I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

Hi, I'm Owen Brent-Levenstein (he/him). I've debated PF for Durham on the local and national circuit for 4 years.

*Paradigm copied from Peter Crowley

TLDR:

I am a flow judge who doesn't like speed or progressive arguments. Run any substance argument you want I think wacky arguments make the round more fun. That being said, everything needs warrants for me to vote on it.

Some Specifics:

1. Speed. I am not the judge to spread your 1000 word case in front of. I do not think speed is good for the activity, but more importantly for you, I can't follow it very well. Going above about 200 wpm risks me missing arguments, warrants, etc. I won't flow off your doc, that isn't debate.
2. Warrants. A terrible recent trend in PF is the disappearance warrants. I need clear warrants for any argument— offense or defense— that you want me to evaluate. If an argument does not have a warrant when it is first read and when it is extended, I will not evaluate it even if it is completely dropped. "They conceded it" is not a warrant.
3. Extensions. I need a clear link story (with warrants) extended in summary and final focus for any offense you want me to vote on. If an argument is not extended in both summary and final focus, I will not vote on it. Extending case while frontlining is sometimes a little hard to follow, so I'd prefer if you just extended before or after addressing responses.
4. Weighing. Weighing is the most important part of debate. It must be comparative, showing why your impact comes before your opponents. Strength of link and probability weighing are both a little dicey, but if explained well I could potentially vote off them. If there are multiple weighing mechanisms in a round, please meta-weigh, it makes my job a lot easier.
5. Progressive Arguments. Frameworks are fine. I won't evaluate K's and I will only vote for theory to check legitimate in-round abuses. Even then, I probably won't evaluate theory very well so it's risky. Some shells I won't vote off of include disclosure, paraphrase, and any friv theory. I will vote off of shells about content warnings, spreading, and horribly misconstrued / made up evidence. The only exception to this theory policy is if both teams agree to have a progressive debate before the round starts, in which case please let me know so I can get extra paper/spreadsheets ready.
6. Cross. I don't flow cross or really care about it at all. Shouting over each other will go a long ways in tanking your speaks.
7. Evidence. Ideally you'll have all your cards available and quickly accessible and at the very least have a link to an article and the quote. I will only call for evidence if told to. If it is badly misrepresented, I'll doc speaks and won't evaluate it.
8. 2nd rebuttal should frontline any offense you want to go for as well as any turns.
9. I don't like doc bots. If you are reading off of a doc past rebuttal it will hurt your speaks.
10. Don't be _ist or discriminatory. I'll drop you with the lowest possible speaker points.
11. Have fun. If you are having fun debating, I'll probably be having more fun as a judge which will help your speaks. And just generally happiness and fun are good things.
12. If you have any questions about any arguments you want to run or anything in my paradigm please ask me it will be better for both of us.

flow judge

run progressive stuff at your own risk

second rebuttal should frontline all turns and the defense on the argument(s) you're going for

YOU MUST WEIGH

be polite in cross and dont go on big rants. ask questions and give answers.

I'm Evan (he/him). I'm currently a senior at Cary Academy, and I've done Public Forum debate for the last four years. I've competed in the national circuit, qualifying for NCFLs and TOCs.

At the end of the round, I'll vote off the flow. Run whatever you want within reason. That being said, make sure your arguments are well warranted and make sense. If you want me to evaluate an argument at the end of the round, it must be fully extended.

Please weigh your arguments in the round. Give me a good comparative on why your arguments are more important than the other team's. Signpost so I know where I am on the flow.

Be respectful towards your opponents. I don't condone any discriminatory or derogatory behavior.

Other than that, have fun, and be confident! If you have any questions, please let me know!

Hi, I'm Pete (he/him). I debated PF at Durham on the local and national circuit for 4 years.

Update for Cav Invite:

I haven't really thought about debate for many months and I know nothing about the topic, so definitely lean on the lay side especially in earlier rounds. I still have my paradigm down below with my preferences and I'll do by best to judge by it, but I'm pretty rusty so don't be surprised if I make mistakes on the flow. Also please please please ask me if you are unsure about running something neither of us wants to end up in a round I can't follow.

TLDR:

I am a flay judge who doesn't like speed or progressive arguments. Run any substance argument you want I think wacky arguments make the round more fun. That being said, everything needs warrants for me to vote on it.

