Experience:

Hello everyone! My name is Marley Anthony and I attend Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA. I was a debater throughout high school, and now I judge. I have judged many debate rounds, and as a former debater, I try my hardest to be as helpful as possible. That said, I like to leave specific feedback in the comment sections so please read those carefully. I also like to leave a thorough RFD so do not overlook it. Please ask all logistical questions about my judging style before the round starts. I am open to MOST stylistic choices (i.e., speed, frameworks, formatting, etc.) I am not a parent nor a lay judge so I am more open to faster-paced speaking styles. Again, please ask me, and don't hesitate if you have any relevant questions about the round before it starts.

Conduct:

While I have rarely experienced this, I would be remiss if I didn't state that I have a no-tolerance policy for any and all (overtly) rude behavior (i.e., blatant yelling, name-calling, excessive sarcasm, etc). Debate is supposed to be a lucrative enjoyable experience to help you grow both personally and academically. As a former debater, I understand that at times rounds can get stressful, but I encourage all of you to be respectful and operate under the golden rule. I will be making slight to severe speaker point deductions to reflect the above behavior(s) if applicable to the round.

Please be respectful and considerate of everyone's time and efforts.

Tracking & Flow:

Please keep in mind that I like to flow all speeches except for crossfire, so please be mindful of your statements. If for whatever reason you misspoke, you must get creative in regards to how you get back on track. Again, I flow everything except for crosses so please be intentional with any and all speeches.

Thank you, and good luck!

I judge a few times a year at local events. Long ago, I was a competitive high school debater (LD, Extemp, Student Congress) and later a coach for several years in debate events.

You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me? I do not wish to be on any email chains. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

Policy:
1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have written down.

2. Open cross-examination is acceptable.
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework.

Lincoln Douglas:
My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:
Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). Debaters should establish the framework for evaluating debates.

Be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Hi! My name is Bobby, and I am a parent, lay judge from St Mark's School. I am not a native English speaker. This is the first debate tournament that I am judging. If I am judging your round, please:

1. Keep your speed below 150wpm, ideally at around 100wpm.
2. Don't run any obscure arguments.
3. Keep the debate civilized and don't be rude in crossfire.
4. Time yourself! I won't speak in the round unless unexpected issue happens. I expect the debaters to be able to finish the round without my help/interruptions.

I will try my best to be impartial, and good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me during the round.

Note: I will give speaker points between 28~30.

I am a parent lay judge. Things to note to win vote and speaker points:

1. Don’t spread, and speak with clarity / conversational speed
2. Be respectful especially in crossfires
3. Follow NSDA PF technical rules e.g. “no new arguments after Summary”
4. Try not to use technical terms (delink etc) so I can follow

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

Experience: This is my first opportunity judging a debate. I am a parent and I have never debated.

Orientation: I will be wasting attention on the mechanics and logistics. Please help me by littering signposts along the way and stress clarity when speaking. Speed is not inherently bad, however, it must e understandable.

Time Management: I will do my best to enforce time limits effectively, recognizing that time management is crucial for a fair and organized debate. I appreciate participants' cooperation in this regard.

Encouraging Environment: There is a high expectation of civil engagement among participants.

Attention to Arguments: Please be aware that opponents' arguments left unaddressed are considered correct regardless of factual accuracy.

For PFD and LD.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, and voted on, for a reason.

It is helpful to "bullet-point" and number your arguments.

Do not bring in new topics/arguments when summarizing. This is unfair to the opposing team who will have had no opportunity to rebut. Doing this will lose points.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you (please!) slow downed so I can actually hear them. If you speak too quickly and I cannot catch what you say, it is as though you didn't say it. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it! Nevertheless, if I do not catch what you say this will likely result in lost points. This also applies to PFD.

Similarly, acronyms are great short hand but do not assume I will be familiar with them. Define them at the outset before using them freely.

I like consistency in the points made and creative solutions to challenges. Twists in an argument and subtle nuances can be fun as well as win the day! Quantification of issues versus qualification of emotions, and specifics versus generalizations are both approaches which work well. Best is when your position paints a consistent and coherent picture, and exceptions and rebuttals are removed by logic and data. Logical arguments supporting your position are far more important than rewording the same statement, except when there is a need to clarify ambiguities or terms.

