Thank you for inviting me to judge this debate. As a judge, my paradigm is based on fairness, logical analysis, effective communication, and the ability to engage with the opposing arguments. Here's an overview of my judging criteria and expectations:

1. Fairness and Impartiality:
   I approach each debate with a tabula rasa mindset, meaning I have no preconceived biases or opinions on the topic. I will evaluate the round solely based on the arguments presented and the quality of evidence provided. I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments, supported by solid evidence, and engage in a respectful and constructive manner.

2. Logical Analysis:
   I value logical coherence in arguments. Debaters should strive to present clear, well-structured, and logically sound arguments. The development of a clear line of reasoning, connecting premises to conclusions, is crucial. I appreciate debaters who can identify and analyze logical fallacies in their opponents' arguments, as well as provide counterexamples or alternative explanations when necessary.

3. Evidence Quality:
   The use of relevant and reliable evidence is essential in constructing persuasive arguments. I encourage debaters to support their claims with credible sources, such as academic research, expert opinions, and reputable statistical data. Evidence should be directly relevant to the topic and clearly explained to show its significance in supporting the argument.

4. Clash and Engagement:
   Debaters should actively engage with the arguments presented by their opponents. I value debaters who demonstrate an understanding of the opposing side's position and effectively address their opponents' arguments. Successful debaters will engage in meaningful clash by identifying and responding to the key points raised by the opposing team.

5. Rebuttal Skills:
   Rebuttal speeches play a crucial role in the debate. I appreciate debaters who can effectively refute their opponents' arguments, pointing out flaws, inconsistencies, and weaknesses. Strong rebuttals should go beyond mere repetition and provide new analysis, counterexamples, or additional evidence to challenge the opposing team's position.

6. Communication and Presentation:
   Effective communication is vital in a debate. Debaters should strive for clarity, coherence, and persuasiveness in their speeches. I value debaters who can articulate their arguments concisely, with a well-paced delivery and appropriate use of emphasis and intonation. Non-verbal communication, including eye contact and body language, can enhance the overall presentation.

7. Crossfire:
   Crossfire segments offer an opportunity for direct engagement between debaters. I encourage debaters to use crossfire strategically, asking pointed questions to clarify opponents' positions, challenge assumptions, or expose weaknesses. Effective crossfire should demonstrate critical thinking skills and the ability to address opponent's reasoning directly.

8. Respect and Professionalism:
   Debaters should maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the debate. Personal attacks, derogatory language, or disrespectful behavior towards opponents will negatively impact the evaluation. I expect all participants to engage in a constructive and courteous manner, fostering a positive debate environment.

9. Judge-Debater Interaction:
   I am open to providing feedback and answering questions from debaters after the round, should time permit. However, my role as a judge is to evaluate the round based on the arguments presented during the debate itself. I will not consider any outside information or arguments brought up after the round concludes.

I appreciate the hard work and effort put forth by debaters, and I am committed to providing a fair and thorough evaluation. Remember, the outcome of the debate is subjective, and my assessment is based on the criteria outlined above. Good luck to all participants, and may the best team prevail!

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

TL:DR PF tech judge, I debate PF, DON'T SPREAD, don't worry about cross, keep the flow neat: number responses and give a roadmap, frontline in 2nd rebuttal, collapse in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary, WEIGH, and have fun!

Also, I won't strike you down if you don't do everything in my paradigm. It's just a bunch of things I like or find important, but if you win the flow you win the round.

Put me on the email chain jackbruey@gmail.com

About me:

I'm a varsity public forum debater at Lambert High school and Ivy Bridge. I've debated PF for almost three years. I'd consider myself a tech/flow judge. I love interesting arguments that I don't usually hear and always try and run something interesting when I debate. I'm into theory and progressive arguments that stretch the limits of debate, but I'm also cool with keeping the debate grounded to the topic and think both styles have merit. I like the more out-there cases and love hearing unique arguments. I also like weighing and warranting more than card spamming.

How I judge:

I'm tech>truth, I will try to not bring any outside thoughts into the round and judge purely off the flow. I'll vote on what wins the flow even if I don't agree with it. With that said, I don't like listening to spreading. Even as a debater, it's not fun to try and decipher what you say and I'd appreciate speaking at a normal pace to make my life as a judge a lot easier. I also really value a clean flow. If you're jumping around your offense and defense I'm going to miss things and won't be able to make the best decision on the round if I can't get all your arguments.

CROSS DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. Don't stress about it, I'd only ever deduct points for it if you fumble heavily (eg. you don't know your own case) or say something offensive.

How you should debate:

For novices: No need to stand or look at me, do whatever is most comfortable. Use ALL your speech time, even if you're just rambling. Make use of your prep time.

For EVERYONE:

1) SIGNPOST!!! As said before, please don't spread and keep the flow clean. I like off-time roadmaps (telling me what order you're going to speak in before your speech), clear taglines, and I love it when debaters number their responses, even though it can be hard in-round.

2) If you're running an argument that might upset some people or be triggering, I'll be okay with anything you run, but it's important to make sure the other team is too. No one should have to talk about things they find uncomfortable to participate in a debate.