Some Specifics:

1. Speed. I am not the judge to spread your 1000 word case in front of. I do not think speed is good for the activity, but more importantly for you, I can't follow it very well. Going above about 175 wpm risks me missing arguments, warrants, etc. I won't flow off your doc, that isn't debate.
2. Warrants. A terrible recent trend in PF is the disappearance of warrants. I need clear warrants for any argument— offense or defense— that you want me to evaluate. If an argument does not have a warrant when it is first read and when it is extended, I will not evaluate it even if it is completely dropped. "They conceded it" is not a warrant.
3. Extensions. I need a clear link story (with warrants) extended in summary and final focus for any offense you want me to vote on. If an argument is not extended in both summary and final focus, I will not vote on it. Extending case while frontlining is sometimes a little hard to follow, so I'd prefer if you just extended before or after addressing responses.
4. Weighing. Weighing is the most important part of debate. It must be comparative, showing why your impact comes before your opponents. Strength of link and probability weighing are both a little dicey, but if explained well I could potentially vote off them. If there are multiple weighing mechanisms in a round, please meta-weigh, it makes my job a lot easier.
5. Progressive Arguments. Frameworks are fine. I won't evaluate K's and I will only vote for theory to check legitimate in-round abuses. Even then, I probably won't evaluate theory very well so it's risky. Some shells I won't vote off of include disclosure, paraphrase, and any friv theory. I will vote off of shells about content warnings, spreading, and horribly misconstrued / made up evidence. The only exception to this theory policy is if both teams agree to have a progressive debate before the round starts, in which case please let me know so I can get extra paper/spreadsheets ready.
6. Cross. I don't flow cross or really care about it at all. A little but of humor goes a long ways in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long ways in tanking your speaks.
7. Evidence. Ideally you'll have all your cards available and quickly accessible and at the very least have a link to an article and the quote. I will only call for evidence if told to. If it is badly misrepresented, I'll doc speaks and won't evaluate it.
8. 2nd rebuttal should frontline any offense you want to go for as well as any turns.
9. I don't like doc bots. If you are reading off of a doc past rebuttal it will hurt your speaks. Also if the flow is super messy and I can't figure it out I'll just vote for the team I thought spoke more persuasively.
10. Don't be _ist or discriminatory. I'll drop you with the lowest possible speaker points.
11. Have fun. If you are having fun debating, I'll probably be having more fun as a judge which will help your speaks. And just generally happiness and fun are good things.
12. If you have any questions about any arguments you want to run or anything in my paradigm please ask me it will be better for both of us.

I competed in high school speech and debate all four years back in the 1990s and have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for the last eight years.

Well reasoned arguments and high quality evidence are more convincing to me than twenty evidence cards- quality not quantity please! Speech and Debate is fundamentally an oral communication event and if I can't understand you your arguments can't persuade me.

Although NSDA rules allow citing sources as "Jones 2020", if I need to weigh competing evidence, knowing that "Jones 2020" is from The Washington Post instead of Wikipedia is important.

If you can't find the evidence in 30 seconds, we will move along- Organization is part of the preparation for this event.

Learning how to organize your thoughts quickly and how to stay cool under pressure/cross examination is a terrific life skill- this is an amazing activity and will help you in your later professional life no matter your high school win-loss record.

Background:

Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society, and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~40 Grand Finals, and chaired ~20 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

I debated PF and Extemp for 3 and a half years (graduated 2020). I will flow the round and evaluate progressive arguments, but don't go too crazy on me. I am not automatically anti progressive argumentation but don’t go to far with it.

Speed - Don't talk too quickly. Especially if you are using speed as a weapon against your opponents - I am not a fan of that and it will bring down my opinion and my chance of covering all your arguments in my flow. Please signpost when going from warrants to impacts, between cases, etc. so I have a better chance of flowing the way you want me to.

Jargon and Tech - Jargon is fine, but try to convince me as a person rather than a debate-evaluation computer. With that said, the round is way easier and more interesting to judge when both teams compare impacts/weigh.

I am a Varsity PF member at AFHS. I have been doing debate for all three years of my highschool experience so far. I am good with speed, so speak at whatever you feel comfortable with. Please make sure to extend your arguments and weigh in every speech except for your constructive.

+1 speaker points if you make a joke in round

Hello - I am a new, lay judge. I’m still learning my way around the debate world, so please be patient. Please talk relatively slowly. It doesn’t have to be super slow, just understandable. Please state which contention you are on, or are responding to, to help me follow along. Thanks, and good luck! :)

I am a former debater and I've been coaching debate for 6 years. I'm a more traditional judge, in that I generally dislike super progressive arguements. I would describe myself as a flow judge at heart, though and I am always careful to make sure that the round is fair and my decision is unbiased.

