I am a new parent judge, I judge by the rules of public forum. Please keep your pace at a listenable pace and organize your arguments.

My background: I'm a parent judge, lawyer, and adjunct professor. My areas of practice include: Internet law (Section 230, DMCA, online privacy, etc.), corporate governance, litigation (particularly appeals), and government relations.

How I judge debate (especially PF): I prefer substance over style. Content: Are the arguments coherent and supported by evidence? If there's a risk involved (of doing or not doing something), have you quantified both the likelihood of the risk materializing and the magnitude of harm (and provided factual support that makes your claims sound reasonable)? Have you considered countervailing risks?

Organization: I like to hear a roadmap at the start of the argument (to know what I can expect) and a conclusion that reiterates your key points succinctly.

Style: All kinds of styles can work here, but your demeanor should be appropriate to a professional setting -- like arguing before a panel of appellate judges. Points will be deducted severely for disrespectful conduct (especially if directed to other debaters) or offensive speech.

Contact Info: ayoung.cho@gmail.com

I am a lay judge.

Be sure that your argument is clear and naturally easy to follow.

Please don’t spread or speak too fast.

Please keep your own time.

Please respect your opponent.

Most importantly, have fun!

Contact Info: cvfung1@yahoo.com

Hello, I am Victor Fung. I am a lay judge and am the parent of a public forum debater. I am truth over tech and prefer a normal speaking pace. Please no spreading. Please wear professional attire and be respectful to your opponents. Your objective is to attack their arguments, not them or their character. Providing a roadmap at the beginning of your speech is helpful. Please keep your own time as I am unfamiliar with the time constraints. I enjoy a well-developed narrative/argument that I can understand from beginning to end. While I judge your debate, I will remain as objective as possible, and I will only consider the points that you have presented to me.

I am a previous PF debater so the structure and language is all familiar to me. If you are going to speak fast, you must enunciate so I can keep up with you, but otherwise it's not a problem!

1. The most important thing in a round is being respectful, please make the debate enjoyable for everyone!

2. I don't flow cross, but I am listening. I want to hear impactful questions but I also need you to carry that in your speeches.

3. Good weighing is something I really look for. If you tell me why I should vote for you instead of your opponent with a decent line of reasoning, there's a very good chance that I will listen to you. Especially in PF, use summary for this. In LD, all rebuttals should have weighing analysis.

4. Always have clear sources and links for all of your evidence. It will reflect poorly on you if your opponent calls for a card and you can't pull it up. I will also call for cards if I didn't fully understand the point, so be ready for it.

7. I love a clean flow so signposting is very important and that's generally what I consider most when giving out speaker points.

8. If your framework is important to your case, don't just tell me what it is, tell me why I should prefer it compared to your opponent's. Especially in LD, frame the debate well and I will follow your lead. It should also connect seamlessly with the remainder of your case.

9. Comparative analysis is important when clash occurs. Don't continue to extend evidence without telling me why it should remain on my flow.

Feel free to ask me questions before or after debating! I truly enjoy judging so I hope we can all have a good round :)

LD/PF:

I am a lay judge, I do not want any Theory Shells, K's, or Trix arguments.

I will usually choose truth over tech, but it depends on the topic and case specifically.

No Spreading! I will take away points if I cannot understand what you are saying. LD/PF were created to combat the issues in Policy, I would like it to stay that way. I do not care if students stand, sit, use a computer stand, or do not, as long as their voices and arguments are clear.

I would like clear evidence, if an opponent asks for your card, show them to prove your point. If there is confusion on whether or not a card is valid, ask me and I will decide on the ballot, or in person, if needed.

I will do my best to flow the argument, but I am not the best at it, so be patient with me. Do Not Send Me Your Case,I do not want to read a case, I would like to be able to hear and flow it. The only exception is if there is confusion on a student's card, contention, or observation, then you can send your case so I can decide.

Obviously, no bullying, no Ad Hominem attacks, and no discrimination on religion, race, etc. There should also be no unfounded accusations of discrimination, as this is just as bad as discrimination.

Contact info: ngabici@yahoo.com

Hello, my name is Gabriela Jankovicsova and I am honored to serve as a debate judge. I am a lay judge and a parent of a debater. Please don't spread, or speak too fast, as I'm still relatively new to being a judge. I am truth over tech. Please provide a roadmap at the beginning of your constructive speech. It may be helpful to keep your own time so that you can make changes if necessary. I enjoy a well-developed narrative that I can understand from beginning to end. I will remain as objective as possible. I encourage you to present your thoughts thoughtfully and engage in a spirited yet respectful exchange of ideas.

Reach me if any question via gmjackyliu@gmail.com

I am a lay judge, please don’t spread, or speak too fast, as I likely won’t be able to keep up since I’m relatively new to being a judge. Providing a roadmap at the beginning of your speech is helpful. While I judge your debate, I will remain as objective as possible, and I will only consider the points that you have presented to me. Please enjoy your speaking time and I will enjoy a well-developed narrative/argument that I can understand from beginning to end. Thank you.

I have judged three debates so far, and I am well aware of quality arguments. I look for depth of analysis, direct clash of arguments, evidence without it driving the debate, and the human element of persuasion. Please do not spread/speak too fast to ensure I hear and evaluate all arguments by both teams.

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

Hi everyone :) I'm a current senior at NSU. I switched from competing to judging once I graduated high school in 2021. I've always done PF when competing in high school/ middle school and have been to many national tournaments.

You should enjoy the debate and be respectful of others. I flow everything that is extended throughout the speeches. However if it wasn't said in summary I won't flow in the final focus. PLEASE collapse which will help me know what are your main points. Speed doesn't bother me but if your opponents can't understand you then that'll create a problem.

30's for anyone that bring snacks

Enjoy!

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

Contact Info: tatyana.sh.off@gmail.com

I have limited prior debate judging experience, which would qualify me as a lay judge. I was judged as a debater myself during my high school years, and now have two children participating in public forum debate. I am looking forward to be an objective and unbiased judge. Please refrain from browsing during the debate. All arguments are expected to be prepared in advance or authentically improvised. I will be keeping time, but encourage participants to keep an eye on their watch as well. Spreading is not appreciated as it is counterproductive in persuasively conveying the arguments. Most importantly please be respectful to your opponents and have fun along the way.