Every debate is distinct from every other, sometimes in subtle ways sometimes in major ways. The logic, feel, flow and result of a debate can be very different even with the same two people arguing the same sides of the same topic hours apart. This is because each debater, topic, and argument all exist and interact with the unique context that exists at that moment. The optimal emphasis and positioning of your best arguments in your context at that moment is critical!

"Read the room" is an appropriate aphorism — do so with balance. Agile debaters who can adapt while staying true to their past experiences and current knolwedge will do well with me. Good luck, and have fun!

Hi, I'm Pepper Berry, and my pronouns are they/them.

My email if you need it: pberry@seattleu.edu

I've been a debater for five years and I am currently a debater at Seattle University doing British parliamentary.

I have done four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate, about a year of Policy debate, and a tiny bit of public forum. as well as Informative, Impromptu, and Poetry slam.

I am okay with speed within speeches, but you need to be clear. If you are not clear, I cannot flow it. I would much prefer the quality of arguments over quantity, especially for complex arguments.

I will vote on pretty much anything if you are persuasive enough. I am okay with K's, counter plans, framework, theory, etc. as long as they are explained well.

I am a lay judge and this is my first time judging.

Please speak at a conversational pace. Off time Roadmaps are allowed. No jargon. No framework. No Ks or Theory.

Truth > Tech. If an argument seems outrageous I won't flow it.

Please explain everything very clearly. If an argument doesn't make sense to me I won't flow it.

When you use weighing mechanisms explain what they mean to me.

Speaks will usually range from 25-30.

I view debate as an exchange of ideas. Please don't be aggressive.

I don't disclose or give verbal feedback.

First time parent judge. Do not run theory, do not spread, do not use a lot of jargon (delink, turns are fine), please DO off time roadmaps. Summary and FF will win you the round.

I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!

Here's me in a nutshell:

1. Experience

* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles

2. General Preferences

* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

3. Specific Preferences - Parli

* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.

Hi,

I am a collegiate (treat me like a parent judge) debater who specializes in all things impromptu (BP, Impromptu Speaking, Extempt, IPDA) who is here to judge! I have been debating for over 7 years at this point so I sure hope I know what I am doing. I normally judge middle schoolers however so this will be a little different, but I have a few guidelines I like my debaters to follow:
-Speak clearly. You can speak as fast as you want, but if it isn't clear I can't flow it, so please make sure to speak clearly. Anything I do not flow because it was too fast or not clear is things that will not weigh into the final weighing of the debate, so please be conscious of this.

-Be respectful to each other. Be kind during all cross examinations and within your speeches. Debaters who are not respectful are rarely persuasive, so keep that in mind.

-I think that some technical jargon is okay, but please, if this is something that you had to research to understand, make sure to explain it to me as well as you can. I have not done all the work you have done to be ready for this debate, so the better explained things are the better chance of understanding it I have.

-Tell my why your arguments win out against other arguments that have been engaged with. I do not need you to spend half your speech telling me about args that have been dropped, mention it once and move onto the actual meat of the debate.

-Have fun, this is an awesome activity and I am very happy that you are participating in it!

Biggest thing: If you are in any way anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic, or display any other form of hatred, I will drop your team and stop the round at that point. Debate is meant to be an inclusive activity. If you ruin that for someone, I am dropping you.

TL;DR: Be kind, have fun, warrant your arguments and weigh at the end of the round. There's a lot of stuff in here that's geared toward more experienced people. If you are a novice, I understand that you're new to this, and don't expect any of this to be perfect.

Seattle U Specific: I know a bit about the topic, so general definitions aren't needed for me (unless there's something specific in your definition you think adds to the round).

Speed: Talking fast is ok as long as you have good pronunciation and slow down on tags. I'll call out "clear" if I can't understand you (or raise my hand for online tournaments). So long as you can see me flowing, I'm keeping up with your speed.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you still have a cut card and citation. I generally won't vote on paraphrasing theory unless you have a very good reason for running it. After the round, I will read cards if either team tells me to.

Case: Just read it. The only really important thing is that I don't allow the second-speaking team to take prep after the first case is read. You don't need that time and it's just rude.

