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

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

Put me on the email chain jackbruey@gmail.com

About me:

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

How I judge:

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

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

How you should debate:

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

For EVERYONE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I have judged Speech events for the past 2 years and started judging PF events in the 23-24 school year. I am very comfortable listening to different types of arguments and different opinions, I would like everyone to keep in mind that if I cannot follow your train of thought because you're going too quickly, I would not be able to utilize that information in my judging. Please be mature and respectful to each other. Thank you!

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 !!

This may or may not be helpful, so feel free to read it if you would like. It's also very long... but worthwhile, I think.

If you choose to read this, it means I am your judge. My email is marmadukezgen@gmail.com you can use this to share files if needed.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

• I have been debating in Georgia for three years (give or take...), so I understand the gist of the event. However, I want to stress that this is a persuasion-based competition, not an imaginary rap battle against Eminem. DO NOT SPREAD- While I don't mind a fast-paced delivery, you must speak clearly. Please keep in mind that if your argument becomes difficult to understand, I will deduct speaker points and stop listening. I will flow all speeches except for cross-examination (CX). Therefore, if you fail to mention any points made during CX, it will not be my responsibility.

• How to Win: It is crucial to tie everything in your LD case to your Value and Value Criterion. This is what distinguishes us from other competitors. LD is a philosophy-based event, so it is vital to refer back to your V/VC and organize your case accordingly. Referring to your Value and Value Criterion is essential to succeed in this event. Also, ensure that there are credible links between your cards and your case, and extend your cards as required. I will be judging the round off of impact-weighing and linkage.

Public Forum Debate

Totally original.

• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

General Points/Basics:

• Clash: This is a crucial topic that requires discussion, even though I know it may be too early for you and you would rather stay in bed and watch Spongebob. However, it's important to argue your points well and refute your opponent's, as it will benefit you in the long run. I suggest debating each point thoroughly and going down the flow, as I learned from experience that it's necessary. While I prefer framework and impact-weighing debates, definitions are also important at times, although they are not required as often.

• Signpost: This is essential to the flow of the round, so keep that in mind when you are countering your opponent's case (rebuttal) and rebuilding your case.

• KNOW YOUR CASE!!! From my experience, it's important to act like you know what you're talking about even if you wrote it at 3 a.m.

• Time: Please use your prep time wisely, and most importantly use all of your speech time.

• This is important because it's here twice :) DO NOT SPREAD- While I don't mind a fast-paced delivery, you must speak clearly. Please keep in mind that if your argument becomes difficult to understand, I will deduct speaker points and stop listening.

Speaker Points (Unless told otherwise)

30: You altered my perception of what is achievable during a debate or accomplished something truly revelatory with the subject. Your speaking manner demonstrates a complexity that would capture a theater full of people's attention.

29-29.9: I would anticipate you to be in the tournament's late eliminations because you are a top-tier speaker and thinker. You are pondering the subject at a very high level.

28-28.9: Compared to the stock instances I usually hear on a specific topic, your speech demonstrated much more thought than was typical. Your conversational style exudes confidence and grace.

27.27.9: This is what I mean when I say that this is the "perfect average." Even though the presentation wasn't very eye-catching, you did a nice job of building your case and presenting it.

26-26.9: Although you typically made a convincing point, your delivery and argumentation lacked sophistication.

22-25.9: Your argument was little supported, and your case and/or delivery were both confusing.

Under 21: You said or did something severely offensive, and will most likely be reported to Tabroom. sorry stink <3

PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER

It is important to remember that disrespect towards your opponent or me during a debate will result in a deduction of speaker points. In addition, I will immediately report any discriminatory behavior, such as LGBTQIA+phobia, racism, or sexism, to Tabroom. There will be zero tolerance for any form of discrimination or violence.

Upon reading this paradigm, I am pleased to inform you that you have earned an additional 0.5 speaker points.

If you have any questions do not ask me. Thank you for your time :) jkjk, ask me...

**between me and you... if you made a funny jokey joke... you earned yourself an extra speakey point**

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.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: 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, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

Generally looking for speaker/participants broader understanding of the topic and belief in the argument being presented.

Secondly, attentiveness to the opponents arguments, display the understanding and specifically counter those. And defending and building your case.

Finally, for my understanding, please send your first speech to my email: vikreddy2022@gmail.com

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

For Debate:

- I focus on the flow of the argument

- I look for clashing - I want to see competitors breakdown the opponent's argument

For Speech Events

I look at the creativity in the speech, but also listen for tone and inflection and to present a speech or performance to convince me in what you are saying.