I’m Jack (he/him), a 4th year pfer at Durham Academy (class of '24)

General Stuff:

My email is 24vail@da.org for email chains or questions.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misgender anyone, etc. It’s an L and minimum speaks for anyone who is discriminatory.

If we’re in round early feel free to talk/ask questions. Same with postrounding, I’ll always answer questions about my decision (time permitting) but the ballot won’t get changed.

Speed <250wpm is probably fine but if you plan to go that fast send a speech doc. I will not flow off a doc so I have to be able to understand you. The more I can clearly hear and process what you're saying the more likely I am to vote on it. I will clear you.

Time yourself and your opponents for prep and speeches, I usually do too but might forget.

Substance:

I'll vote on any topical argument, but that doesn’t mean you can’t warrant (the less true the argument, the lower my threshold for a response).

Extend the whole argument (with warranting) for me to vote on it in both backhalf speeches. This is non-negotiable. I don’t usually flow evidence names so explain what your evidence says in the extension.

You should collapse by summary, please don’t make all our lives difficult by going for all your case arguments and four turns, just pick a few things you’re winning and win them.

When I vote I look to weighing first and then whoever best links, so do good weighing and meta-weigh (tell me why your weighing is better than theirs). I will not vote for an argument with 0 risk just because you win weighing however.

I listen to cross but bring up important points in your next speech. Let your opponents speak and don’t lie.

Evidence:

I won't vote on misconstrued evidence that is either called out or that I read myself (note: misconstrued evidence is different from bad evidence).

If something violates NSDA evidence rules I’d rather you challenge it than read an IVI or shell about it.

Please be able to share evidence quickly, it's really annoying to sit around and wait for someone to find/send a single piece of evidence. Similarly, please only ask for evidence you need and don't call for excessive evidence to get extra prep or throw off your opponents. It makes it easier to just send docs before speeches but I don't require that.

If evidence is important to my decision I’ll call for it, otherwise I probably won’t unless you tell me to.

Theory/Ks:

I’m definitely not the best judge for these rounds, I have some experience with both but not a lot and am not particularly familiar with critical literature. I can flow these arguments but will make no guarantees about my ability to evaluate them correctly, so if you go for them make sure to explain everything really well and slow down. The more complex, the slower and more explained everything should be.

If you don't understand the argument/can't make me and your opponents understand it by final focus, I won't vote for it. If you're reading a K I expect you to understand your literature/arguments very well and you should be able to convey that understanding to myself and your opponents.

You should have really good norms if you read theory.

Interps should be read in the next speech after the violation.

For theory I have no strong preference for yes/no rvis or counterinterps/reasonability. I default text over spirit and that will be hard to change.

I don't have a strict rule about when to/not to read these arguments, but I don't think anyone gets anything out of a round where a newer team is just shelled with progressive arguments and will be receptive to arguments about that.

I won't vote for tricks or theory I think is frivolous.

Speaks:

My speaks will probably be higher than other judges. I reward good debating (strategy, partner cohesion, etc.) and don’t particularly care about presentation (sitting vs. standing, eye contact, fluency, etc).

I like humor and won’t tolerate rudeness towards your partner or your opponents.

Random Thoughts:

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline what you plan to collapse on and turns, anything not covered is conceded.

Defense isn't sticky, you have to extend everything you want in your final through summary.

There shouldn’t be anything new in final focus.

I will not evaluate any arguments made in round from AI.

I would rather start early.

If you use a beeping timer hold yourself to the same standard as your opponents and let it beep at the end of your speeches as well.

I debated for four years in high school and for four years in college in CX/policy debate. I also have judged many high school tournaments in a variety of formats (PF, LD, CX) in the time since I stopped debtaing. I am comfortable with all kinds of arguments, speed, and theory.

Experience:

6 years Policy Debate (Edina High School and Trinity University)

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

Judging (Mostly Policy, LD and Public Forum) since 2011

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments within an offense/defense paradigm. The reasons why your case is good should outweigh the reasons why it is bad or it should outweigh the reasons why the opposing team's case is good.

I do not have any arguments that I will disregard offhand. I try as much as possible to judge based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I really like impact calculus (or weighing), I get annoyed when teams don't make comparative claims between their arguments and their opponents arguments because it leads to me having to intervene in the round.

Shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round, debate is a small community!

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.