Rebuttal: Please number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

First Rebuttal: Just give a rebuttal, don't go back over your own case. That just wastes your time and I'm probably not even flowing because you're not saying anything new.

Second Rebuttal: Please collapse. You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every argument you are going for fully. Bonus points if you can start weighing, but I know that's a lot.

- Disads are fine in first rebuttal, I'm not going to evaluate one read in second unless it's super super relevant (ie. most likely just a long turn).

Summary: Please give me good warranting for everything. Just saying "they're wrong" or the equivalent and then moving on is not a proper response.

First Summary: As a first speaker, I know it's a lot. Collapse on your case. I would also suggest you start with your own case so that in the worst-case scenario, you have at least some evidence. YOU MUST WEIGH HERE.

Second Summary: I expect more of you here because the other team has already collapsed and you should have too. In order to win my vote, you MUST weigh in second summary, as I will not evaluate any weighing that is new in Second Final. Keep in mind, just saying you win in magnitude and timeframe is not enough to then fully weigh in FF, start the warranting for your weighing in Second Sum.

Final Focus: Give me the voters and weigh. You also need to carry through at least a little of your defense, don't drop it all now.

I don't have anything specific I'm looking for in either FF. The only big thing is that I hate when teams try to misuse being second in FF, you don't just get to make stuff up. I won't evaluate anything not brought up in Summary in FF.

Speaks: I'm pretty lenient and probably won't go below a 27 unless something really bad happened (ie. being overly rude). There are three main things that will drop your speaks with me.

1) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards

2) Stealing prep time

3) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic

I am a Parent judge.

I am a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, with degrees in Economics and Political Science. I have overall debate experience for nearly seven years. I competed in Parliamentary debate during three of my four years of high school, and also competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate at the middle school and high school freshman year level. My primary event, however, was Impromptu.

DEBATE:

Things I look for:

1. What I look for most is which team can uphold the best the criterion of the round (it is also known as the weighing mechanism or judging mechanism). All of your overall arguments, evidence, links, and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion.

2. I place a bit more emphasis on the framework debate than some other judges. Don't bring up framework debate and then simply drop it after one exchange. I believe that framework and your arguments need to be consistent.

3. In your final rebuttal speeches, have clear-cut voting issues. It helps to number them out for me. It keeps me organized and able to flow.

SPEECH:

Things I look for:

I'm a little bit more flexible on IE events because by nature, they are supposed to represent and express who you are as a person. Unless excessive (greater than 10 seconds or whatever guidelines I receive by tournament), I don't penalize for going over time unless you and another competitor are equal in every other deliverable. Just make sure you address your chosen topic (for spontaneous/extemporaneous events like Extemp, IE, etc.) or clearly state why the topic you're speaking about matters (especially for prepared pieces). Sometimes, I have watched five consecutive pieces about death and suicide, but not a one told me/expressed to me why their piece was unique.

DEBATE:

Things I discourage:

1. IMPORTANT: DO NOT SPREAD. I understand that you feel the need to jam-pack information to try to win the most arguments, etc. Trust me - you'll be at a severe disadvantage. I'm not going to say you will automatically lose if you do, but it'll be really hard. I cannot understand debaters who spread. At the beginning of the round, I may even show an example of what I consider unacceptable in terms of spreading. I cannot flow and follow along if I cannot understand you. In the event that you are speaking too fast, I may either: a) stop writing and look up, b) look extremely confused, and/or c) say "clear". Any one of those cues you see and/or hear, it is your responsibility to adjust your speaking. I can only judge the round based on what I can flow.

2. Don't drop major arguments. I understand that styles are very different from where I competed in Parliamentary (Orange County) than other areas, and that some different styles actually encourage dropped arguments. It's one thing to concede and drop a piece of evidence, a link, or even an impact (although a dropped impact will probably hurt you more than the former two). It's another thing to drop entire arguments. Also, if a team does drop an argument, point it out! Don't just leave it abandoned on my flow.

Otherwise, just have fun. It's a learning experience, and you're here to learn over anything.

