Hey everyone! I'm a senior at Midtown High School in Atlanta, GA, and have experience in both Policy and PF. I'm a pretty traditional judge and mainly want to see good persuasion and a direct clash with the other team's ideas throughout the round.

General Preferences

1. I'm generally Tech > Truth, but if something by the opposing team is dropped, you need to tell me that and explain why that matters for the round.
2. Signposting is hard, but please try your best to do it. I can understand pretty fast speaking, but don't spread.
3. Please time yourselves. I give some leniency on speeches but I won't flow past about 7 seconds after time.
4. Collapsing in the summary and FF is fine, but you need to briefly defend your argument if the other team runs a turn.
5. The second rebuttal speaker should frontline (defend against the opponent's attacks on their case in the first rebuttal). If the second rebuttal speaker does not frontline, then the opponent has to bring this up in the proceeding speech and explain its implications for the round.
6. Throughout the round, you should try to extend your warrants, especially in the summary speeches. It doesn't need to be long, but just enough so that I understand the basis behind your claim.
7. I don't flow crossfire but rather watch it to help me determine speaker points. If something important is said, I strongly encourage you to bring it up in your proceeding speech(es).
8. Weighing in summary and final focus is super important. At the end of the round, if I buy the links to both sides' impacts, I will generally look to which side weighed the impacts better to determine the winner. I like it when people weigh using the acronym MRT (Magnitude-Risk-Timeframe).
9. Be respectful to your opponents. Shake hands after.
10. Have fun!!

I am a Johns Creek 2016 graduate currently teaching at St. Pius Catholic High School. I have debated policy and LD but also have experience coaching PF. I went to camp all four years of high school and competed in the national circuit in high school (2012-2016).

In LD/PF: I am able to follow speed reading pretty well. I have experience with a wide variety of arguments, from very policy oriented to more values/philosophical based arguments.

she/her

Hey, I'm Audrey! I'm a junior at Carrollton High School and a VPF debater on the Georgia and national circuits.

If you plan on calling for cards, please create an email chain and add me. My email is audbro1@trojanstudent.net.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions before or after the round, either through email or in person.

On to judging (general, more specifically PF?)

- I'm a tech judge. It all comes down to the evidence. I will listen to any argument as long as it's extended, defended well, and not totally stupid. Debate's a game.

- Go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity. Do not spread without sending everyone a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross but use it to determine speaker points. Also, note that while what's said isn't being physically written on my paper, it can shed light on holes in arguments.

- Please time yourselves to ensure that you aren't egregiously abusing time. To me, this means 7-10 seconds over. I'll be timing speeches, cross, and prep.

- I don't enjoy hearing theory but have some competitive experience. If you run theory, ensure that it is not an abuse in and of itself. If it's frivolous and the opposing team calls you out, I will drop you, and it won't weigh on me. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit; that's abusive.

- Paraphrasing is acceptable (after the card has been introduced), but if the evidence obviously doesn't say what you frame it as and the opposing team calls you out, it will be considered for my decision. When an opponent asks for evidence, roughly a minute will be given to provide the card before I discount it. (Of course, this doesn't apply to any technological difficulties!)

- Signposting is phenomenal; please do it! Line-by-line rebuttals and summaries are much appreciated. Frontline in second rebuttal/first summary.

- Weighing is essential; do it as soon as possible. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered how you would like. When weighing, I'm not looking for a simple "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope." Instead, warrant these weighing mechanisms or provide analysis that isn't just throwing debate jargon at a wall in hopes that something will stick.

- Be respectful in a round, or I will tank your speaker points. There is absolutely no reason to be rude.

As for other events,

- I've only had experience judging PF, LD, and Impromptu. That being said, I feel decently competent in most events. I understand how arguments flow through and the necessary aspects of speeches; this will be the reasoning behind my decision. Regarding policy and LD, treat me more like a flay judge.

A few extras,

- I'm generally pretty generous with speaker points. The quality of speeches is taken into account. Unless you did something terrible, your speaks won't be lower than 27.5.

- I disclose. Usually, I will give a few points as to why I cast my ballot and a more detailed view of the round on Tabroom (totally open to questioning after my ballot is submitted). If it's a time crunch at the tournament, I'd rather just disclose my decision and an RFD on Tab.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me.

Have a stellar round!

Typically when I judge (usually PF), I look for:

-How students argue evidence in a proper and effective manner.