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please. If you have evidence for me to see, then make sure I see it. You are responsible for confirming it was received and can be read by me.

Finally, if you want me to tell you when it is time, or 5 seconds or other time before your time is up tell me in advance and be explicit. This includes prep time. It is your responsibility to communicate this and to be sure I received and accepted the message. This is not the time to be subtle. You will only lose points if I have to tell you that you went overtime.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy ! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

This is my first year as a alumni/student judge.

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important, for example, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I was a public forum debater for all 4 years of high school and I value evidence and sources as well as argument.

I find that there is plenty of time during the round for teams to present arguments cogently and marshall evidence. Don't rush. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

Coached (and still coaching LD,PF,CX, CONGRESS, ALL FORMS OF SPEECH) for 18+ years

Jdotson@potomacschool.org email chain (yes)

Welcome to Nat Quals in Richmond!

Public Forum:

Speed

PF should be any speed except high-velocity spewing and spreading. I can still flow any speed. Just send me your doc if you're going to be fast. And at this point, just send me cases anyway.

Evidence and ethics (I am getting very tired of messy cutting and building sentences from nowhere. People need to be calling that out more) So cut your own evidence!

I favor evidence that is current or at least evidence that has not "changed" since published. Cite author, date or if not available source and date.

Watch out for biases.
Most likely know most of the evidence you are using anyway

You do not always need evidence for common sense or common knowledge so just because your opponent says you did not have evidence does not mean you automatically lose.

Flex Prep:

Sure, if we are in TOC and possibly elim rounds, but other times I think sticking to traditional PF is best.

Prep time:

I am not 100% stickler to tenths of a second; but I don't round up. I try to keep good time and remind you. My time is official prep in the round.

Timing cases:

I do NOT need you to hold your timer up when time is up on folks' speeches. I got it. MY time is official. I do not flow after time is up. You are saying stuff that means nothing at that point.

Frameworks

are not 100% needed.

Overviews/Observations/Definitions are also useful. If you know what to do with them; I will vote off of them all especially if they stay on the flow and are not addressed.

Impacts

Use them; impact calculus

Weigh them; meta weighing is helpful

Analyze them

Front lining

Mostly a must... unless your opponents were trash and frontlining was impossible

Cross Fire

Partners If you have to save your partner by talking during the crossfire that is not yours, go ahead. Better to have a round that is saved than a nightmare. But that will ding speaker points.

Also be nice but not passive aggressive. I don't like that. Chummy debate is kind of annoying so if you know each other from camp, or RRs etc, still take the round seriously.

Theory

Not a huge fan, especially when you are abusing it. Disclosure should be reserved for those who are on the wiki or those know are in out rounds. If you use dislco just to win a round, it should be against other teams that would do the same thing to you.

My coach said we can't post on the wiki;Email...text...

copout... disclo will win

Kritiks

I mind if you run a K unless it is clever and used without abusing the resolution, I listen with a slight ear to fem K, queer K, etc.... But if you have a different case that is not a K I would rather hear it. If you get hit with a K, and run stock K blocks and stock K Bad and they say K good... I mean... I just vote off the flow.

GREAT COMMUNICATOR DEBATES

If you are looking at my paradigm, you are probably already a debate student who is used to checking Tab. So I will be quick. Usually, I am a serious flow judge, but I will judge this tournament based on my understanding of the most important elements of the criteria set forth by the Reagan Debates ballot. I used to host the Reagan Debates in the Mid-Atlantic many years ago, where one of my students, Ronald Thompson Jr. qualified to the National Tournament. We traveled to the Reagan Library in 2015, where at Nationals, he made it to quarters. He is a NexGen Leader .

I know what to look for in a winner, just keep confident and do a good job debating and speaking.

other debate formats:

I judged LD years ago so if I am in LD pool I am a traditionalist

I judged CX years ago but I will listen to everything you throw at me

Super speed/Spewing/Spreading beyond recognition does not impress me but if you must, just send case.

This is my first time judging; please speak slowly and clearly.

This is my first year as a alumni/student judge.

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important, for example, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I was a public forum debater for all 4 years of high school and I value evidence and sources as well as argument.