SPEECH:

Things I discourage:

Again, there will be less things here for speech because of the flexibility of it. I think the only thing I'll say about this is don't do something super extreme or way out of the ordinary (e.g., asking for audience participation). Obviously, doing something like opting to use notes will heavily penalize you. Otherwise, speech is all about trial and error -- so don't be afraid to take risks and get feedback.

(B.A.N.)

I am a flay parent judge.

Do NOT spread. It defeats the purpose of the "Public" in Public Forum.

SIGNPOST!!

Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.

Most important things for me are these:

- SPEAKING SKILLS. If I am not intrigued and/or convinced by your style of speaking, voting for you is going to be incredibly hard. Do not give a monotone spiel, make me actually believe in your arguments.

- FINAL FOCUS. This will be the speech I pay the most attention to. Give me voters and tell me what is most important in the round.

Don’t be mean and have fun for good speaks

Apart from that, try not to run super unfamiliar arguments and/or theory. Good luck!

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum debate for two years.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• In Construction, I like well stated Contentions.
• In Rebuttal, I want you to highlight the weakness in the Contentions of the opposite side.
• In Summary, I judge how well you defend your own positions and how well you debate the opposite positions.
• In Focus, I want you to convince me why you win. Please do not bring in new evidence at this stage.
• Please talk slowly. I try to take notes, but if you talk too fast, I am not be able to keep up. No jargons please.
• I look for clear logic and reasoning, less on emotional appeals.
• Statistics is good as long as it is concrete to support your positions but not hard to follow.
• Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.
• I believe debate should be a fun and educational experience!

My vote belongs to the speaker who builds a bridge of logic and reasoning, leading me across it to their point of view. Show me the data, paint a vivid picture, and leave me convinced that your vision is the one worth pursuing.

I am lay judge, my vote goes to the speaker who can melt my defenses like butter on a hot pan. But if you're spitting out words like popcorn kernels in a microwave, I'll be reaching for the extinguisher, not the ballot:)

Please add me in the email chain: R40135@Gmail.com

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

I am Parent lay judge. English is not my first language so please speak at a slower pace. Make sure to have good logic and reasoning with lots of data and evidence.

This is my second year working as a parent judge. So far I've been sitting for 7-8 sessions. I base my decision on the quality of the flow and effectiveness of the rebuttal. I am most comfortable with a speech speed of ~180 words/min. Thank you

For speech: if your speech is about a potentially triggering subject I'd like you to give a trigger warning beforehand.

For debate: I've only done PF a few times so I don't have the most experience judging debate. Because of this, please try to be concise, and make speeches as easy to comprehend as possible.

Hello! My name is Janet Mascarenhas. Please address me as "judge" during the debate. This is my first time judging a debate tournament, so please speak at conversational speed. I will be taking some notes on the case, and my judging will be based on who wins the overall, key argument, rather than who wins the most arguments. Please send an email chain with your speech doc before the debate begins. My email ID is janetveera@gmail.com.

I am excited to be judging you all today, may the best debater win!

My History: I competed in LD, Impromptu, and OO for four years at Anacortes High School (2008 - 2012) I have been an LD / IE Judge since then (11 years) and I am now the Assistant Debate Coach.

Email for chains:emcintyreroth@gmail.com

For All Events: This is paramount to me - be respectful of your opponent. I will take away speaker points if you speak down to, act rude during rounds, or mock your opponent. There is a fine line between being sassy/confident and being disrespectful - at your age you should know the difference. Speech & Debate should be accessible for everyone, and not everyone is competing at the same level yet. Treat them respectfully regardless. For some people, this may be their first time competing. It costs nothing to be kind - in fact it is the bare minimum.

Discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in any of my rounds. I will contact your coach, I will contact TAB.

Side Note: If you have observers / are an observer in any of my rounds, and I see you making faces at your friends, whispering, laughing at someone presenting (unless HI, DUO, or intentionally humorous speeches), using your phone while someone is presenting, or being generally disruptive and rude, I will ask you to leave as soon as the speech is over.

If you are uncomfortable with observers in the round, let me know. I will always ask before a round begins.

For LD:

Come prepared. I do not want to wait 10-15 minutes for you to pre-flow, rework your case, etc. Taking a moment to share docs with those in the room is one thing, or jot down last minute notes. However, my time, your opponent's time, and the time of the competitors following you is also valuable. We all know how easily tournaments get pushed behind.