-The evidence must be coherent and viable for the situation and deliver evidence in a distinguishable manner.

-Delivery of the evidence must fit the argument properly for the side argued.

-Philosophy argued must be known to the student and not used simply for popular reason or preference.

-Crossfire and cross-analysis of the opponent need to uphold your position and impact your reasoning to further the cause.

-Respect among students no matter what side is argued. When asked a question, give your opponent proper time to argue/defend themselves.

Please treat me like a lay judge.

I will vote on arguments I find more persuasive

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

Below is my paradigm framework.

1. Demonstrate respect for your colleagues – this is a debate, not an argument.

2. Questions must be relevant, not superfluous. If you ask a question, give the opposing team member(s) time to reply and complete the response before asking another question or continuing with a statement.

3. Speak in a tone and at a rate that are clearly understandable to the judge.

4. Deliver evidence in a logical, cohesive, and distinguishable manner.

5. For PF participants, crossfire and cross-analysis of the opposing team member(s) need to uphold, strengthen, and/or advance your position.

About Me:

Debater at Midtown High School in Ga. Experience in Both PF and Policy

• Time Yourself (I give some leniency on speeches and CX, but I'll stop flowing after about 10 secs past time)
• Weigh Impacts
• Extend Arguments if you want the judge to vote on them (Collapsing args in FF is ok)
• Have Fun

I realize this is a pretty bare bones paradigm (mostly because my approach to judging is fluid). I'll run you through some more detailed prefs before rounds. If you have any questions after the round, feel free to ask!

I am a 2nd year at Georgia Tech (Go Yackets!) studying civil engineering and sustainability. I debated VPF for three years in both the Georgia and National circuits and was part of the State Championship team while at Carrollton (2021 & 2022).

I prefer for the teams to share all cases and called evidence into one email chain started before the round. email: andrew.herndon17@gmail.com

Timing- I will time and expect you to do the same

Speed- No spreading no problem

Ev- I view debate as an essential activity for developing skillsets and tools to find the truth, simply don't lie intentionally or otherwise. Your evidence should be reputable, reasonable, relevant, and most importantly: extended. That is obvious. However, If it is bad evidence, it is still up to your opponent to prove that to me. I am a tech judge, and the "game" of debate is won by extending winning arguments and strategically dismantling your opponents' shakiest evidence.

CX- Debate IS clash; I do flow CX out of interest but all arguments and responses should be briefly reiterated your in speeches.

Collapsing - Extend the most contentions you can into the later rounds, I allow lots of collapsing but (hopefully) you wrote multiple contentions to argue them, not to cut potential losses in the round.

Theory- I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop. Yes, FW and Ks can be harmful to you, teams that are abusive with the them to make a debate about a non-resolutional (non-resolvable) issue are not likely to get voted up. But, you can run them if they stay within the broader themes of your contentions.

Weighing- As early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate.

Frontline- 2nd Rebuttal onwards. Nothing new should be read 2nd summary onward.

Signposting- Good debaters are good at signposting.

Comedy- The best debaters are able to make it fun... and get higher speaks

I am a TECH judge. If it's not on the flow I won't take it into consideration. Make your arguments and nuances explicit and tell me throughout the entire round, doubly so for prime links and accessed impacts.

Best of luck

I'm a 4th year PF debater at Marist School in Georgia.

Add me to your email chains

matthewhorne24@marist.com maristpublicforum@gmail.com

If you spread, send a speech doc

Tech>truth

Time your own speeches, prep, and crossfires.

I pay attention to cross solely for speaker points, if something happens that I should know about, let me know in the speech.

Please weigh and

Collapse in your summaries. Narrowing down the debate is important in the back half of rounds

Email me if you have any questions about rfd.

Pronouns: he/him/his

merehunter2002@gmail.com - Please include me in your email chain!

Hello! I am a third year undergrad student at Emory University. I greatly appreciate when debaters share their pronouns, so please feel free to do so (it is encouraged)! While I am not a debater myself, I have been judging Policy for AUDL since August 2022 and have spectated countless rounds in PF, Policy, and World Schools. I strive to make debate a safer and more inclusive/ respectful space. Have a great round!

** Please note that any sexism, racism, homophobia, and/or transphobia in an argument will automatically result in the loss of the round.