I find that there is plenty of time during the round for teams to present arguments cogently and marshall evidence. Don't rush. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

As a former participant and coach, I've judged hundreds of rounds. As a New Yorker, I can handle some fast talking. And as a professional speechwriter, I'm paying attention to how your speeches are organized to present the arguments and responses efficiently and effectively, and how well competitors are listening to each other (including their partners) to advance the debate. For partners, that means building off of each other, rather than simply repeating the same points, always connecting back to the resolution and why each argument is important. I appreciate when teams can focus on the most important aspects of clash, and am listening for depth rather than breadth (more substance, fewer stats without implications), and for teams that can convey their understanding of a complex topic in a simple way that others can understand too. The skills I learned from this activity and still use in my job: Clarity, precision and persuasion, thoughtful repetition, organization, an understanding of the audience, and engaging presentation. By the end of the round, you should clearly answer the question why your side should win, based on everything that's come up.

I prioritize the clarity and structure of the case. Be clear when defining terms that will be the basis for values, criteria and considerations. Particularly if using jargon, but even when using “lay terms”, if there is any ambiguity in how the term could be interpreted, be clear about the definition you will use. If you choose to use spreading, be aware that the speed of speech might make it more challenging for me to identify the key components of your case.

For LD and Congress, prioritize the Considerations that best support the connection from your Criterion to your Value - the quality of your case is not primarily based on its density or overly complex flow.

For Big Questions, arguments that create a coherent perspective grounded in one or two philosophies, theoretical frameworks, etc. are seen as stronger than a series of clear, but disconnected claims with evidence. Making the more “complex” argument clearly is a challenge, but creates synergy among the pieces for a “greater whole than the sum of the parts.”

Lay + parent judge

You don’t need to speak super slowly, but do not spread and if you need to speak fast, please articulate well

DO NOT run Ks or theory; I do not know how to evaluate them

I will not flow but I will take some notes

Weighing is necessary to win the round

Be respectful towards your opponents at all times

In cross examination, the goal should be to (politely) seek clarification or to highlight what you believe are analytic or factual weaknesses in their argument; the goal should NOT be to to intimidate, shout down, or otherwise prevent your opponents from actually responding

If you interrupt or otherwise prevent them from responding, I will score the cross in their favor; if they do not meaningfully respond to the substance of your question, I will score it in yours

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

Varsity PF (JV/Novice/Middle School is Below):

TL;DR: Standard flow judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- LOCAL CIRCUIT: Disclo and parahrasing theory are not norms, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since local circuits tend to have much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. It is much easier to make rule changes in the local circuit. Thus, I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). I don't think second case ever needs to interact with first case, even in progressive debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. That said, prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

- Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Weighing should be done early. Don't wait until final focus. Metaweigh, too.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No sticky defense.

- I don't flow author names.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- If I have no offense on the flow, I default to the team that would win if I were a lay judge.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..." or "Douthat says..."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as 'rooters' or "nuclear" as 'nook-you-ler' I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant debate partner.

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds. Please respect each other and have a great debate

I participated in public forum when I was in high school and have judged since then for over 15 years. I don't have any particularly unique manner in which I judge. Some slight thoughts below on responses I've had to past experiences:

-Statistics alone cannot win you the debate. They need to be joined by rational thought and reasoning

-Providing a clear framework on how the round should be weighed is helpful in your concluding speech

-Speed is fine to a limit. At a certain point, it is a disservice to the debate

I competed in speech and debate while in high school. I work as a registered nurse in an emergency department. I have judged since 2012.

-Please do not speak so fast I cannot understand your words or reasoning.

-Do your best to make it clear what points you are addressing in the opponents case.

-If discrediting a competitor, do it with respect and be clear why your arguments outweigh theirs.

-I do read the evidence you provide and weigh your sources to points in your argument.

Logical articulation.

Certified PA Social Studies teacher for 8 years now. 4 of which I have taught Government and Economics. 2020 is my first year participating in Speech and Debate and I'm eager to continue to learn more. I do prefer a moderate pace when speaking rather than a speedy rate since I would rather hear your argument than judge based on how many words you can get in within the timeframe. Follow the three guides below for a sense of what I look for!

1. Engage arguments with discernment. Disagreement is always welcome, however, engage with the specific argument and not your prewritten counters.