I value clarity in rounds. I can follow speed, I do not like super spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality > Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I will vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them.) I don't particularly like the whole "debating debate thing".

I am absolutely a more traditional judge. That being said - if you can convince me to, I will vote on almost anything. Be clear on WHY I should vote for you however. Clearly show me the impacts. Why something is warranted. Clear, concise voters.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid Framework and how your case ties it back to your V/VC. Clear Impacts. Links. Definitions.

All that being said - congratulations on making it to state this year. You’ve all worked so hard to be here this weekend, so bring what you got, and lay it all out on the table. You have a very strong pool of competitors here. Good luck to you all!

I am lay judge and I would like people to give me off-time roadmap and sign-post clearly. I also prefer logical and clear arguments over fake sounding squirrelly arguments.

Current coach, Former LD competitior and traditional Flow Judge.

I can deal with a bit of speed but Please do not spread and speak clearly.

I enjoy getting an idea of the structure of your argument so I appreciate off-time roadmaps and sign posting.

Be respectful of your opponent, especially during cross.

TLDR:

1) Signpost

2) Have good evidence.

3) Give me voters.

4) Don't forget your framework.

5) Don't be boring; have fun.

Have fun!

Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA), c/o 2023

If you need to contact me or create an email chain, use dpatel4@imsa.edu

-----

Hi! My name is Dhruv, and I co-captain the LD team at IMSA. I'll keep things short:

1) Be nice.

2) Debate well. This includes:

a)Signposting.I cannot stress this enough -- you must tell me where to look on the flow. Point me towards specific subpoints, contentions, and evidence. Go down the flow systematically, because if I can't tell where you're at, it'll be tough for me hand you a W.

b) Evidence.Include a whole host of evidence -- quanitative, qualitive, philosophical, and more. And remember, you must contextualize your evidence; I like one solid piece over 45 different cards that are very tangentially related to your arguments. And on that note, I care more about how strong your arguments are, over the quantity that you present.

c) Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters. Voters.Five times should be enough. Please give me reasons to vote for you at the end of your speech. Both sides should spend about 1-2 minutes doing so, and I don't care how you give your voters (completly seperate or dispersed throughout your speech) -- just do it.

d) And the most important thing: framework. This isn't PF, this isn't Policy, this isn't Congress. The whole premise of LD is a value and a value criterion, and you must remember this. Don't give me your value at the beginning of your constructive, and then throw it on the back burner for the rest of your speech. Forget your value, forgot getting good speaks.

3) Have fun. Don't be monotone, don't be boring.

Hello,

I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 3 years now.

I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.

I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.

I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.

prakash.dhruv26@gmail.com --- add me to the chain AND please ask questions about anything

Background: 4 yrs of PF at Middleton (WI); state champ + qualled to TOC/nats; studying international affairs and data science at gwu; name pronounced “droov” (rhymes with move)

*If there is anything in my paradigm that is unclear please ask me before the round*

- Tech > truth and i’ll flow the whole round (except cross)

- Best way to win is to signpost, go line-by-line, and weigh

- Probably don’t go above like 300wpm without sending a doc

- You need cards for everything (with citations and highlighting)

- Please extend args and impacts into summary/final but give me the warrant, don’t just say author/year

- If it’s not in summary/final I won’t be voting on it

- Don’t be mean and have fun for good speaks

- Trigger warnings are very important (if ur not sure just ask or play it safe)

- Good with theory, ok with Ks, no tricks

If you want more detail: I judge similarly to this guy, him, and her

Policy

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

LD/Pufo

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

I am a parent judge so please do not use too much complex debate jargon, do not spread and do not run theory. Some important things I look for...

1) Please try to organize your speeches so that it is easier for me to flow especially signposting and I am fine with off-time roadmaps.

2) Quality over Quantity. Solid arguments with solid evidence is more convincing than having 5 contentions with weak contentions.

2) Please weigh. Tell me exactly why I should vote for your side rather than the opposing side.

3) Have confidence in yourself and speak clearly rather than slurring your words. You got this!

4) Please do be polite and respectful.