3) Clash: Interact with your opponent's arguments. Don't ignore them or reread what you've already said. I want warrants & implications on why you win.

4) I think argument implications are neccesary. Don't just read a card that someone else probably cut, tell me WHY it matters to the debate and how the card interacts with their and your arguments.

5) It's important that the 2nd speaking team frontlines (defends their case against responses) in their rebuttal. It messes up the flow of the debate if you don't and I'm going to buy arguments your opponent might make about you dropping your case.

6) I also think it's important to collapse (drop the contentions you don't think you're winning on) in either the 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary speech. If you're trying to frontline three or more contentions on top of everything else you do in the summaries then you're doing something wrong. Make sure to address the turns before you drop a case because the turns stay on the flow when you do. When in doubt, grant the delink to drop the turn.

7) I also generally value good warrants above just reading cards. Make sure to weigh, it's underused and really important in the debate.

8) It won't affect the round but I do love a good cross instead of just asking "can you quantify that?" also if something important is said bring it up in your next speech

Finally, make sure to and be good to your partners and opponents. Education and fairness are the core values of debate (but feel free to argue against that) so make sure you adhere to those. Above all else, enjoy yourself, be good people, and have fun!

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

Hey guys! This is my fourth year competing in Public Forum Debate

In round:

-Please keep your own time and try not to go over

-I can handle speed as long as you are clear but I prefer if you are efficient and collapse. If I can't understand you I can't flow

-Going line by line helps me flow

-Extend your arguments/ Impacts!!!!!!!! (I vote off of impacts)

- Warrant all of your evidence instead of just card dumping

- Explain how you win and explain to me (not your opponents) using ballot-directing language

-Weighing is one of the most important things in a round to me, shows me exactly where I need to vote

Crossfire:

-I won't flow cross so if something important is said make sure to bring it up again or else I can't use it

-Don't be rude (rudeness= lower speaks)

Speaker Points and RFD:

-If you can warrant your arguments and speak clearly, you should be fine.

- I will try to disclose and give an RFD at the end of each round

Have fun and good luck guys!! :)

If you have any questions please feel free to ask me in round or email me at tcook123791@gmail.com

I've been the Speech & Debate Coach at Starr's Mill H.S since 2018. My team only competes in Public Forum and Speech events, so that is where I have the most experience coaching and subsequently judging.

PF:

1. Make good, consistent arguments with clearly stated and explained evidence and you won't have a problem winning the round.
2. For high speaker points, I look for good sportsmanship, confidence, politeness, clear rhetoric, consistent signposting, and timeliness.
3. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
4. Signpost as much as possible (i.e. please reference the argument you are responding to as you go down the flow).
5. I am not a judge for off-the-wall stuff (topicality, kritiks, etc.).
6. Actually summarize in your summaries! No new arguments in final focus. Create the narrative and convince me to vote for you.
7. I do not flow cross, but I have decided rounds on crucial admissions and will take notes "on the side" as need be.

LD:

1. I am a lay judge. I only judge PF or Speech so if I get placed in a LD round, it's usually a one-off.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. I'm not receptive to most counterplans and prefer standard LD cases.
4. Value/Value Criterion will absolutely weigh in my decision.

**I HAVE NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE**

add me to the email chain: stutim304@gmail.com

for context, i’ve done pf debate for 5 years and have been doing policy for 2 years. i’ve taught a couple of kids for summer camp, so i am relatively familiar with the technical side of pf. however, i have not debated pf for 2 years, meaning that i am not familiar with pf kritiks and new theory. please explain those arguments especially well.

case:

cases need to have clear links, impacts, and a uniqueness. if there is no impact, i cannot really evaluate it.

tech > truth in most cases.

summaries & final focuses:

no new ev or arguments in final focus, new arguments in summaries are permitted if the other team doesn’t bring it up. also, since i have no knowledge on this topic, send out analytics.

weighing:

weighing is a super big part of my decision, so i expect it to be in your summary and carried into your final focus. weighing must be extended and fully explained. i prefer pre-req, probability, magnitude, and timeframe in that order.

speaking:

i’m ok with speed, but be clear. if i can’t understand you, i will let you know. however, if i cannot understand you repeatedly, it is not going my flow so i can’t evaluate it.

arguments:

dropped arguments = true arguments. if your opponent drops your argument, bring it up in a speech. for kritiks, i don’t know how these work in pf, but i do understand policy kritiks so explain them well. for theory, again, i’m willing to vote on it but explain it well.

timing:

i will time your speeches but you should as well.

***

hate speech, homophobia, racism, etc. will result in lowest speaks and a loss.

all in all, it’s novice division, i’m going to let a lot slide because this is a learning experience for you all! if you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

for +.2 speaker points, buy me a snack before round <3

I started debating during my junior year at Starr's Mill High School after covid and became a varsity debater for my senior year. Currently I am a freshman at KSU who's transferring to GA tech as a computer science student. I'm pretty chill when it comes to technique, but I prefer debaters who speak clearly. While you're debating have a good time and be respectful before/after rounds.