Your typical student judge I'm a senior at Fremd, and I have done debate since freshman year. Tech over truth! I am also not super well versed on the topic, but I know a little, so don't assume I just know what your argument is right away.

• Keep your own time and the round going
• START CROSS RIGHT AFTER SPEECHES, I WILL JUST STARE AT YOU UNTIL YOU START
• Try to make friends! or at least be respectful-- I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKS IF YOU ARE BEING RUDE
• Args must be extended and weighed for me to vote on it
• The more emphasis on weighing, the better
• I don't listen to cross; that's your time to understand or poke holes in an arg. Bring it up in speech if you want me to weigh it
• Good with speed but if you go too fast and I don't catch it, I just won't write it down
• SIGNPOST & OFFTIME ROADMAP
• Explain how you get to your impact
• voting issues in summary please
• Have fun! Take risks and LEARN!!!
• Ask questions after round if you have them, I would love to help you out!!!
• Use a stopwatch, NOT a timer with a ringer

Overall I am typically a flow judge, I will be flowing thoroughly and voting based on it. Signposting is very important and I think it's essential when it comes to keeping everything organized. I can track fast speaking decently however, do not speak super fast unless you can do it effectively and understandably. If I cannot understand you I cannot vote based on what you’re saying. Generally, I am more truth over tech but I don't focus too terribly much on it unless something is blatantly untrue or illogical. I put a lot of emphasis on respect in rounds, don't interrupt other people's speeches, and generally give respect to your opponents, I think this baseline respect is crucial in debate. I will start at a 28/27 for speaker points and work from there. Even if you win the round on the flow I will be less likely to vote for you if you’re rude or immature during the round. Please treat the people and topics of the round with adequate respect. Overall try your best and have fun! :)

As your performance, preparedness, and effort on your debate is valued and admired, I do prefer quality vs quantity. This helps me consider all important points in order to make the best decision. Speed is not favorable for me.

If your side is con, facts or showing cards demonstrating why I should decide for con is important to convince.

Loreto Galvan-Alva

As a flow judge, my primary focus in determining who wins the round is on the technical aspects of the debate/arguments rather than the truthfulness of the arguments presented (I also do not flow through the crossfire, I simply listen so make sure points made in crossfires are brought up in a speech). However, in close rounds I recognize the importance of both tech and truth and I will consider both aspects in determining the rounds winner. Above all, I simply want every debater to remain respectful, and to have fun throughout this process!

1. Tech Over Truth

• Organization, Clarity, and Coherence (e.g., it's okay to speak quickly, so long as clarity isn't affected)
• Strength of evidence presented (e.g., stats, studies, data)
• Structured Speeches (i.e., organized, clash with opponents- speeches change depending on the debate itself/argumetns being presented)

2. Flexibility in Close Rounds

• While I prefer technical arguments, during close rounds I will consider arguments that challenge my initial beliefs or opinions.
• Strength of arguments and connection to why I should vote for either PRO or CON world is what I refer to when making a decision in close rounds (i.e., what are the main voting issues you want me to vote on)

3. Fairness and Behavior

• I encourage respectful discourse, I expect all debaters to engage with their opponents in a respectful manner (remember that you are clashing with the arguments, not the debaters themselves)
• Refrain from any potentially distracting behaviors while opponents are speaking (e.g, talking, giggling, expressive facial expressions)
• Plan ahead for any potential wifi/tech issues (e.g., not depending solely on computers), the wifi of other school's will be unknown until the day of the tournament (being prepared for any potential issues allows us to be respectful of other teams/judges times)

So simply put remember to be respectful, have strong arguments, and have fun!

*My personal preference is to not disclose at the end of a round, I will leave all feedback on the ballot*

I've been part of debate since 2013. Most of my experience is in CX and PF. I was never a high school debater, but I am an English and speech professor. I coach novice and JV and believe that debate should be an activity centered on quality communication and logic - not speed, the volume of arguments, and bravado. For quality thoughts on winning judges, I loved this article: https://www.reddit.com/r/Debate/comments/16s6fec/a_former_pf_debaters_thoughts_on_how_to_win_more/.

I tend to be holistic in my evaluation of rounds. Not only did you have more arguments, but how do those arguments legitimately play out?