Best wishes and have fun!

Hi, I am a parent judge.

Anticipate, prepare and manage; practical life is random.

Quick advice: track all contentions and attempt to address them all.

I will add more as I learn more.

Good luck!

Hello! I'm looking forward to judging your debate!

This is my first year being involved with debate, but I'm learning fast and I'm excited to hear your arguments. My experience so far is mostly with Public Forum and these are the things I consider when casting my ballot:

Clear contentions that flow all the way to the end. Don't drop something along the way or it won't help your argument when I'm making my decision. Also, don't let your opponent's arguments go uncontested!

Emphasize the impact. If your side has a larger positive impact you should make sure to point that out! Does the other side cause serious harm? Bring that up!

Logical arguments. Any evidence used should be relevant and have clear connections to your contentions. Your analysis of that evidence is equally important. If you don't know your stuff it will be obvious during cross.

Remember that even though this is a competition we are here to have a good time! Treat everyone with respect at all times. Actions mean as much as words. Good luck!

Hey guys I'm currently an undergrad at the University of Pittsburgh and debated Public Forum in high school. Therefore, I value clarity in arguments (clear links and arguments). I do not tolerate spreading.

For online tournaments:

If your internet gets cut off, I will pause time and you can continue from where you left off.

Try your best to keep track of your own time.

First year out judge.

caitrinw@uw.edu, put me on evidence chains, speech docs, etc

I did PF through all four years of high school, second speaker.

Timing wise, if you go over time, I'll give you some grace but I will cut you off about ten seconds over speeches or 15 seconds over crossfires.

Speaks:

Almost always in a range of 27 - 30 unless you're shouting at your opponents/doing ad hominem attacks

PF

I want to see good impacts carried through the round. Don't drop something after rebuttal and bring it up again in FF. I want to see frontlining in second rebuttal, imo second summary is a little too late to frontline.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

Beyond that, PF is what you make it, so have fun.

Theory: I don't love theory in PF, I think it takes the 'public' out of Public Forum. That being said, debate is always changing and I recognize theory in PF is becoming more and more popular as time goes on, so I am willing to evaluate it. If you run theory, please warrant it well and give me real impacts. It takes a lot for me to vote only on theory, so don't abandon your case.

LD

As I already said, I did PF all of high school, so while I have a solid background in debate, I don't know LD very well.

I'll vote on theory as long as it's clearly warranted and done well. I'd like to see value criterions carried through the whole round, don't just say it in your constructive and then ignore them. If you're going to spread, provide speech docs.

I will still vote for your arguments if you lose the criterion/value debate but you prove convincingly that you win under your opponent's framework.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want it to go on the flow, you'll have to say it in a speech.

I am an experienced judge in a variety of events, with a particularly long history with Public Forum Debate. I have competed in PFD and other events throughout my education, coached and judged for a decade, and taught courses that consider questions of public policy.

_______________________________________________

FOR INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I try to give a lot of feedback to help you bring your piece to that next level of performance. In judging, I try to evaluate the degree to which you, as the performer,

Here are some of the things I give the most frequent feedback on:

Effective use of all your 'tools' (inflection, emphasis, pacing, pauses, volume, nonverbals, 'tech,' strategic cutting, etc.) to help support and enhance meaning. Do the most important (funny, dramatic, etc.) moments really "land"? Is it easy to tell what a character is feeling, and is it relatable, interesting, and impactful? Are you able to take good advantage of 'opportunities' in the piece? (That is, places where your performance can or does 'wring out' as much humor/drama/etc. as possible from a moment)

The degree to which you use and showcase (and have set yourself up to use/showcase) variety and range in your performance. You're trying to both evoke emotions and enthrall the audience, and that is best supported by a delivery that transitions between various 'speeds' and tones. Additionally, I'm more likely to feel your performance deserves a high rank if you were able to effectively juggle a lot.

The clarity of the piece on a narrative level. Do I always have a clear sense of 'where' we are, and why? Am I lost on the major story beats, character evolution, or arguments? Do I understand where things started, where they wound up, and why that ending is significant?