2. Be consistent in your debate. Beginning, End, and throughout your counters/rebuttals. Build your story/argument and do not deviate, Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through extending both warrants and impacts.

3. Be respectful: Exercise good judgment. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unkind, offensive or rude I will stop to give a violation.

A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.

Debate is about how you present your research and analysis work. It is about the quality of you work, not the quantity, nor how fast you can speak. If you try to jam 10 arguments with 20 sources within 4 minutes of time, I probably will not be able to follow your thought.

So

1. State your point clearly
2. Give data/source directly support your point
3. Provide a clear link between your source and point
4. Finish with a firm conclusion

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

1. Clarity of thought and how you make your point.
2. Eye-contact: maintain good contact with all involved and not talk to one person.
3. Tone- should be assertive and not aggressive.
4. Overall body language/ gestures when in debate- avoid being dismissive about your opponent.
5. Time management.

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Pretty obvious stuff

Debate is won through good, well researched arguments, not technical "tricks". Don't claim drops when they didn't happen. Make sure you clash and explain why you won clearly - what did the debate come down to?

I'm not particularly interested in a statistics fight. It is impossible for me to know which statistics are more accurate.

Don't spread. It's not fun, not in the spirit of debate and has zero life skill or educational value.

As a parent, I have been following PF for several years and am familiar with the format, but this is the first year and fourth tournament I serve as lay judge.

In my daily job, I am a scientist focused on Stem Cell research, and English is my second language.

If you could, please send constructive documents to ylinster@gmail.com before the round so I can better follow your speech while you are speaking.

Please speak in conversation speed that I could follow along. No spreading as I have difficulty keeping up with fast pace.

I will not time speeches but expect the debaters to do so and watch their opponents.

I value debates showcasing constructive, logic arguments supported by solid evidence. I highly appreciate the skillful addressing of opponents' flaws or claims during crossfire, and final conclusion.

Please be polite and respectful. Personal attacks to the opponents or bullying are not tolerated.

I assure you that I will be unbiased and will work diligently to give a fair decision.

Enjoy the game!

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

I debated public forum for 4 years in high school, so I am familiar with the format.

Please do not spread.

Don't misconstrue or exaggerate evidence.

Don't straw man your opponents arguments or misrepresent what they said.

I prefer good arguments grounded in the truth as opposed to technicalities.

Make sure to explain why your arguments are more impactful than your opponents instead of just explaining why yours are true and theirs are false.

Though I am familiar with some jargon, I'd rather you explain your arguments without using them.

Debate the resolution and not theories or k's.

General

I believe that debate should be about discovering and communicating the truth rather than following the technicalities associated with high school debate. Thus, your top priority should be to offer true, well-warranted, and clear arguments. Although I will flow the entire round and appreciate you following the technicalities of debate, technicalities are a secondary concern in my mind. In other words, I would much rather you go over time or miss an argument in a speech than spread, manipulate evidence, or deliver a false argument. Finally, while it goes without saying, rude or disrespectful behavior of any kind particularly towards your opponents is not acceptable and will likely result in an immediate loss.

Argumentation

As I said earlier, I place a high value on good arguments. I am pretty familiar with the PF topic and should be able to understand technical and complex arguments as long as they are clear, well warranted, and founded in facts. I also tend to prefer tangible arguments with a clear link to the resolution than ones with long link chains or loose connections to the resolution.

Please also avoid progressive argumentation such as theories or Ks. I don't really know how they work and will almost definitely not vote on them.

Timing

1. Please don't spread. I will try my best to understand you, but if your speaking over 250 words per minute, the chances are I probably won't.

2. I am generous with time. You can go a few seconds over as long as you are not spreading.

Speeches

1. Case:

- Don't rush and make sure it's not too long (over 850 words)

- Make sure you cite the source and the date of any statistics or quotes you cite (author last name and year is fine).

2. Crossfire:

-Be polite in crossfire. Do not interrupt your opponent and try to share the time as evenly as possible.

3. Rebuttal:

-Quality over quantity of responses. One or two good counterarguments is often enough.

- Please frontline in second rebuttal so you don't leave that for second summary.