My Preferences:

• Tell me what you want me to weigh off of (magnitude, timeframe, risk, etc..)
• In your 2NR/2AR tell me what my ballot should look like! Also, please weigh. The earlier weighing is introduced, the better! (For example, if your opponents dropped an argument, say so. This will make my decision much easier)
• I will vote off the flow but it must be warranted (meaning if you properly extend your argument but it lacks explanation, I will not vote off of it). I am mostly a tech = truth judge
• Signposting is required for good speaks, Off-Time Roadmaps are encouraged
• Make a note to extend all arguments and if you are going to kick an argument, say so.
• I prefer when teams collapse in later speeches, giving you more time to better warrant your arguments (quality > quantity)
• I am not super familiar with Ks, theory, etc., but I will try my best to adjudicate them within the round as long as the warrant/impact is well-explained
• If you take prep, please time yourself and report what you have remaining when you are ready to proceed in the round (I will also time, but I prefer that debaters do so as well)
• Be respectful in Cross-Ex; do not be condescending

Clear and comprehensible speaking will result in higher speaks; also note that spreading is not required. I can handle medium speed.

Hi, my name is Abby Hyken and I’m a varsity debater for the Midtown HS debate team. I've competed in Public Forum for 4 years.

Preferences for PF:

• I like comparative weighing, so tell me what to vote off of. Put your impacts side by side and show me why yours are more significant.
• I can understand pretty fast speaking, but make sure you don't sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I won't flow cross, so if something important comes up make sure to mention it in your next speech.
• Time yourself, but don’t abuse this. I will still be paying attention.
• Excessively calling for cards is one of the most obnoxious things that can happen in a debate round. Call for a card if you really want it, but don't use it as an excuse to steal prep time.
• If your opponents drop something, bring it up, but only if they truly dropped it. I don’t like when teams fib about dropping arguments.
• I don’t really like or understand theory, but I still consider myself a tech>truth judge when it comes to traditional PF tech.

All other events:

• Never judged any other event before, so treat me as you would a lay judge.
• That being said, I obviously understand argumentation more than a parent judge, but I most likely won't be very familiar with your topic.

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

Intro:

Hi, I’m Drew, a first-year student at Georgia Tech. I debated 4 years PF at Carrollton High School on the GFCA and TOC circuits. I qualed for TOC my senior year.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: andrewbjohnson06@gmail.com

Preferably send both Constructive and Rebuttal docs, but at the minimum, Constructive.

__________________________________________________________________________________

TL;DR: Tech Judge, I will evaluate everything. Vote off the flow. Please weigh. Don't make me intervene.

Lay x--------------------------------------------O-----x Tech

__________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

General:

• I am a tech judge. 100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is developed well.
• Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful.
• I will not flow off speech docs. I only look at evidence if a team calls it out.
• I think speaks should be based on a 28.5-30 scale with .1 increments. I will only drop below that if you say something offensive or give up in round. I am not afraid of low-point wins.
• Go as fast as you want, but don’t sacrifice clarity. I debate quickly and can handle speed, just don’t spread. If I can’t understand, I will say clear up to three times and then drop my pen.
• I don’t flow cross, but I do listen. A large portion of your speaks will be determined based on how you handle the pressure of cross-fire.
• Time yourselves, please.
• PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer going down the flow line-by-line in rebuttal and summary.
• Paraphrasing is acceptable. It is cool to say the card name and then paraphrase what the card says. Just have a cut card ready when called for.
• I like analysis arguments as much as evidence-based ones, so if you use logical responses that make sense to me, I will not value them less than evidence unless the other team has a card disproving your analysis.
• Weighing is essential. You should do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be “we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me.” Give me analyses as to why you’re winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered as you want it to be.
• Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary.
• Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a significant educational opportunity; I believe that learning is why this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I think the punishment is warranted.

Theory:

• If you run theory, ensure that it is not abused in and of itself. I don’t think a formal counter-inter is necessary to respond to a shell; give responses like you would a standard argument. If it’s frivolous and the opposing team says that, I will drop you and give the lowest speaks possible.
• Do not run disclosure on the Georgia Circuit (Talking to a specific school here. You know who you are.). That is not the norm and is abusive.
• Feel free to run it at TOC bid tournaments, though. I disclosed and probably prefer it as the norm (Doesn't mean I'll auto-vote on it, though).