(Speech events are similar, though the focus is shifted a bit to focus more on things like reasoning, organization of ideas, and use of evidence, as well as clarity, persuasiveness, and effective use of 'voice')

For Interp and Speech events in particular, please feel free to stop me if you see me after a round! I'm very happy to give you feedback on your performance, including suggestions for things you might add, tweak, emphasize, etc.!

_______________________________________________

FOR DEBATE EVENTS:

I prefer to judge from the perspective of a 'policymaker'; that is, while by-and-large limit my judging to what teams actively argued in the round, I prefer arguments that are plausible, well-substantiated, and of prime relevance to the topic at hand. Public Forum in particular was always intended to debate questions of policy in an accessible, sensible, and engaging way, and I encourage speakers to keep that in mind.

Arguments that are logically rigorous, built on evidence from credible sources, and clearly speak to the resolution’s demands are preferred.

Arguments that rest on technicality, are unsubstantiated, do not appear meaningfully relevant, or that are otherwise implausible on their face* will only hold if your opponents fail to address them. Even if unaddressed, particularly 'squirrelly' arguments may fail on their face against a reasonable observer's scrutiny.

Additionally, if you have strong evidentiary support it is in your best interest to helpshowcase that it is strong support.

Spoken APA-style citations (author, year) are fine for a lot of things, such as establishing context and laying a foundation (and other things that probably won't be questioned in the round).

However, if there is (or you expect) a key clash over the veracity, certainty, or magnitude of a claim/impact, that might be a good place to introduce a strong source in a way that shows it is strong.

I have no idea whether (Johnson, 22) is the leading expert in their field or some guy who posted an article on Medium; if it's the former, TELL ME, and don't be afraid to USE the authority of your source to bolster your claims, especially when your opponents are relying on "common sense." If you point out that your source is a relevant expert, your opponents will need to go further than "doesn't make sense to me because [unsubstantiated skepticism]" to undermine the claim.

Convince me that your side’s overall proposition is the best response to the resolution; don’t lose sight of that as you consider the clash between individual arguments, etc.

I do consider 'tech' elements in both wins and speaker points, and will favor teams that perform effectively as debaters. However, I see your ‘job’ as presenting (and defending) a persuasive, plausible answer to the question(s) posed by the resolution –remember that even a skilled, round-dominant, and strategically-minded performance can fail to accomplish that goal.

I expect you to debate the resolution; any time spent on meta-arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.) that neglect that core question will need to be very thorough, convincing, and meaningful, otherwise they likely amount to wasted time. I recommend focusing as much time as possible on the core issues at hand.

I can generally keep up with fast speaking, but I definitely still miss things in faster deliveries. It is your best interest tomake sure that the most important things are clear to your judge/audience.Additionally, I prefer speaking with focus, clarity, and word economy over covering that same ground with less efficiency, especially for the purposes of speaker points.

*To a reasonably educated person, not necessarily to an expert.

Hello Debaters!

I was a PF debater in high school much like many of you. Below are some of the basic things I look for in a good debate round and some things I wish to avoid seeing.

Things I look for:

The top thing I look for when weighing a debate is the evidence and the weight of said evidence. Give me hard numbers for things that have impact. Saying "a lot" or "many" is subjective and I will be a bit more harsh on the impact of evidence that does not include some sort of number when applicable. For example, if you're going to say that something is harming people, give me a number of people hurt to work with. The other half of evidence is the freshness of it. If there are two conflicting statements being made, I will most likely go with the statement that is backed by more recent evidence if the two are reasonably similar in credibility. If you can show me that your evidence is more credible AND recent, you are in a strong position.

Another thing I would love to see is the clear explanation of unique or specific terms. If the general person would not know what something means, assume I don't either as I would like to fully understand any and all things that you say. If there is a term I do not understand, I will not be able to judge anything based on relative information that relies on that term.

Finally, give me clear indications of when new contentions are going to be stated. This can easily be done by stating "Contention 1... Contention 2..." so on, so forth. I will listen closely regardless, but the easier you make it to follow along, the easier it will be to figure out your contentions.

Things I want to avoid:

Some things I wish to avoid are spreading, aggression of any form, and all types of disrespect to anyone.

