This is my first day judging. In my day job I am a reporter covering the US Senate, so I see a lot of real-life debates.

-Steven Dennis

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for mechanisms of arguments, analysis of impact, proper structure when presented, with attention to how you explicate the arguments you believe best sum your case.

When it comes to style, the ability to flow from one arguments to the next and the clarity of presenting your argument is important. That being said, respecting your opponent is of utmost importance.

It is also important to see how you collaborate with your teammate, building on top of their arguments, refering to points made by teammate (without repeating them whole) to better your point

Hey all, I'm Grace Jarell and I'm a senior at Brown University. I have about two years of experience in APDA on and off, and I do not have PF experience. As such, please keep the pacing of the round conversational and not overly techy; I'll be very appreciative. Additionally, please exercise sportsmanship! Finally, this goes without saying, but I will drop any team that displays even undertones of sexism (or any other form of bigotry, for that matter), so let's have an equitable round.

Hi I'm Anna (she/her)! I'm starting to debate APDA at Brown and my main goal is having fun!

Disclaimers:

• I have auditory processing issues so the slower, louder, and clearer you speak, the better!

• Mostly going to be looking at impacts and seeing how you build and weigh them against each other.

• Please be kind y'all.

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Honestly just don't make me want to die during the round. You don't understand how many rounds I sit through wanting to die.

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Hi, I'm Nash. I'm a freshman at Brown and did LD in NC for my entire high school debate career (except for one PF tournament). I now do APDA (parliamentary). I'm mostly traditional, but I've debated a little bit on the circuit as well and can understand and evaluate progressive arguments to a certain extent. If you want high speaks, just be respectful but also assertive.

My email is nash.riebe14@gmail.com for email chains.

TLDR: I'm a flow judge. Do all the essentials (ie. weighing, extending, etc.) and we'll be set. If the round is progressive, send me the docs. Also, preference for prog. args is plans/CPs>Ks>Theory>Tricks. Be respectful.

Round preferences:

FW: I won't vote off of FW unless you losing the FW debate cuts off all your offense/impacts. I really like FW and think it is chronically undervalued, so please try to have a good FW debate... unless you're the neg and can collapse. If you can collapse, then do it. Don't have an asinine fw debate just to win my ballot because it won't work and my feedback will definitely be you should've collapsed. But if your case is like libertarian and the aff ran Rawls then obviously don't collapse. I understand most of the common LD FWs (Rawls, Locke, Kant, Gov. Leg., Util, etc.) so just run whatever you want and it should be fine. If it's something weird, just explain it and make sure it links to your contentions.

CX: I don't flow CX, but I do view it as binding, and I might write something down if I think it's interesting. That being said, if you want me to remember something from cross, make sure you let me know in rebuttal.

Contention level stuff: I'll evaluate rounds technically, but I also prefer that your arguments be true and not have absurdly long and improbable link chains (but I won't vote you down if they do). So I'm probably tech>truth. Make sure all your arguments are well-warranted, your impacts are clear, and weighing is done, and it should be good. Also, tell me why you're extending, cross-applying, etc. because just saying "extend Johnson 10" doesn't really do anything for me as a judge. I need to know why it matters.

Progressive stuff: If you're going to run a progressive arg., I need the doc. In terms of my comfort with understanding and evaluating the arguments, it's probably Plans/CPs>Ks>Theory>Tricks. I don't like tricks and they're kind of stupid imo but to each their own. Also, if you're a lay debater in a circuit round, I have a really low threshold for voting for you if you run a good theory shell or something (it actually has to be good though, especially if you're at a circuit tournament as a lay debater). I think circuit debate is a double-edged sword in terms of accessibility. Like I think arguments about increasing inclusion and accessibility for marginalized groups are super valid and should be prioritized. However, if your opponent literally cannot understand you, and they make that clear, and you do nothing to accommodate them, the road to my ballot becomes a lot longer. I personally loved a good plan when I did circuit rounds so I'm always happy to hear one.

General stuff:

• I'll flow any argument as long as it's not offensive
• Sign-post throughout the speech. If you're going in a weird order, make sure it's really clear
• I'll automatically give you higher speaks if you're funny. Like I think being snarky during cross, as long as it's not rude, is great
• I would prefer not to intervene, meaning I won't make extensions, cross-applications, etc. for you. I'll do my best to judge the round based on the arguments you're making, not the arguments I think you should be making
• I like judge direction, so don't be afraid to assert what I should or shouldn't be voting on. That doesn't mean I'll automatically do it, but I think it's generally a good thing and helps the judge to narrow down the debate
• Idrk if this needs to be said, but political literacy is really important. I'll bump up your speaks and probably be more prone to buy your args if you're connecting them back to current affairs and/or historical examples instead of just arguing in a hypothetical vacuum
• I won't give anything lower than a 27 for speaks unless you said something egregious.

PF: My comfort with progressive PF arguments is generally the same as LD. Like I said earlier, I've done PF, so I have a decent idea of what a round is supposed to look like. Make sure you're doing all the necessities (ie. weighing, extending, etc.) and we should be good. Try not to make the whole round about evidence please. You should call for cards within reason, but I think it's kind of frustrating when the round is just reduced to each side calling for a million different pieces of evidence.