K's:

• I will evaluate K's, but don't expect me to vote on it just because you run it. I think K debaters are either lazy or smart so you need to prove why you are the latter.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Post-Round Info:

• I disclose. Usually, I will give my RFD in rounds with a few main things posted on Tab.
• If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me using the above email.
• Post-round me, please. I love good discussions about the round. Don't expect it to change my ballot, though. I've already submitted it before I give my RFD.
• Please ask for my flow if you would like. I flow on excel and will be happy to email it to you. :)

(TL;DR, I am a tech judge. PF is about persuasion, so don't frivolous/nonsensical arguments)

Hello! I am Kieran Kelly; I have done PF, LD, and Extemp at Carrollton High School for four years. I am currently in my first year at Georgia Tech. I won some national tournaments, qualified for TOC, and won six state championships(PF & Extemp). I am pretty familiar with most norms and arguments. As a judge, I will do my best to give you a fair, equitable decision based on the flow. I love forensics and firmly believe that winning or losing a round is a truly educational, fun experience.

For questions and evidence chains, email kierankelly678@icloud.com. I want you to send me your speech doc.

**** Theory and K's truth>tech. I WILL EVALUATE THEM, THOUGH!!!

DISCLOSURE: I like it at TOC bid tournaments. You will be dropped if you run this on the Georgia Circuit.

TRICKS: No way, pal. This is super lazy.

LARP: Probably preferred.

EVIDENCE: I look at it post-round and will not vote for sketchy evidence. I'll give you ~3 minutes to find your evidence, but it should pretty much be on hand. The longer you take to find evidence, the more your speaks drop.

DELIVERY: I'm cool with speed, but I don't necessarily like it. I prefer that you deliver the speech in a way that makes me feel like you believe and are passionate about what you are talking about(even if you aren't).

WEIGHING ARGUMENTS: Run basically any FW with me, and I'll evaluate it. I will calculate the impact by considering magnitude in light of probability. However, if you prove any probability of an infinite result, I will vote on that. (extinction is not infinite unless you give me a reason to believe it is)

ORGANIZATION: I greatly appreciate good organization because it makes it significantly easier to flow. Off-time road maps are greatly encouraged, and I want a speech doc for constructive.

EXTRA STUFF: Be respectful, but don't be afraid to be passionate about what you are talking about.

Marist School (Class of 25')

Hi y'all my name is Faiza.

here is my email for chains: faizakhaled25@marist.com

I’m a third year competitor for Marist! I primarily compete in POI (and other speech events) but did a little policy and also judge public forum, so I understand the debate basics. It is to your benefit to treat me like a lay judge, but that being said, there are a couple things you can do to increase your chance of winning

1) Slow down! Your goal is to be persuasive, not make as many arguments as possible. Use your time to your advantage, but remember, quality over quantity. A short but fully developed speech is much more impactful to me rather than a lengthy speech that regurgitates your case redundantly and doesn't extend or weigh the opposing sides case or show any impact.

- On the note of time, respect the time of both your judges as well as the other competitors. This applies to everyone in terms of being prepared to start the debate on time as well as during the debate round, especially during prep time.

2) Signpost, if you tell me to write something down I’ll definitely be included on my flow.

3) Use cross to highlight important parts of the debate, if I hear it more often I’ll remember it.

4) Weigh! I think that weighing your case with the opposing side is a fantastic mechanism to contest the opposing argument while creating nuance within your own argument in a effective and efficient way. Also, extend every part of your argument and show its impact.

5) Speaking points will be based on clarity and quality.

6) Unless it is serious, theory should be avoided. Disclosure is good.

Remember to have fun and be respectful! If an argument seems true it will be more likely to decide my ballot. I’ll only evaluate arguments made in the round, but I come from a background that emphasizes persuasion. Good luck!

I am a debate team coach. Please keep your own time. You may speak at whatever speed you are comfortable with but keep in mind that if you speak too quickly your points may be missed. I will be looking at which team was best able to promote their position while negating the opposing position.

I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

Hello! My name is Eden (he/him), and I am a former PF debater from Carrollton High School and a current first year student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!). I debated 3 years on the Georgia and national circuit. I won several GA tournaments and broke at quite a few national tournaments so I'm familiar with lingo and norms.

Add me to email chain: edenlong42@gmail.com

Summary: Tech>Truth. Arguments need to be extended through every speech and evidence must be used to support your speeches. I will always vote off the flow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Weighing: Please weigh your impacts. If you don't give me a framework I default to util. I'll vote on any framework as long as you win it on the flow. If the link chain is strong and you defend it well I'll vote for your impact.