As the originator of Wisconsin's inclusion policies, I am highly attuned to arguments or arguers who come across as microaggressive, racist, sexist, or ableist in nature. This round WILL be a safe space for all.

PF Paradigm - Dos and Don'ts

Do - Tell me the story. Why is your world better than their world overall?

Do - Give me real-world impacts over big-boom impacts. We've had zero nuclear wars since we started arguing that a thing will lead to nuclear war - but people are dying every day from structural violence, weapons, poverty, etc.

Do - Cite quality evidence. Also, DO call out your opponents if they have bad sources. However, even if a team does not call out poor-quality evidence, I will consider it less if I am aware that it is sub-par evidence because I do not judge in a vacuum.

Do - Four-point your responses

Do - Clash with your opponents

Do - weigh your arguments against your opponent

Don't speed - I can't hear it. If it isn't on my flow, it didn't happen. Yes, I mean practically normal conversational speed. I will ask you to slow down a couple of times if you're too fast; after that, I won't flow what I can't hear.

Don't lie - don't say a team dropped something that they didn't. If it's on my flow and you make an accusation that is false just to try and win, you are more likely to lose instead due to your lack of integrity.

I am truth over tech. I will vote for one quality argument over arguments that don't outweigh.

Email: hansend@fortschools.org

Notes about all format paradigms:This round is absolutely NOT all about you. Those judges are not doing you any favors because that is NOT how the world works. This activity is all about adapting to the judge. So read the below if you want to win. Also, I'll get right to it instead of any ego-driven list of where I debated or what I won or who coached me. That's either arrogant or lazy or an inside privileged allusion to some natcircut elitism. You'll have to read actual things.

PF Paradigm: I grew up debating and coaching policy. Now, I've been coaching and judging PF debate for many years now, so I'm not a policy judge out of water, so to speak. I just probably have policy tendencies in the back of my head and I think it's only fair to admit that. Regardless of whether the PF topic is a policy-like topic or one that is an "on balance" issue, I'm looking at teams to show "two worlds". What does the world of the pro look like vs the world of the con? That kind of comparison is very influential in my decisions.

BUT - I was always a dinosaur in the policy pool. So take almost nothing else from that. For example, my policy background also tends to make some PF debaters believe I love counterplans in PF. I have to say I struggle with them here. Showing me an example of what the world you're defending looks like is great. Adopting a limited plan that means you're not really defending the entire resolution? I have a hard time justifying that in this division of debate. Ethical/kritikal ground is fine and some resolutions lend themselves to it more than others; just keep in mind some K ground requires so much depth to win that you're going to be hard pressed for time in this format.

I'm 100% fine with frameworks. I don't want to see the debate get to a super-technical policy debate fight on this, but it's often a very influential part of the round.

I am aware that PF speed exists. It shouldn't. The core of PF was that it could be judged by the "average educated citizen" and I love that about this division. Policy speed killed policy debate in my area. I left the division for a reason.

Source indicts are valid; I'm not sure why judges dismiss them so quickly. Clearly they work best when opposed with a quality source of your own.

Truth > Tech because we already live in a society where truth means far too little. I'm not contributing to that.

RANTS:

I will time you. I seriously cannot comprehend judges that are too lazy or claim they just can't be bothered to do so. It's my job and I'm doing it. Feel free to time along, but mine are right.

Ethics? Important. Theory run to get a cheap win? Offensive. If you don't even know the difference between content and trigger warnings (and only know the sadly underinformed circuit norm)...don't. Happy to discuss this to educate those who are interested.

Don't lie. Claiming "they dropped X" when I have multiple responses on my sheet is at minimum a drop in speaker points. Likely you lose that argument entirely.

Did you read the part about speed earlier? Do so.

Finally, I like a good, competitive round, but debate should never be obnoxious or rude.

Policy Paradigm -I profess to have a n old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the heck does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they used the voting lense of the president. EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that approach; I am a president. Not specifically any president, just a hypothetical president. I am NOT asking you to perform and call me the president or anything like that. I'm just so old now that I have to define the paradigm of policymaking or people don't know what it means anymore. Enough of the overview; below is the line by line. (Oh, and failure to adapt is a huge reason teams lose. I mean what I say.)