4. Summary:

- I won't evaluate new arguments by second summary. Also, you don't need to waste responding to new arguments in final focus. Just point out any new arguments and I'll judge whether they have been said or not.

- Don't just repeat your case and rebuttal. Compare your contentions to your opponent's arguments and explain why yours are better.

- You should "extend" anything that you want me to evaluate, but that means re-explaining the argument not simply namedropping the tag-line

5. Final Focus

- You don't need to re-explain every argument unless it wasn't clear in summary. Just take what has been said and explain why your arguments and overall narrative is better than your opponents.

- Please weigh your impacts so I can keep my decision as objective as possible

Evidence

Please don't manipulate evidence. I will mostly likely tell if a card is embellished and will call for it at the end of round. If I find your evidence to be embellished in any way, I will disregard it completely.

Miscellaneous

- Please don't lie about what your opponent said or did not say. If you're not sure about what your opponents said, they don't make assumptions.

- Try to avoid using jargon like internal link, prereq, magnitude, scope, or reversibility, especially as a replacement for good logic. They make debate inaccessible, and I don't know what many of them mean.

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit. Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.
2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal; no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

Hi I’m Shaaz-- I debated in both PF and LD on the circuit (shaazn03@gmail.com). Have fun and don't take it too seriously.

LD

If you're cramming prefs:

1- Trad, advantages, disadvantages, plans, counterplans

2- LARP

3- Theory

4- Popular K's (biopower, fem, cap, afropess, etc.)

5- Phil, Less intuitive K's (I don't keep up with K lit at all)

Strike- Tricks, blippy arguments, etc.

1. Tech over truth (to a degree): If your opponent doesn't contest it, it flows through as though it's true, but I'm a LOT less likely to vote on an argument that is blatantly false.
2. Speed is fine, but if you're spreading I need the speech doc.
3. I think disclosure is more up in the air than a lot of judges seem to. I don't care whether or not you do it, but if you do, do it fairly. Open to theory on it.
4. Help me do as little work as possible. Tell me why you won the round. Voting issues are key for my ballot.

PF

1. Crystallize. Tell me what you won, your weighing mechanisms, and why I should vote for them. You could be dominating the entire round but it'll almost always boil down to weighing.
2. I'm looking way more at the flow than the flowery stuff but obviously better speaking will boost your speaker points. I think I'm pretty generous with speaks in general.
3. I probably won't be paying attention in cross. Also won't be keeping track of time--trusting you for speech time and prep.

I am a former debater who focuses on plain speaking and argumentation.

Simply stating evidence will not suffice to win you the round. Please use your evidence intelligently and weave it into your argumentation.

This is a debate so whoever can most effectively argue the point will win the round. Once again, simply stating evidence will not win you the round though it is certainly important.

If you want me to weigh evidence please continue to use the evidence throughout your argumentation. If you fail to respond to evidence continually used by the other team throughout their argumentation then I will presume it to be true and flow it to your opponent.

Please be mindful of your time and respectful during crossfire.

Good luck.

Hi, this is my first time judging. I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slow and no jargon. Please send me your cases to yogi.rakasi@gmail.com so I may follow along, because English is not my first language.

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a graduate student at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if you must bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I hate off-time road maps!! I prefer you tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in college cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in Wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post their case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

My name is Ms. Reyes, I work at Bronx Science and I am first-time traditional judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not run any progressive arguments. I appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. Have a good round!

I am a parent judge with minimal experience in judging middle school public forum debate.

I enjoy a good debate where both teams are respectful and exhibit a professional behavior throughout the round.

The competitors should bring compelling evidence, know their citations, speak clearly (do not speed), be aggressive but not mean during cross-fire. I like to hear clear, logical, compelling and persuasive arguments. I appreciate a well build out case that makes sense logically. Summaries should be used to iron away any vague arguments. Be convincing and persuasive in the final focus. I will vote based on empirical evidence and not emotional arguments.

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

Hello, I am a former traditional LD debater, with some experience with PF from Maggie Walker Governor's School in Richmond, Virginia, and current pre-law student at Fordham University. I have had experience at all levels of debate in high school.

I am flexible and responsive to various debating styles. If you debate progressive, I will flow your debate. If you are traditional, I will flow your debate. I appreciate when debaters offer their opponent the option to have a traditional round because this creates a better space for newer debaters, but I do not by any means expect it or drop debaters for not doing so.

