I am a parent judge and fairly new to judging debate.

General Preferences

Please keep track of speech and prep time yourself and for your opponent.

Please talk slowly and clearly to better help me understand your arguments-Quality over quantity.

I like arguments that are logical and explained clearly. Examples are helpful.

I value cross-examination skills. Being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case can help win the round.

Please be civil towards your opponent. I do not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia...you get the picture.

I am a lay judge and have not debated, though I have a basic understanding of PF concepts and how the rounds work. I have a business degree and have worked with public presentations.

Please time your own speeches and prep time. I will try to keep track, but I appreciate you doing it for me. I appreciate some level of moderate pacing of speeches as well.

Thank you

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Flow and respond to what the other team says.

I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.

Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.

Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.

Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Aff's that don't defend the resolution.

Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.

Judge pref disclosure

Disclosure

Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.

Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.

Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.

Bataille

Baudrillard

Settler Colonialism

Deleuze

Psychoanalysis

ontological argument

epistemological arguments.

In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.

PIC's

Condo CP's

Topical CP's

Consult CP's

conditions CP's

A Critique of Full Text Disclosure

Spreading bad

A Critique of Disclosure

Vote only for women

This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.

So what is left you might ask:

Case debate

Topicality

Da's

CP's that are not listed above.

Other things you might want to know:

1. Da's can have a zero-risk.

2. Aff adv's can have zero risk

3. Solvency can have zero risk

4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.

5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.

I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.

Updates:

PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.

I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.

1. I am more truth over tech. I would consider it
2. You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
3. The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
4. Probability is more important than possibility.
5. Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
6. Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
7. The big questions on the topic matter.
8. Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
9. Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
10. I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
11. Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
12. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!

Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.

If you have questions before the round ask me.

UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.

Experience:

Hello everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for 5 years doing a mix of congress, extemporaneous speaking, OO, HI, etc. My main event in high school was Public Forum on the local Arizona circuit and national circuit.

Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)

General:

I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, sedonakorzay@gwu.edu

Speed:

- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something

- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.

- Don't extend through ink.

- Please roadmap/signpost.

- Collapse; if you don't, you might not like how I vote

- Don't abuse and overview

Weighing:

- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...

- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.

- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you

Speaker Points:

- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE

- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks

Notes on Progressive Arguments:

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or most Theory, you're lowering your chance of me voting for you. PF is supposed to be accessible.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.

Misc.

• I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)

- Have fun!

Tech judge. Run whatever you want - I will vote off of the flow. I have topic knowledge. Be clear. Weigh.

Be nice but assertive in cross - I don’t flow cross but concessions are binding.

EXTEND CASE in summary and final focus or I can't vote on it. If I can't vote on case I will find something random to vote on and chances are you won't like it. Also frontline case in 2nd rebuttal.

Most importantly, tell me WHY I am voting for you in this round. Tell me why surveilling the southern border is good/bad, why this is true, why you are winning it, why it is important.

Good luck and have fun!

add me to the email chain: adamlevin71@gmail.com and caryjldebate@gmail.com

Speaker Points: Aim for an average score of 28.5, considering strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. Scores may vary based on these factors.

Humor Bonus: If you add humor that aligns positively, not at the expense of others, I'll award an extra speaker point.

Final Focus Weight: Utilize the Final Focus as the primary mechanism to explain why your team deserves to win. Summarize your side's key points and bring the debate to a strong conclusion.

Crossfire Etiquette: Emphasize kindness during crossfire interactions.

Argument Quality: Prioritize clearly warranted and well-substantiated arguments supported by evidence. Prefer fewer, well-developed arguments over numerous unsubstantiated ones.

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

I'm Ryan, and I graduated in the Apex Friendship High class of 2023.

I debated PF in high school for two years, but it's been three years since I have competed, so I'm a bit rusty.

I will flow the round. I value logical link chains, the extension of evidence through the round, clear impacts, and most importantly, WEIGHING those impacts (as long as they have not been dropped and then revisited). It is not my job to evaluate which side outweighs the other. You should be the one explaining that to me.

Don't run theory. PF is not the place for that. I will be confused, and you will probably not win the round.