Speed - Don't. Yes, because you have time constraints, you'll have to speak faster than you really would in front of the president. I'll bend that much. You still wouldn't argue auctioneer-style. Go with this guide - if you think you might be too fast, you are. Depth, not amount, is going to sway my decision. No amount of "but they didn't counter the six T-blips we fired off in the first two minutes of our 1NC" is going to help you...because I am not going to get them all down. You respect the office or you don't get an audience with the president. And this is a speaking competition; I won't read the speech doc and do your work for you.

Topicality - You might think this can't be argued, but it can. If, as president, I hired two teams of advisors to debate what I should do on a topic, and one of them did something besides what I hired them to argue, I'd fire them. In the case of the round, I drop them. It also means that if the other side isn't really non-topical, resist just showing off your silly squirrel definition. I am by far more of a "story T" judge than a "technical T" judge. Tell me the abuse story (in-round or potential) and explain a small number of good theory points. More is not better.

DAs and advantages - Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed and given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. Go there and all the other team has to do is spend 20 seconds showing how poor the logic is and your impact goes away. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy. On politics DAs, don't worry about am I this president or xo=bad or anything like that. I'm not delusional. I know I'm not the president, and I'm not trying to artificially limit your ground. Run the Trump good or Trump bad or whatever. The only thing I will not allow is a DA that destroys affirmative fiat. So, no “you spend capital to pass plan” DAs. However, “reaction” DAs, even those that involve political capital, are obviously very important.

CPs - Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own aff plan.

K - Be selective. Kritiks that function in the real world with policy alternatives are great. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or neg counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.

"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, it isn't going to get my ballot. If you're creative, you can show how the president could be helpful in nearly any kritikal affirmative, even one about the debate round itself. You just need to tie it to the paradigm. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.

Things I'm frustrated about currently: 1.Teams that just say "On the X Flow" and then read a card. I have seven cards on that flow. Where do you want me to put it? I'm not going to do your work for you. 2. Perms. You don't just get to throw out one-sentence perms, do nothing else, then make them a 5 minute rebuttal. If I don't understand how the perm functions after the 2AC, I'm not voting on it. It's the same with a K alt - fair ground, folks.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider. I'll only call for cards that are disputed in the round if I need to see them to make a decision.

LD Paradigm: You won't see nearly as much LD judging on my record, but I've done it. Judged our state finals in LD a few years back. My notes on PF and Policy may be informative, but I understand the differences here. Very big overview, I'm fine with Ks but make sure you have the time and the ability to cleanly and clearly explain them. Do not speed. The V/VC debate can get very technical - a list of blippy answers will carry far less weight than a few well-thought out answers. The Aff certainly doesn't have to have a plan, but you WILL have to paint an idea of how the world of the Aff might look. I feel it may be rare now for judges to be willing to vote neg on solvency alone, but I'm happy to do it if the evidence is strong.

I am a Novice when it comes to judging PF debate. The most important things for me would be:

1. Clarity of thought and speech - try and put forth your points or arguments clearly.
2. Be respectful of your opponents
3. Have fun!

I will also be learning from you - no pressure :)

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

I am generally truth over tech. I want to hear comparative weighing. Tell me how you are weighing (timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc.) and why. Point out the clash points in the debate and explain why you are winning clearly. Make sure to SIGNPOST so I know where you are on the flow. If you are a first speaker, don’t drop important arguments your partner said in rebuttal. Make sure to frontline if you are second rebuttal or first summary. Speak clearly and confidently, don't talk too fast. If you make me laugh, I will up your speaker points. Please be respectful and have fun!!

I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years. typical flow judge, assume im lay on the topic.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- do email chain or speechdrop. send cases and docs

-- ~250 wpm max (w docs!!) but pls slow down in back half or i will 100% miss smth. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

-- metaweighing is kind of a cheat code ngl (do it)

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run prog at ur own risk. i havent judged prog much and what i have judged has (generally) been very mid. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like this guy and this guy

tldr: speak clearly, tech>truth, signpost, frontline, weigh, be polite, do your best, and have fun

questions: email sharanya.maulik27@gmail.com or find me around this/future tournaments!

hi hi! my name is sharanya! im a fourth year pf debater and one of the captains of the stevenson debate team. for schaumburg: i know many of you are novice so if certain words in this paradigm don't make sense, no worries! i know how nerve-wracking it is to be debating for the first time so please just do your very best. if you freeze up, i promise neither me or your opponents will even remember tomorrow. you only get to do your first debate tournament once in your life so good luck and have fun!

the real stuff:

Don’t be rude. Don’t say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory towards anybody. There’s no excuse for that, especially not to win a high school debate round.