If the round is non-traditional in any way, I will ask for speech docs. My email is pikaz1337@gmail.com. It helps me keep everything in order on my end, and it also means I can keep your arguments organized should I fail my flow. I will note if any cards are unethically cut or arguments misrepresented, but it will still be the duty of the opponent to point out that the evidence is deficient before I strike it. The counter to this is that if evidence is so unethically cut to the point that the argument is simply incoherent, then I just cannot flow it. This has only ever been a problem once, but the disclaimer is needed: bad evidence ethics makes for bad debates.

The only thing I don't like flat-out are tricks. All your opponent has to do to win the round if you use tricks is say "Tricks are For Kids," and I will immediately scratch it from the flow.

Make sure that if you are using progressive debate tactics, whether that means Kritiks, Theory, or some other thing I am not familiar with, it is clear what your tactic is intended to accomplish. It should make sense or be explained by the debater in-round during speeches. If I cannot rationally buy into it or the logical flow of the argument is just not there, I will not vote for you. I need to also buy that the goal you are seeking to achieve is more important than any discourse advantages of discussing whatever the resolution is. If a ballot for your K does not accomplish more than a ballot for your opponent to reward them for learning about a topic, I will default to voting for your opponent for contributing to an instructive debate on the merits of a specific policy. Respect for debaters' and all people's identities is also paramount: that is one thing not up for debate. If you have any questions about this paradigm, please bring it up before the round. If you are worried that I won't let something fly, I probably will but just ask me before the round. Treat your opponent with respect and honor the activity we are doing, and I'll be a happy judge.

Good luck debaters!

Please abide with the following:

1. Start weighing at summary and carry weighing throughout the round.
2. You are responsible for keeping your time.
3. Sign post with arguments not authors.
4. Collapsing after summary speech is prohibited.
5. Do not run theories and/or K's - K's are abusive in PF.
6. Do not forget to warrant and link.
7. Remain respectful to all debaters.
8. Speak slowly and clearly.
9. Be sure to frontline speeches
10. During final focus, absolutely no new evidence should be presented. Speeches should clearly tell me why your team wins the round - make my decision easy and simple!

Remember - this is a fun experience and a learning opportunity for all debaters!

Hello! My name is Victoria and I have just graduated from Barnard! I did public forum debate from 7th-11th grade, and for that reason am a flow judge. Make sure to extend your arguments throughout the round, address what has been dropped, and address framework (if one is given). In the final speeches, give me clear voters. Logic and reason are still important to me, so just extending an argument isn't enough: explain your link chain, and convince me! I also prefer that teams keep track of their own time, and don't take too long finding and sending cards.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

This is only the second debate that I have judged. Please be patient as I learn the ropes. And please speak at a normal rate of speed so I can understand your arguments. If you speak too quickly, I cannot follow your argument, and if I cannot follow your argument, it will be hard for me to find that you won the round. Good luck to you all.

I debated four years pf, ld, and policy in high school and four years of policy in college.

I can flow pretty much everything, and I’ll evaluate all the arguments to the best of my ability. Try to give your arguments impacts and help me create a framework to evaluate the debate.

Update April 2024- some thoughts after a few years of judging pf

I'm considering not allowing off-time road maps as I think they've become super long-winded and silly. It's my preference that you say, "pro case then con case" or vice versa. Sometimes there are extra sheets of paper that's fine, but I've been in too many debates when the off-time road map sounds something like this, "I'm gonna start by talking about the major issues in the round, then I'm going to address some of the things my opponent has said, before frontlining and then weighing at the bottom." That is, essentially, meaningless to me.

I think that debaters should reward punctuality and timeliness. When I was a debater I didn't realize how much judges are on the clock. There is a judging deadline and if the debate starts late, or seems to take forever. Besides extenuating circumstances, I am always trying to be on time and I think it's selfish to make the tournament run late. That means if I only have two minutes left before the decision deadline, I am spending two minutes deciding. It is in your best interest as debaters to give me more time, not less to think about the round.

I've watched a few theory debates this year. I tend to think RVI's are silly. PF theory is not my favorite but I have voted on it before.