Theory: I'm willing to vote for theory arguments just make sure you actually win the warranting. I'm not going to vote for you the second you start reading theory just because your opponent doesn't format the argument the way you think they should. Whoever warrants the best gets my vote. RVI's and IVI's are fine.

Disclosure: I'll vote on disclosure at TOC bid tournaments only. I ran it a few times and know how it works. Same theory stuff applies though about warranting. I won't vote on jargon alone. Don't run disclosure on the Georgia circuit. This is not the norm and extremely abusive. The Georgia circuit should be a space for anyone to feel welcome and disclosure only rewards teams who have the resources to run it.

K's:I have less experience with K's than I do with theory so keep that in mind but I am willing to vote on it if you warrant it. I don't have an issue taking debates outside of the topic as long as you prove to me why we should. I enjoy when debaters read K's they truly care about and I think it brings important discussions into our event.

Tricks:I really, really don't like tricks. I think the only time we should take things out of the topic is when we really need to. I hate when debaters want to be lazy and read out tricks to confuse their opponents. If you decide to run friv theory just be prepared for my rfd.

Structure:I think rebuttals need to respond to everything in constructive. I don't want to hear a new response to case in summary and I probably won't flow it. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No new evidence in 2nd summary and final should only extend what's in summary. Don't be abusive in 2nd final.

Evidence: I'll only look at evidence in the chain if you ask me to. Don't be hesitant to call for cards in the round. I don't get judges who are annoyed by this. Please have evidence ready to be sent, I love evidence sharing but I hate ending a round 30 minutes late.

Timing:Don't really care if you go over a little bit just don't be hypocritical. I've gone against way too many teams who go 20 seconds over then start complaining the instant their opponent goes one second over. Don't be that team.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to help you get better so please feel free to ask me any questions about debate or the topic after the round. I'll probably be flowing on computer and I'd be more than willing to send you my flow after the round. Good Luck!

I was a 4-year debater at Carrollton High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.

my email is javierlm030503@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round.

Expectations

1) tech > truth

2) Do not bring up any new arguments from the second summary onwards

3) No racist or sexist remarks

4) I am not your person for theory at all

If you have any questions let me know

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

Hi thanks for looking at my paradigm.

- I am a fairly new judge

- I am not familiar to debate terms

- Please don't go too fast

I am fairly generous with speaker points.

I will most likely give you (28-30)

I do not tolerate disrespect please keep this debate clean.

Im Will Roberson this is my third year judging/competing in PF

• let me know if you drop anything
• No new evidence in second summary
• have evidence prepared
• im ok with normal vernacular
• pls extend all evidence I firmly believe this is critical to keep a link chain intact
• pls be respectful in all cross i don't mind if you tell during speeches though
• im okay with spreading just don't go crazy with it
• Tech>truth

I'm a former competitor in Extemp and Public Forum. I've been coaching for around ten years. I teach world history in Atlanta. I haven't judged much policy debate but I've judged and coached plenty of speech, LD, Public Forum and World Schools.

Things I like: arguments with warrants, citations, consistent logic, argument extensions, relevant questions, speaking skills (good flow, clear, etc...), theory, speech roadmaps, evidence, etc...

Things I do not like: rudeness and arguments without citations and/or warrants.

Analytic arguments are fine for any of the debate events.

Worlds Schools - Do not spread.

Policy - Kritiks, disadvantages and topicality are all fine. I like line-by-line and clear organization in your speeches. For me, an ideal debate would be polite, insightful, and have some relevance to our current historical moment. It would represent the zeitgeist so to say.

If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask.

mrobinson43@gmail.com

Spreading is strongly discouraged. Please keep your delivery at a reasonable pace and speak clearly. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Hello, I am Jed Roseman, a senior Speech & Debater at Midtown High School. I competed in Varsity PF for three years and now compete in other speech events (mainly congress). I am still very involved in PF and help practices/prep novices with casework.

Please read the following to understand how I will judge your round!!!

Tech>>Truth: Prove to me through persuasion, evidence, weighing, etc; that I should vote for your side of the debate. I will be evaluating your round like I have never heard of this topic and will not have a predetermined position.

CX (crossfire): I will not flow any CX into judging the round, if you want me to flow any CX please bring it up in your following speech. I will however take CX into account for speaker points. I suggest asking questions to try to poke holes in the opponent's arguments rather than just asking questions for clarification.