Hi, I was the senior captain of the Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School Debate Team. I debated on the national circuit throughout high school in PF and LD. I also coach for a few middle schools in my area.

TLDR: I can flow and handle progressive arguments. For novice --just try your best and don't worry about my paradigm specifics :)

Ok here are my nit picky things if you are interested:

Add me to the email chain darcirochkind@gmail.com. Please label the chain with the tournament name, round number, and teams. Eg. "Princeton Classic R1 F1 Bethesda-Chevy Chase DR V. School AB"

General Things

• I am tech>truth. However, the less truth your argument has the lower my threshold for responses.
• Weighing, it is essential —do this. Please be comparative.
• Please signpost.
• Arguments must be responded to in the following speech (exempting 1st constructive in PF).
• Quality>quantity. Any response you read should be warranted and implicated well.
• Please warrant your arguments. "my card says x" is not warranting. Tell me why your author says what they are saying.
• I can handle speed but you must be clear. If I can't understand you, it is not my fault. If you are spreading, send a doc before your speech. I will yell CLEAR if I need to.
• Extend does not mean repeat. Know the difference. Don't just say extend, explain why the argument is still relevant in the round.
• I have a 5-second buffer on speech times before I stop flowing. Do not abuse this.
• I presume to the 1st speaking team in PF and neg in LD, but feel free to tell me why I should presume differently if you are going for that. Permissibility flows neg.

CF

Strategic concessions go a long way. I don't flow cross but sometimes I listen to it. CF is not a time to repeat your speeches. When used effectively, good CF's will help frame the upcoming speeches by finding common ground. Don't be overly aggressive. If you mansplain, (you know who you are) I will cap your speaks at 27. For PF, I prefer to do GCF but If both teams want to skip it, you will both get 1 minute of prep.

Evidence

Evidence ethics are very important to me. Misconstruing evidence will result in low speaks and potentially losing the ballot depending on how badly the evidence is misconstrued.

• Clever analytics>bad cards.
• I don't like calling for cards. The way teams spin the cards in round is way more important.
• Be well-researched. I can tell when someone has done their homework and when someone is just confidently blustering. People who are better prepared will receive higher speaks.
• If you haven't read the article or research paper that you are quoting, you shouldn't be reading that evidence in round.
• Cite your authors (name & year at minimum). Where your author went to school or is employed is not citing your author.
• Don't steel prep. You have 1 minute to retrieve evidence.
• I am fine with paraphrasing or cut cards. Do whatever you want (PF only). LD must have cut cards PERIOD.
• If I catch you clipping —the round ends and you lose (LD Specific)

Progressive Arguments

I am cool with whatever you want to read.

Phil

I love frameworks but am not the best judge for phil. I read policy and tend to go for extinction outweighs. I am down for a stock Util V. Kant debate . If you run metaethics, you are going to have to be clear, or else I will be very very very confused. Don't assume I know all the phil lingo.

Theory

Theory must be read in the speech following the violation. Feel free to run anything —I won't intervene. I default to no RVI's and competing interps. But, I have won off reasonability before and I think it is a good strategy in certain rounds. I dislike friv theory and think it is bad for debate; but, run it at your own risk. Theory tends to get a bit messy, the more shells you read --the clearer your signposting must be. Theory violations should be specific to your round. Teams/people who are more specific (as opposed to using old backfiles) usually end up getting my ballot.

Kritiks

I like substantive K debate. I have run these a few times but have hit them a lot in LD. I am most familiar with, set col, security, capitalism, feminism, and positive peace/fem IR. Make sure that you are extending your ROB in every speech. I don't love Non-T K's but you can run them. If you aren't engaging in your method throughout the entire round it will be hard to get my ballot. Your K must have an alt and a link (this is non-negotiable). My threshold for discourse alts is low.

Tricks

This is my weakest area but that doesn't mean I won't try. Just go slow and warrant well.

Prefs

1. LARP - 1

2. Theory - 1

3. K - 3

4. Non-T K - 4/5

5. Tricks - 4

Hi! I'm Marcelo Rodriguez Parra (he/él). I have high school (WSDC, Karl Popper) and college (BP, APDA) experience. As such, I'm mostly familiar with the WUDC BP debating and judging manual framework. You can review it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/115WFArWMeXh1dTgQ_X9BPH5Ie6e84gHB/view. For PF tournaments, I'll take into account sections 2 and 3 of the manual related on how to win a debate, equity, judging as an ordinary intelligent voter, being persuasive, contradictions, rebuttal, engagement, comparisons, burdens, models, and deciding the results.

As I said, my paradigm is directly taking from the WUDC manual, so I think that teams win debates by being persuasive with respect to the burdens their side of the debate is attempting to prove and a good style is one that is comprehensible, clearly and precislely conveying the speaker's meaning, and comparative.

I am okay with speed but don't go too fast

I weigh on the arguments that are strong and get cleanly extended

I won't weigh on some shady arguments without good evidence backing them up

Please state your taglines for each contention clearly.

I don't flow crossfire, so make sure you mention all your points/ideas during your speeches

I'll give extra points if u shut down your opponents but not in a bad/rude way