First of all, tech > truth. As a reminder that means I’ll evaluate what is presented in the round regardless of my personal bias or if I think the argument is applicable to the real world. I will not be saying things like “I didn’t buy blah blah blah” in my RFD without a “because” and a valid reason given to me during the round.

Make sure to speak clearly AND CONFIDENTLY. Don’t try to go fast just for the sake of going fast. On the flip side, don’t go extremely slowly. Try to have a good pace that’s comfortable for you. Also, be confident, it is the number one thing that helps you sound prepared.

I listen to cross, but I’m not flowing it. If something important happens during cross, make sure you bring it up in your speech so I can put it on the flow. Ask clarifying questions during cross if you need to. But if you don’t, then have fun with it :) It’s nice to see some real clash and argument.

Keep track of speaking time, prep time, and speaking order. The less I have to say during the round, the more fun it is for everyone.

On the constructive side, make sure everything is warranted and has a clear link chain to impacts.

Signposting is super important. If you want me to have a clear idea of why I should vote for you, then you need to make sure I know what side/contention/voter issue you are talking about at all times. Offtime roadmaps are good to help with this but please signpost during your speech too.

Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh. I need comparative weighing. This means tell me your impacts and exactly why your impacts are better than your opponents specific impacts. I promise there’s some way to accomplish this, even if it seems like your opponents' impacts are way bigger than yours. Be creative. If you get stuck looking at magnitude, make sure to think about the probability, timeframe, or reversibility.

Frontlining is super important! In second rebuttal, I want some defensive responses (on your own case) to first rebuttal and in first summary, I want some responses to second rebuttal. Make sure all your responses are warranted. If you’re bringing up a response from before, extend (briefly re-explain) it because it keeps the debate cleaner.

That being said, try to collapse in the second half. That means, try to drop some of your own contentions so that you can focus on your strongest points and clearly tell me why you win. If you collapse a whole contention, tell me.

Other than that I will be voting off the flow. If you drop something by accident, I promise it’s not the end of the world, but try to hit your most important points in every speech so I can vote on it in the end. Don’t bring up something new in FF if it wasn’t mentioned in summary. Also, if something goes clear conceded or has no responses to it, then I will be forced to vote on it, so put some clash on the flow. A response is better than no response.

• Be kind to your opponent
• I do not flow speed reading
• You can win the round and still not get high speaking points. Ensure you are speaking, not just reading a speech.

Hello! I'm (one of) Stagg's captains and have been debating since sophomore year. I love to hear passion when you're reading your case, and I don't mind a fast pace at all. During cross I expect everyone to be kind, and to avoid interrupting whenever possible. I do not flow crossfire, that's your time to ask clarifying questions to prepare yourself for rebuttal.

I do pay attention to cross though, and you should bring up anything important that was said during your rebuttals/final speeches.

I'm a pretty standard flow judge, I weigh based on how you tell me to under a decided framework (if any) and how things are attacked/if things are dropped etc.

Good luck guys, you're gonna do great! :)

tldr: speak clearly, tech>truth, signpost, frontline, weigh, be polite, do your best, and have fun

questions: email arjpatel296@gmail.com or find me around this/future tournaments!

hi hi! my name is Arjun! I'm a 3rd year debater and a varsity debater for stevenson high school. i know many of you are novice so if certain words in this paradigm don't make sense, no worries! i know how nerve-wracking it is to be debating for the first time so please just do your very best. if you freeze up, i promise neither me or your opponents will even remember tomorrow. you only get to do your first debate tournament once in your life so good luck and have fun!

the real stuff:

First of all, tech > truth. As a reminder that means I’ll evaluate what is presented in the round regardless of my personal bias or if I think the argument is applicable to the real world.