I don't mind if you speak quickly, but your goal should be to make a logical argument, NOT to cram as much information into four minutes as possible. However, if your opponents cannot understand you, then slow down.

This is an educational activity, and I want everyone to feel comfortable and safe in their environment so they can bring their best selves to the round. Be respectful to each other and me. Basic manners go a long way, and then I won't have to dock speaks and we can all go on our merry way.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

我会评估任何事情，只是不要让这一轮变得烦人/困难 将我添加到链中： pranav_ravulapati@caryacademy.org 或有时这很慢，所以也添加 caryprdebate@gmail.com 以防万

I was a 4-year high school debater in Public Forum at and currently a debate coach for Cary Academy in NC.

A few things I look for in round:

As a general rule respect all aspects of the debate: be presentable, not overly aggressive, and try not to offend anyone. I generally think cross is useless, but it becomes insufferable if it’s an intelligible, angry mess.

No “progressive” debate: no Ks, spreading, and keep theory to a minimum (although I am flexible on this based on the circumstances).

Frameworks do not have to be explicitly stated in case, I would prefer them to naturally form from the debate and for both sides to agree, or at least do framework analysis, before FF. I think first cross is a great time for the first speakers to engage in a framework debate.

Roadmaps are not necessary, but sign posting is crucial. Be sure to let me know if your responses are targeting towards specific links or impacts, and clarity in the second half of the round goes a long way.

Weighing is more important than extending every card in you case. I would like to see the scope of the debate narrow in summary, for clearer narratives and more weighing. Weighing should start as early as the second rebuttal.

Extensions in FF have to be present in summary, and voters would ideally be clearly articulated.

Bonus speaks to debaters who use quality puns, jokes, humor, etc., in moderation.

Feel free to ask for further preferences/clarifications in round.

General

I am relatively new to this, my first year and I’ve participated in 3 tournaments

• Please speak clearly and try to maintain eye contact as best as you can
• Be respectful and polite. Try to remember that cross is not for arguing but rather to further understand each other's positions
• remember to have fun and stay positive

- my background is in real estate and commercial development

- I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS/RACISM/SEXISM

TLDR: Be nice and weigh

Hi! I’m Rebecca (she/her/hers).

I have two years of experience in policy and two years of experience in PF on both the national circuit and in my local league. I am currently studying political science at Columbia University. You can add me to the email chain: rebecca.k.tang@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round starts!

Disclaimer: This is my first time judging this resolution so please don't assume I know topic-specific information or acronyms.

Overall:

• Be respectful and kind to everyone. I will drop you for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc.

• If you win the flow, you win the debate.

• Signpost! If I don’t know where you are, I can’t flow it.

• line-by-line is good

• I love impact calc <3

• Some speed is fine but I should be able to flow your speech without a speech doc.

• Don’t steal prep.

• Rebuttals should write my ballot. Explain why you win the round and what I should be evaluating the debate on.

• If there's no offense or weighing on either side at the end of the debate, I vote neg on presumption.

• I love theory when it's debated well. I won't evaluate a one-line throwaway interpretation but if you have a well-developed shell and impacts, I will happily vote on it.

• Please come preflowed

PF specific notes:

• Don’t read new contentions in rebuttals. I won’t evaluate them, so you’re wasting everyone’s time.

• weigh

• I don't flow cross

• I'm down to listen to progressive PF args (Ks, CPs, etc.), but if that's your strategy, make sure your ideas are fully developed and clearly explained.

Speaks:

1. I'll be a big fan if you make a cool strategic decision (ie. weighing out of turns etc.)

2. Make me laugh... judging is boring

3. Having a narrative throughout your case goes a long way

4. Off-time roadmaps: Just tell me where you're starting and signpost idc about every little thing you're doing. If you do an elaborate roadmap and then don't follow it I'll be sad :(

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.

im writing this for my mom:

lay judge (will flow)

be nice

go slow (~150wpm)

make sure your args are well warranted and are easy to understand

collapse by summary

extend your contentions in summary and final, also extend the responses you're going for

weigh in summary and final, make sure the weighing is comparative

Experience:

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

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

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

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

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

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

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

I flow.

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

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.