Timer: Please please time your speeches I will be focused on judging the debate. I keep track of your prep time so don't try to pull a fast one on me and use more than you have.

Evidence: Don't ask for 7 cards of evidence when you are probably going to only respond to one. It is obvious to most judges that people use this as a time to prep, so don't abuse card sharing I will notice.

Signposting: This is a little more nitpicky, but if possible in speeches mention which part of your/your opponent's speech you are referencing. This will make it easier to flow through your responses/extensions throughout the round.

Voting: I will vote on impacts so weighing comparatively is crucial. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponent's!

Some pet peeves: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts (spreading), failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, and debating during prep time.

GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE & HAVE FUN!!!

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

I just graduated from the University of Georgia and I will be attending law school next year!

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Hi, I’m Aran Sonnad-Joshi. I use he/him pronouns. I’d say at least read the first part of my paradigm.

Midtown '23

Harvard '27

Email: a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com

General Stuff

I’m fine with both progressive and traditional LD. I've competed on both the national and local Georgia circuits. I'll listen to almost anything, just warrant it.

Tech over truth but sketchy arguments have a lower threshold for response

Give a roadmap before your speech. Signpost if you deviate from that, but you should signpost anyway

Speed: I’m good with spreading but send the doc. My email is a.sonnadjoshi@gmail.com but I prefer SpeechDrop if possible.

Prog vs. Trad: I prefer trad, but I'm comfortable with prog. Generally, I would say don't change your style too much for your opponent but also don't beat up on trad debaters with jargon and norms. I think a good trad debater should be able to effectively counter progressive argumentation without compromising their style.

CX: CX is binding, but you have to bring it up in round if you want it on the flow. Also, being somewhat slippery is fine, but answer the question.

Pref sheet

Trad - 1

K - 2

Larp - 2/3

T/Theory, Phil - 3/4

Tricks, Frivolous theory - 5/Strike

Specific arguments:

Framework: Framework is how you weigh the round. Explain how your arguments fall under your framework. If you want to use your opponent’s framework, that’s fine but you have to show how your arguments flow under it.

Plans: I’m ok with plan affs but make sure you can explain how they’re topical.

DAs: Impact calc is key for me to weigh your DA. Sketchy link chains have a lower threshold for response. Make sure you have links, I’m not going to do it for you.

CPs: Counterplans are valid. Weigh the net benefits of the cp against the aff.

Ks: Ks are great. I’m most familiar with standard Ks and some postmodern stuff. My favorites are postcolonialism (but no one runs it), biopower (very underrated), Virilio (no one runs this either), and Baudrillard. Deleuze still confuses me. Pre-fiat impacts are cool if you do them properly.

K Affs: K affs are fine, just warrant them. I've run them before.

Phil (actual phil, not just phil tricks) : I'm familiar with a decent amount of phil. I should be able to evaluate almost any phil argument if it's explained well.

Theory: Theory should have a proper abuse story. I don’t like frivolous theory and it has a much lower threshold for response. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and no RVIs (but RVIs can definitely be good). Fairness and Education are not default voters. I'm not a fan of disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

T: I prefer whole-res debates in trad LD but I can go both ways on Nebel.

Tricks: I don’t like them. I'll vote if I have to but please don’t make me vote off of them.

More specific stuff

I like a really good trad debate as much if not more than a good prog debate.

I think more than two condo offs becomes hard to justify.

I don't like disclosure theory, especially against small schools.

Debate is a game but rhetoric and conversations are important too

Nonnegotiable

I'll evaluate anything that's not in this section if I really must. These are things you have to do.

Use trigger warnings if you're discussing sensitive stuff (on this, I'll evaluate arguments like neg util/death good and I've run them before but make sure to do it appropriately)

Don't violate accommodations

Don't be exclusionary/ad hominem/discriminatory (no sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.; I'll give you the lowest speaks, drop you, and if necessary let your coach and/or the tournament know)

Speaks

I don't listen to requests for speaks generally. If it's a good reason I might be persuaded.

I try and average a 28.5 with a scale of 27 to 30 for most normal rounds. I adjust my speaks based on the pool. Things that I'll give high speaks for:

• Well executed trad debate, especially against prog.
• If you run unique arguments and explain them well

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, and now teach English at Riverwood High School!

