School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event: LD and Public Forum

When judging, I will award points on effectiveness of argument, consistency of logic, use of data, references, and clear communication.

I will take notes as a reference for myself when scoring.

In cross examination, I look for respect and thoughtful counter-arguments and data/references to the opponents arguments and that you demonstrate both listening and an understanding of the opponents argument.

Substance is an important element in the overall evaluation, as is the effectiveness of communication and argument.

Good luck to all, this is a great accomplishment and you should all be proud!

I expect a respectful and cordial debate from all of the sides and look forward to hearing your presentation. My preferred debate rate of delivery is lower than eight.

Follow the rules of competition

Respect the other side and all team members and their position on topic.

Track your time

Speak Clearly

Former LD debater with some experience in PF and Congress. Flow judge. I make a point of being as much of a blank slate as I can, but I'm only human. K's, theory, and everything else is fully on the table, but considering how long it's been you shouldn't assume I know Habermas's or Foucault's arguments by heart. Off-time roadmaps are perfectly acceptable.

I haven't been in the debate space for a few years, so my ability to understand spreads is a bit rusty. I'll try my best to keep up with y'all, but... speedrun your construction at your own risk.

I'll try to be in our room early, so feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round!

Email: quinn.foster@gmail.com

To all competitors

About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals

Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping.  I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately.  Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate.  Most importantly, enjoy the debate

Looking for good argument, not technical wins. I.e. I don’t care about dropped contentions if the dropped contention was weak and other, stronger contentions were addressed well. Intellectual, evidentiary, and logical domination wins over tit-for-tat flow.

Technical losses are stupid. You’ll never see my ballot say “You didn’t frontline, therefore you lose.” Debate is still about persuasion. Don’t get me wrong; frontlining, collapsing, etc., are all good persuasive techniques to be used in debate. But the failure to use them won’t necessarily or automatically lose you the round… it just might affect the persuasive effect of your argument. If you can still persuade that your side wins without using all the specific techniques, even against a team that does use them, you’ll still get my ballot.

Cross should be for either a) establishing a framework (e.g. "Can we agree that [term from the topic] means [definition]?"), b) make a point, or c) set up a point you get to make later. I'm not scoring cross per-se, but if you run a tight cross and either make a good point or use an answer later to good effect, it'll go to speaks. Being a jerk in cross will *also affect speaks.

Yes, I want to be on an evidence thread if you start one. (tampalaw@gmail.com) Yes, you can speak fast but don't policy spread me. Kritiks and mathematical annihilation arguments (e.g. "Even if it's only a 0.001% chance, nuclear war means extinction therefore we outweigh") should be used sparingly and only if *truly warranted and supported.

PS I am perfectly fine with paraphrasing. Heaven help you if it's not fair, of course... but if it is I prefer not to have a ridiculous block quote from some article. Be persuasive... not technical.

LD- know your VC. Understand how, e.g., utilitarianism works or what social contract means in the context of your argument before hanging your entire argument on it. Do the actual analysis using your VC. Also do the analysis using the opponent’s VC if you can. Cross is good for discovery, but also for points.

Inexperienced lay judge.

Top 3 about Ms. D...(Funny Face Emoji)

1) My son is a TOC Champion

2) PF Debate when I was in High School and College = I feel your pain and understand the blood, sweat, and tears that go into this thing.

3) I am FLAY judge. Clear, enunciated arguments where you explain to me and the other team, why and how your evidence and argument is superior to your competitor will always get you the win. Don't tell me who to vote for. Make eye contact, be a team player, and COOK! (Chef Emoji)

I am a lay judge/parent judge affiliated with Palm Harbor University High School in Pinellas County, Florida. An attorney by profession, I work as a consultant to providers in the healthcare industry.

I began judging high school debate tournaments in the 2022-2023 school year, so I consider myself relatively new to the process. I did not debate in high school or college, so be careful with the debate jargon and don't assume I'm proficient in it - take the time to explain or, better yet, avoid jargon altogether if possible.

Participants should keep and adhere to time limits. I will be timing as well, and will disregard arguments made after time has expired.

Clarity is crucial to communication, so speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you or keep up with your pace then you're not communicating. Be respectful of your fellow debaters and avoid talking over each other.

I am looking for a well-rounded performance, my goal is to weigh arguments/style/analytics/evidence equally. I prefer quotations over paraphrasing, and appreciate detailed citations. If you're going to cite a source, you should be able to explain why it is a relevant authority.

Most of all enjoy yourself and have fun!

rakent@aol.com

As always, I expect that all competitors conduct themselves with the upmost respect to their opponent, the judges, and themselves. I would prefer if competitors would stand when speaking, whether it be for a speech or performing cross-examinations. Additionally, keeping the tone of your speeches and/or rebuttals more conversational with an appropriate cadence is always conducive to a deeper and more comprehensive debate or speech. Competitors are not permitted to ask me questions about the results or my opinion on the round after it has concluded.

School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event Types: Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

When I am judging, I will be awarding points based on effectiveness of argument, use of references/sources and clear communication. I look for respectful and thoughtful counter-arguments and sources/references to the opponents' arguments to demonstrate that real listening and understanding of the opponents' arguments occurred.

I welcome any roadmap or outlines to provide a clear walkthrough of what will be presented.

I also look for verbal communication - pitch, tone, and pace (no spreading) and non-verbal communication - eye contact, body language, use of space, hand gestures.

I vote off the flow. I don't mind debate jargon, but I may ask you to clarify some terms. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). I will ask you to slow down if I'm missing arguments. I may ask you after the round for cards and evidence, so don't run out of the room until I've let you go. Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: I have a background as a philosophy professor. Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. Don't turn this into a 1 person policy round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on Kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims but it is not always needed for logical arguments. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

Feel free to ask me questions after round (if this is a tournament where judges disclose), but know that I have already submitted my ballot so please don't try to convince me why my decision was wrong. If you want to set up an email chain, my email is josephmpergola@gmail.com

I am a lay judge but have experience in law

I judge with an emphasis on you maintaining a speaking speed and pronunciation level which i can fully understand, i care about what you are saying so please make it clear.

I'm partial to crossfire and will make my decision accordingly

I'm also partial to statistics. For example, if both parties are making the same point but one gives numbers and the other doesn't, I will see that the one with statistics took that point.