I do really like it when debaters make arguments comparative and have a lot of topic knowledge. I'm often interested in these topics and it's nice when you are too.

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

I am a parent lay judge and have been judging for the past few years.
This means try to keep the debate at a conversational speed.

I have a business and marketing background.

Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.
It would be beneficial for you to hash out your link chain and narrative throughout the round.

Please engage with what your opponents say in their speeches and not just ignore it.

Above all, please make the debate an inclusive space and be respectful to your fellow debaters.
Remember to have fun!

Add me to the email chain: htang8717@yahoo.com

I am a coach at The Potomac School. Experience in coaching and competing in speech and debate at the High School and College levels - 12 years.

Basic round guidelines:

-General courtesy towards other debaters/speakers. Good sportsmanship before, during, and after rounds.

-Be careful about making large scale claims about minority/marginalized groups, arguments need to be more general (i.e. people in x situation generally do y. NOT this group does y in x situation.). In my mind this is the easiest way to create a friendly and educational environment that doesn't exclude people or make them uncomfortable.

Congress:

Delivery - At a minimum I must be able to hear and understand the words you are saying. I am not a fan of visual aids, I find they usually waste time and distract from the speech's purpose.

Evidence usage - Evidence should inform and bolster your argument. Looking for a good balance of evidence variety and volume.

Analysis - I need to know the context of the evidence that is being provided and see how it connects to your argument. I will not connect the dots myself.

Decorum - Maintain good sportsmanship and a professional atmosphere.

Voting - If there is an outstanding decorum issue, this will be my primary voting point and I will note it in your ballot. Other than that, I will always lean towards analysis.

Debate Rounds:

-Heavier on content than delivery, but delivery must be understandable, (i.e. slow enough to understand, If you do spread, I'll do my best to flow and follow the speech but if it's too fast, the arguments get dropped) have a sense of clarity, and some composure.

-Round clash is important - including directly answering questions from opponents.

-Warranting and impacting makes up a large part of my ballot.

Speech:

-Looking to see the full range of your speaking capabilities.

-Please make sure I can hear you in rounds, if I cannot hear you, I cannot rank you properly.

-Do NOT use your phones during rounds. Please show respect to your fellow speakers.

Lay, argue everything clearly. Respond to all contentions of opponents. Make everything seem simple rather than complex.

Be clear, keep speech pacing consistent and easily understandable. Absolutely no spreading. I will not understand you and cannot give good marks to arguments I do not understand.

Aim for professional, calm and authoritative demeanor. Avoid appearing emotional or angry. Demonstrate your command of the subject by your words rather than your volume or tone.

Be courteous, gracious and respectful to your opponents and all involved.

Please email all evidence during round so i can review the evidence while making my decision if necessary. I would prefer there not be delays at the end of round due to the tight schedules most tournaments have so i need the evidence to be sent throughout the round. email is gwilson6636@gmail.com

I’m currently a first-year college student and on my college's Mock Trial Team as an attorney. I did policy debate (pretty much the only event I did) all 4 years of high school. My partner and I were flex debaters (mix of policy and kritikal arguments; we especially loved running soft left affs) and I competed in both the Wyoming circuit (very traditional and lay) as well as the national circuit and NSDA Nats, so I’m amenable to both progressive and traditional arguments and debate styles.

Be nice and don’t say sexist/homophobic/racist/etc. things or low speaker points for you/I’ll be inclined to vote against you. Speech and debate should not be a place where that behavior is tolerated.

Add me to the email chain: ayeung923@gmail.com

Policy/Cross Examination Debate

If you are confused about anything below, don’t be afraid to ask before the round. I’ll be happier if you ask questions than if you just stay confused, because it shows you actually read my paradigm. If I forgot to include anything, feel free to ask about that too.

Spreading: Do or don’t, it doesn’t matter to me. If you do, though, make sure you’re at least pronouncing every word and you take time to breathe. Slow down on taglines. I will ask all debaters beforehand whether or not they would prefer people spreading in the round for accessibility purposes, and if your opponents answer they’d rather you not spread, don’t do it. Slower, clear speakers sound more credible than unclear, fast ones.