I mostly judge PF:

1. Please speak at a pace where I and the opposing team can understand you.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. I do not need an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order your speech goes in, unless you are just telling me that you are just explaining that the speech has one purpose (ex Impacts).
4. Please. Look. At. Each. Other. During. Cross. Not. Me. It’s. Weird. You’re arguing and questioning each other. It’s not a speech, It's a time to question each other!!
5. Please take prep time when reading another opponent's evidence.
6. Please do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Debaters usually try to link some huge world problem in the resolve with the impact that poverty is the end all-be-all, and is the worst thing ever. Global poverty is a systemic issue that people cannot help as it is an effect of systemic racism, capitalism, etc. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year olds cannot solve, and is usually only given harmful, exacerbated solutions to, therefore I no longer want to hear about it.
7. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
8. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
9. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.
10. If I close my eyes or look to the side while you are speaking during your speech, I am trying to focus and listen. I have combined type-ADHD, and I am just trying to SUPER FOCUS on the WORDS YOU ARE SAYING!! PF has so much info, I don't wanna miss a second!! Please do not take offense!

11. I prefer not to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

12. Please, use your manners and let each team finish speaking during the crossfire. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners Y'all.
13. Give me a second while I am entering a round for the first time to set up everything. I be carrying junk around in my bag.
14. Please extend arguments and impacts in your summary and Final Focus, I understand it can be tempting to summerize your contentions. The other team and I listened to the whole hour plus of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

15. I disclose after every round because I hate typing. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

DO NOT SPREAD.

I am a varsity competitor in LD in Georgia, take that for what you think it means.

1. I am a flow judge, and I do flow cross-x for novice rounds.
2. Remember LD is a value based competition so I expect to hear both a value and a value criterion and for you to link all arguments back to your value and criterion
3. I don't make the links for you - you don't link it, it doesn't exist
4. Signpost your attacks
5. Speaker Points - 30 - You are God; 29-29.9 - I expect you to be the BEST speaker at the tournament; 28-28.9 - I expect you to win a speaker award; 27-27.9 - Top half of the tournament field; 26-26.9 - bottom half of the tournament field; 25 or lower you didn't prepare or didn't care. 20 or lower - you were blatantly offensive or used racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, misandrist or ableist language.
6. I'm not too fond of theory cases as I would like to see proof in debates
7. I don't expect a national type debate so try to stay calm and let's have fun :)
8. Please do not forget impacts at the in your rebuttals for BOTH sides.

pronouns: she/her/hers

Hey! I'm a third year at Emory University, and I did PF for four years in high school on the national and local NC circuit. I'm now a Policy debater on Emory's team. Debate is absolutely my favorite activity, and it makes me happy. Overall, I hope you enjoy the round/have fun.

Include me in the email chain! mirandawwilson@gmail.com

Policy:

-Ks: I do not think I am very good for the K because most of the literature is unfamiliar to me. Feel free to strike me. However, I will vote for the K if it is well-explained and well argued. I really value a detailed/comprehensive explanation of the alt and why that is better than the plan. If I don't understand what your alt does, I prob won't vote for the K.

Taken from @Emilyn Hazelbrook's paradigm (which I largely agree with in it's entirety):

-K Affs: Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

-Topicality: I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

-Theory: Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

-Counterplans: I lean neg on most questions of competition (minus consult cps). If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2nrs won't spend 2 minutes extending a losing cp.

-Disadvantages: Actually compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

-Case: Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Public Forum:

-I will vote off the flow, but I have to buy your argument. For example, if you extend something all the way into final but it's not warranted/explained I won't vote off of it. Rather than "tech over truth" or "truth over tech", I'm more of a tech should equal truth (if that makes sense?).

-The flow is important to me but so is narrative. When determining speaks, I will look at how effectively you combined evidence with rhetoric.

-I can handle speed, but do not spread.

-Please frontline in second rebuttal!

-I will not flow disads in second rebuttal. Rebuttal is not the time to add in a third contention or argument, it is a time for defense.

-The same cards/arguments/weighing need to be extended in both summary and final focus. Please give me a clear weighing mechanism and explain it! It will make my job much easier.

-Signpost!!!!!!!!!

-I find historical precedent extremely important and love when it's argued in round. I also love framework debates; I think good framework can be used really effectively (same thing as above though, I have to buy it).

-I love unique arguments!! However, I do not have much experience with theory, and I don't think PF is necessarily the place for it. I'm willing to hear it, but I can't promise you'll be happy with how I evaluate it.