Make sure to speak clearly AND CONFIDENTLY. Don’t try to go fast just for the sake of going fast. On the flip side, don’t go extremely slowly. Try to have a good pace that’s comfortable for you and not too painful for a listener. Also, if you’re confident you will sound a million times better, even if you’re making stuff up (but don’t make stuff up).

I listen to cross, but I’m not flowing it. If something important happens during cross, make sure you bring it up in your speech so I can put it on the flow. Ask clarifying questions during cross if you need to. However, it's nice to see some real clash and argument, so only ask clarifying questions if you're actually curious.

Keep track of speaking time, prep time, and speaking order. The less I have to say during the round, the more fun it is for everyone.

On the constructive side, make sure everything is warranted and has a clear link chain to impacts.

Signposting is super important. If you want me to have a clear idea of why I should vote for you, then you need to make sure I know what side/contention/voter issue you are talking about at all times. Offtime roadmaps are good to help with this but please signpost during your speech too.

Please do as much comparative weighing as possible. This means tell me your impacts and exactly why your impacts are better than your opponents specific impacts. I promise there’s always some way to accomplish this, even if it seems like your opponents' impacts are way bigger than yours. Be creative. If you get stuck looking at magnitude, make sure to think about the probability, timeframe, or reversibility.

Frontlining is super important! In second rebuttal, I want some defensive responses (on your own case) to first rebuttal and in first summary, I want some responses to second rebuttal. Make sure all your responses are warranted. If you’re bringing up a response from before, extend (briefly re-explain) it because it keeps the debate cleaner.

That being said, try to collapse in the second half. That means, try to drop some of your own contentions so that you can focus on your strongest points and clearly tell me why you win. If you collapse a whole contention, tell me.

Other than that I will be voting off the flow. If you drop something by accident, I promise it’s not the end of the world, but try to hit your most important points in every speech so I can vote on it in the end. Don’t bring up something new in FF if it wasn’t mentioned in summary. Also, if something goes clear conceded or has no responses to it, then I will be forced to vote on it, so put some clash on the flow. A response is better than no response.

Don’t be rude. Don’t say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory towards anybody. There’s no excuse for that, especially not to win a high school debate round.

Good luck everyone!

speak clearly enough so everyone in the room can understand you. i'm fine with a little speed but still need to understand what you're saying.

pls pls pls signpost, if i don't know where you are on the flow, i'm simply gonna put my pen down bcs i can't flow if i don't know where i'm supposed to be.

also i don't flow cross, so if something important comes up bring it up in your speech !

weighing and voting issues are super important to me in a round. you need to be able to tell me exactly why i should be voting for you.

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm going to be a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

tldr: speak clearly, tech>truth, signpost, frontline, weigh, be polite, do your best, and have fun

For my Schaumburg novices: I know many of you are novices so if certain words in this paradigm don't make sense, no worries! I know how nerve-wracking it is to be debating for the first time so please do your very best. if you freeze up, I promise neither me nor your opponents will even remember tomorrow. you only get to do your first debate tournament once in your life so good luck and have fun!

the real stuff:

First of all, tech > truth. As a reminder that means I’ll evaluate what is presented in the round regardless of my personal bias or if I think the argument is applicable to the real world.

Make sure to speak clearly AND CONFIDENTLY. Don’t try to go fast just for the sake of going fast. On the flip side, don’t go extremely slowly. Try to have a good pace that’s comfortable for you. Also, if you’re confident you will sound a million times better, even if you’re making stuff up (but don’t make stuff up).

I listen to cross, but I’m not flowing it. If something important happens during the cross, make sure you bring it up in your speech so I can put it on the flow. Ask clarifying questions during cross if you need to. But if you don’t, then have fun with it :) It’s nice to see some real clashes and arguments.

Keep track of speaking time, prep time, and speaking order. The less I have to say during the round, the more fun it is for everyone.

On the constructive side, make sure everything is warranted and has a clear link chain to impacts.

Signposting is super important. If you want me to have a clear idea of why I should vote for you, then you need to make sure I know what side/contention/voter issue you are talking about at all times. Off-time roadmaps are good to help with this but please signpost during your speech too.

Weigh. Weigh, weigh, weigh. I need comparative weighing. This means tell me your impacts and exactly why your impacts are better than your opponent's specific impacts. I promise there’s some way to accomplish this, even if it seems like your opponents' impacts are way bigger than yours. Be creative. If you get stuck looking at the magnitude, make sure to think about the probability, timeframe, or reversibility.