Off-Time Road Maps: Please tell me how many pages I’ll need (case in order of advantages/contentions, off case positions in order)

Voters: I’m a SUCKER for impact calculus (I was a 2A), but of course the link work still has to be there. Line by line is also good; for me, tech > truth, and debates are won on the flow. I LOVE evidence comparison and love seeing crosses where debaters pull out lines from their/their opponents’ evidence.

Ks/K Affs: Good for both; I prefer K Affs to have a plan but if it doesn’t, at least make sure its link to the topic is clear. I’m familiar with the more common K lit (cap K, anthro, securitization, identity politics), but please take time to explain the jargon and links; never assume I know what you’re talking about. I’d caution you that I have little to no exposure to high theory (psychoanalysis, Deleuze, etc), so if you’re planning on running that, you’d better walk me through it every step of the way.

Theory:

· Framework – essential when opponent is running kritikal theory

· Topicality – I actually love a good T debate when it’s done well. Only go for T if you are confident you can debate it well.

· Condo – condo good. Of course, though, there’s a point where the number of off gets ridiculous.

· The following are bad unless the other team’s plan is borderline abusive

- PICs

- SPECs

- Process CPs

· These are fine:

- Agent CPs

- Other theory I haven’t listed

· Perms – valid perms are all of plan + all of counterplan

Public Forum Debate

I never did PF myself. However, most of my sentiments in the Policy/Cross Examination Debate section will most likely inform my judging for PF as well. That DOESNT MEAN, however, that I'm coming into PF expecting or wanting to see a policy-like round; I have respect for PF as its own event, so while judge adaptation is important and you should be aware of the type of arguments I lean towards, please understand that presentation-wise, I don't expect nor want to see you change your personal debate style to fit something more "policy-like."

Please no theory unless it's topicality, or framework for Ks, or if you're calling for your opponent to lose because they said something racist, for example. For any other theory: either ask me before round or use the general rule of thumb that you should only run other theory if the other team has actually done something egregious. For PF, I want to see theory as a legit check on abuse, NOT a strategy. I have come to the conclusion that I am more okay with policy rounds being engulfed by ridiculous theory debates because there is time to burn. That is not the case for PF, however, and I'd rather use the time we have on more substantive things.

The MOST IMPORTANT THING here is to make sure that you tell me how to vote; impact calc is still ultimately preferred.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

My experience with LD is minimal. I’ll evaluate the debate through the value criterion, which is what I’ve been told, but the MOST IMPORTANT THING here is to make sure that you tell me how to vote.

Congress/House

If you have me as a judge for these events, I’ll be crying and you should be too.

Speech Events

I am quite familiar with most if not all speech events. I did extemp for a short time (though I wasn’t particularly good at it) and watched my fair share of interps, oratories, infos, etc.

I currently am mentoring a PF debate team. I aim to coach later on. I was a policy debater before, therefore I am familiar with the rules, techniques, and theory behind debate.

I have a high threshold for speed however I believe speech clarity (tone & articulation) to be much more important. Try not to go past 300wpm. Do not spread. I am more of a pragmatic thinker than a philosophical one. Evidence, practicality, and logic are fundamental in arguments. I have a certain threshold to theory, however as PF is now more common, the threshold is pretty low. Try to stick to the warrant and impact. Continuously stick to weighing, and collapsing on your oppn.'s core points. Sign posting, tagline, line-by-line, and flow are effective.

Attack the argument, not the person. Actively listening to the argument is the only way to attack the opposition effectively. Establish your framework. No CP, avoid K, and avoid suddenly adding a DA. Avoid adding new contentions after 1st rebuttal. Evidence should be reliable, robust, recent, and relevant. I pay extra attention to the quality of your cards.

Prep time - I am strict with times in general. With prep time, you stop what you are doing when it is the end of prep time. Be clear that you are using prep time. If the timer is not running, it is no one’s prep time. Do not steal prep.

Be respectful and use etiquette. Do not make oral signals or whisper/talk during an opponents’ speech.

Some basic information about me

I will not tolerate arguments that are deliberately incorrect and/or offensive.

I am a traditional judge, and

1) I value a balanced approach between speed and clarity.

2) I appreciate a clear and holistic analysis of why you, not your opponent, should win the case.

3) I weigh more on the quality of arguments than on the quantity of arguments.