.

case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!

especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).

also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.

do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.

disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.

counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!

kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!

k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.

framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.

theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!

overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!

nLD/nPF:

i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!

so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:

note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.

28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.

+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.

+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke

+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)

+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.

+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.

+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.

-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.

-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.

-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.

-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.

***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!

Hi,

I am a parent lay judge for LD JV. Be respectful to your opponent's personal beliefs and opinions.
I will drop you off if you make any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic comments.

Looking forward to your debate.

Please remember to adhere to time limits and be respectful while in the room and ask if you would like hand signals. I would prefer if you speak clearly and not too fast.

Looking forward to your speech.

Debate: I put more stock in the rebuttal section than the information sections because anyone can read something that they have prepared in advance. A true debater can win with on-the-fly questions and prepared responses to their opponents.

Speech: Have a clear speech with little pauses and breaks. One of the biggest things competitors tend to misunderstand is the timing of pauses and actions in their pieces. If performed well, these can elevate your performance to the max and secure first place

I am a parent judge, I always come with a 100% open mind to learn your perspective on different topics and resolutions.

I respect and appreciate that you have put in immense efforts to prepare, so please don’t rush through the content. Please state your contentions slowly and clearly. I like to hear the impacts of your contentions and am always eager to see how you bring it all together through your summary and final focus. Being respectful and courteous to your opponents is very important to me.

Good luck and have fun debating!

I am a parent volunteer. I've completed online training and watched several demo videos, I am a new judge.

Speed: I okay with speed, however I prefer moderately fast (and not too fast) speed. I really like an articulate, eloquent speaker. It's nearly impossible to show me you're the better speaker at 300 words per minute. Prioritize clarity, be sure to signpost, don't spread, and you'll be fine.

Framework: Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your input is better than your opponent's.

Finish strong and on time. Be specific. Support your arguments and disprove opposite arguments with data, evidences and clear points.

Debated for 4 years at James Madison Memorial High School (2016-2020), predominantly on the NSDA national circuit and Wisconsin state circuit.

Due to a lack of time to write up a proper paradigm, I've copied and pasted my mentor/coach Timothy Scheffler's (Madison Memorial High School). I agree strongly with most of it and follow most of his advice pretty closely.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

Please send your speech docs to kkufda2@optonline.net

I am a lay judge, don't read anything that can't be explained with ease.

I am not comfortable with anything too fast (i.e. don't spread, keep speeches conversational). Try to keep speeches to a point where I can take notes without feeling overwhelmed.

Please give clear voters!

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not interrupted.

PUBLIC FORUM and LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Speak clearly. You know your case inside and out. However, if you go too quickly, I may miss the genius of your argument. The more I understand your case and your arguments, the more likely you are to win. Avoid spreading.

I give more credence to evidence that comes from reliable sources. If you only cite cable news sources (unless there is a compelling reason to do so), I suspect that your research may only be skin deep. If you cite a source, be prepared to to defend it.

Please ask if you plan to "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time.

Debates can be won or lost with me up to the end. A strong final focus will make the difference in closely matched rounds. Know your sources.

Public Forum specific - In cross-fire I mostly pay attention to your decorum. It is not typically what makes or breaks a debate for me. I want to see what you do with the information in your upcoming remarks. BE COURTEOUS OF ALL PARTICIPANTS.

Do not speak with your partner while your opponent is speaking. Passing notes is fine.