Front lining is super important! In the second rebuttal, I want some defensive responses (in your own case) to first rebuttal, and in first summary, I want some responses to the second rebuttal. Make sure all your responses are warranted. If you’re bringing up a response from before, extend (briefly re-explain) it because it keeps the debate cleaner.

That being said, try to collapse in the second half. That means, try to drop some of your own contentions so that you can focus on your strongest points and clearly tell me why you win. If you collapse a whole contention, tell me.

Other than that I will be voting off the flow. If you drop something by accident, I promise it’s not the end of the world, but try to hit your most important points in every speech so I can vote on it in the end. Don’t bring up something new in FF if it wasn’t mentioned in the summary. Also, if something is clearly conceded or has no responses to it, then I will be forced to vote on it, so put some clash on the flow.

Don’t be rude. Don’t say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory towards anybody. There’s no excuse for that.

I’m a varsity PF debater in high school.

I will vote off of dropped arguments & turns IF flowed through in the very next speech, I will not flow through dropped arguments for you. Don't be afraid to collapse, it'll help clean up your flow and give me a cleaner place to vote (just make sure to answer turns or outweigh any turns on your dropped arguments with the one(s) you've collapsed on). If you are winning an impactful turn on the opponent's case, you should also weigh on that.

I do not flow cross, if something is conceded in cross, bring it up in your speech. However, please keep in mind to be respectful to everyone during cross, unsportsmanlike conduct will dock your speaks.

Make sure evidence is clearly cited during rounds, and using just the card's author and year is fine when referring to a piece of evidence in a later speech. Failure to produce a piece of evidence when requested from the opposing team in a timely manner will look negatively on your credibility.

For novices: while I do not expect frontlining in first summary, I will look favorably on a team that does.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Speed of delivery - You can go fast but make sure to clearly highlight your point, speak clearly

Format of Summary Speeches - Start with Big Picture and then double click/go deep where required

Flowing/note-taking - I am a lay judge (parent judge) but I will flow important points

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally - Both are important, but I value the argument more

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Final Focus

please signpost, if i don't know where you are on the flow, I can't flow if i don't know where I'm supposed to be.

Weighing and voting issues are super important to me in a round, you need to be able to tell me exactly why i should be voting for you.

I am a former varsity second speaker in public forum debate. I debated all 4 years of high schools, did national circuit and local, was an octofinalist at IHSA, qualified for nationals, and have coached at a pf debate camp.

When evaluating the round it will come down to two main things

1: the flow. What is clean and presented to me, I'm tech over truth. With this being said, the easiest way to make sure your arguments are clean is to make sure you and/or (depending on if you're speaking first or second) your partner frontline.

2: Weighing. The back half of the round should be primarily focused on collapsing (picking an argument) and weighing. If you don't pick an argument and compare the impacts in the round with weighing, the round is gross at that point. Tell my why your argument matters more. If this isn't done I have no way to actually vote in the round and am left to search through my flow to find something to vote on. Don't make me search, do the work for me.

Show respect for your opponents for the round, you are all doing the same thing here, there isn't any reason to be disrespectful. I will take speaker points off for disrespect if it occurs.

With that being said sarcastic and joking debate is fun as long as it doesn't go too far, I respect it more in the varsity level rather than novice and jv.

Evidence disputes are fine, but don't make it a main issue. If there is a piece of evidence in question in the round, I'll look at it and decide if it falls anywhere in the round. If you spend over 3 minutes debating over a piece of evidence (It says this no it says this), I am dropping the evidence. It's a wash at that point, you are wasting too much time when you could be working, developing, and debating all other points in the round.

After the round if the tournament allows I will disclose, if you want to ask questions and post round me, fine do so, but it won't change my decision and if you are disrespectful, I will contact your coach.

Have fun and Good luck!

I expect a clear delivery. This affects more than speaker points. In my opinion, it can affect my judging of that round. Articulation, speaking at a pace where words can be understood, making contentions and impacts clear are important.

Unique contentions and impacts with good, current, solid evidence will sway my vote.

Respectful conduct, always. A good well organized delivery is important.