For spreading, if I can't write down what you said due to how fast you spoke, I will not be able to use it to the same degree of if I was able to write it down.

For aggression, just use common sense and know when you are being rude or overly pushy. I love seeing passionate debates, but there is a point when it gets aggressive and uncomfortable.

Lastly, please do not disrespect your opponents in any way. While it will not affect who won the round (unless it does become overtly negative), please avoid any sort of action that can be perceived as disrespectful. This includes laughing at speakers for any reason. Again, my decision will not be affected by it in most cases, but be aware that I will mark down significant speaker points for it.

General things that win my vote:

Be willing to concede points of contention if it means you can focus on more impactful portions of the debate. While small wins are important and add up, if you can show me that you win the debate off of something that is bigger than the other points combined, you probably have won the round. I look for quality over quantity. Having more contentions or small victories does not mean you have won the round. Focus on points that are significantly impactful within the topic.

Show me you won! Summary should be used to reinforce your own ideas and expose weaknesses in the opponents' contentions that were uncovered during crossfire and anything leading up to it. I will not make connections for you unless you state why I should care about things that were brought up. In a similar fashion, Final Focus should be used to show me why you won. Give me the big picture and leave me without a doubt that my vote should go towards you. I consider these two speeches to be the most vital parts of the debate when making my decision. As a side note, do not bring up new information in final focus. I will not include it in my decision making and it will not have any affect.

Final notes:

I will give out speaker points in a fair and equitable manner. Points will be based on the above things mentioned and how you compare to the other speakers during that round.

I am here to help you have a fun and constructive time so please feel free to ask me questions about anything related to me or my paradigms before the round begins.

Best of luck everyone!

she/her – add me to the email chain or any google docs if u want audrey.hx.yang@gmail.com

I’m experienced and i disclose

Tech with warrants > truth. Lay appeal goes to speaks

Don’t be -ist or rude or you’ll get dropped

Prog: read it if you really want to, just know I will not be a good evaluator. if i get super confused, i will vote on substance. no rvis

• Definitely do not read friv prog on novices or to get out of debating sv arguments, just be better at debate

Fw: Don't read stupid fw like “vote for the team with the most important impacts” or “vote for the team that does a cost benefit analysis”. if you read fw there should be warranting

Speed: i'm okay with some speed, not okay with spreading ur opponents out of the round

Cross

• I don't flow it. PLS have fun and be sarcastic and funny. Don't take it too seriously

• Concessions in cross are overrated, i'm not going to vote for you just because your opponents worded a response slightly badly

Speech stuff:

• I don’t flow card names so if you say “extend jones” idk what you are talking about. Tell me what the card says

• Don’t read a 1410928492018 hour long otrm. Just tell me where you’re starting and SIGNPOST.

• signpost through all speeches it will help me immensely. numbering responses = ❤️

• Going back to your own case in first rebuttal is dumb, i won’t flow anything

• Sticky defense does not exist lol yall gotta extend

• warrant everything out for me and implicate - for both offense AND defense. no, i will not vote off of a two word turn with zero warranting just because “tHeY drOPpeD thiS”. Same thing for frontlines and ev clash – tell me why to prefer you and why that matters.

• If no one weighs for me then I’ll intervene and be very sad (probability > mag > scope generally, this is likely to change if you're running a sv or racism arg)

for any questions after the round just email me :)

I am a parent judge. This is my first year judge Public Forum debate.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• General Guidelines

  • Communication Pace: Please speak slowly to allow for note-taking. If you speak too fast, I may struggle to keep up.

  • Language Use: Avoid jargon to ensure clarity. Focus on clear logic and reasoning, minimizing emotional appeals.

  • Statistics: Use concrete statistics to support your positions, ensuring they are easy to follow and contribute to the overall logic of your argument.

  • Respectful Discourse: Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful, or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.

• Lay parent judge
• PLEASE DO NOT BE RUDE or you will receive a fat L.
• I evaluate cross heavily so pls leverage it.
• Don't talk fast and be clear, please give organized speeches (signpost and number responses)
• Truth matters > if you say something blatantly incorrect that I catch, that may influence my decision.
• HAVE FUN debate is a game!

LD SPEC:
- keep it trad and no prog