-Please don't misinterpret evidence. I'm begging you. There are so many articles out there. Find a piece of evidence that says what you want it to say instead of misconstruing. Don't be surprised if I call for evidence at the end of a round, especially if it gets indicted.

-To extend evidence you don't necessarily have to extend the citation, just make sure the content of the card stays consistent.

-I hate when arguments get muddled. If you don't have a good response, then just try to outweigh: don't muddle.

-I don't mind if you skip grand cross because it's awkward if no one has any questions. I won't flow first and second cross, but I will consider it for speaks, etc.

Miscellaneous:

-Be respectful. I have dealt with a lot of sexism during my time in debate, and if you are condescending in anyway I will dock your speaks. Any racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments and you will automatically lose.

-If you don't know someone's pronouns in round (they have not explicitly said them), it's probably best to default to they/them. I do appreciate when debaters post their pronouns before round in the chat.

-I will disclose and give an RFD if both teams want/the tournament allows.

-If your opponent didn't drop an argument, then don't say they dropped it. Also, don't extend through ink.

-Feel free to ask any questions after the round!

-Have fun:)

Debated PF for 5 years for Ivy Bridge Academy, Columbus High School, and Alliance Academy. I'm currently a junior in high school. Qualled to TOC both years.

Flow Judge. Tabula Rasa. Tech>Truth

I give high speaks. I think speaks are silly and super subjective and don't reflect your skill as a debater. I'm not trying to be that judge who tanks your total. I'll give 30's if you give good rhetoric and clearly speak. *If I think you're the best debater in the round, auto 30*

Please, please, please, please weigh. Weighing makes judging a million times easier. Please either respond to your opponents weighing, metaweigh, or do comparative weighing.

Do not bring up any new arguments into FF's if they weren't in summary.

I like ev docs more than email chains.

Extend warrants. If I can't explain your argument to myself, I'm not voting on it.

Second Rebuttal should frontline everything. Args will be considered conceded if they are not.

Speed shouldn't be too much of a problem. If you plan on spreading, send a doc.

DO NOT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS.They take away from the entire purpose of public forum. I think the majority of teams who read progressive arguments read them as silver bullets to win rounds instead of advocating for "better norms". You'll get auto dropped if you read theory, k, tricks etc.

Crossfire is trivial. If everyone agrees, you can take three minutes of prep instead of doing cross. If you do decide to engage in cross, I'll listen but if you want me to evaluate an argument, bring it up in a speech.

Don't be a jerk. This doesn't only apply to cross but the round as a whole. It's very hard to vote for you if I don't like you as a person. Let people talk in cross, don't continually interrupt (there are exceptions i.e. if your opponents avoid the question or go on tangents),

Going overtime is a pet peeve. I'll stop flowing after about 10 seconds.

No sticky defense.

Please signpost clearly. If I do not know where you are on the flow, I probably won't flow it.

Don't misconstrue evidence.

Turns are op but if you want me to vote on it, please weigh it.

I don't really like doc botting. Its cringe

I like intuitive strategies. Collapse effectively. One fleshed out contention >> Multiple contentions that lack narrative

I'll disclose after round

he/him

If anyone reading this feels that debate or the debate community isn't a safe place for them and wants someone to talk to about it, no matter how small the issue, please reach out. If I or someone I know has made you feel unsafe, please do not hesitate to let me know so I can attempt to rectify the situation and/or change my behavior. You can email me, message me through any social media platform, or talk to me.

Please produce an email chain and add me to it: zimmerlukew@gmail.com

My Philosophy:

Do as you please and I will try my best to meet both teams where they are at. I'm happy with debates fast/slow, K or theory/traditional, quoted/paraphrased, and appreciate most styles of PF.

Strategic Praxis in Front of Me:

• Less is more. Please collapse. You can win almost any debate in front of me by going for like, two arguments; maybe 3.
• Probability weighing is mid. If an argument isn't probable, you should simply answer the link. Probability is derived from the link debate, not your new defense in second summary or innate disbelief in something.
• Lemme hear some warrants.
• Your weighing should reflect an intimate understanding of your arguments. You should thoroughly research and ponder the relative importance of the arguments you're preparing; your resulting weighing in the debate should be evidence-based and meet the same rigor as any other argument.
• I politely request that someone -- anyone -- simply answer their opponents' weighing.