For Lincoln-Douglas:

I am a traditional judge and since this is the local circuit, I frown upon any form of progressive arguments.

A few preferences;

1. First and foremost, do not spread. I will miss things that you are saying if you speak too fast and this will not be in your favor.
2. Please number and letter your contentions so that I can follow you.
3. Do the same for your final speeches - outline your voting issues clearly and convince me why you should win.
4. Finally, be respectful to your opponent and enjoy the round!

I did LD for 2 years and coached for another two at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I am now coaching debate at Oakland Catholic High School, and this is my first year back in a few years.

I'll vote on anything. However, if you're going to go for something, it must be extended in each speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused it is because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but I don't flow it.

Be confident but don't be rude, there's a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow), but you need to have both in order to win the round.

I will let you know if you are going too fast.

If you have any specific questions let me know and I'll be sure to answer them before the round.

I think of debate as an art of argument. The arguments that are formed by sound research, are well structured and conveyed clearly. I have judged congressional debate a few times in the last few years, big questions debate once but a lot of Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates. I have also judged almost all speech events. I enjoy all forms of speech and debate. I look for well researched, well structured arguments delivered clearly. I understand that students might need to go a little faster than the normal conversational pace but I hope it is not too fast. I also pay special attention to cross examination. This is a great opportunity to challenge your opponents arguments respectfully. I don't appreciate when a speaker does not give the other speaker a chance to question or launches into a big speech in response to a question. This results in monopolizing the time and talking over each other. Good luck to the teams!

I have done LD (both as a competitor and judge) for multiple years. When judging a round, I first evaluate which framework is left standing, and then I evaluate all impacts in the round under that framework. If you don't explicitly link the impact to the framework, then I won't do it for you. You will win the round if you can directly link your impacts to the winning framework and clearly show me, and tell me why, your impacts are better than your opponents.

If something is dropped, you have to tell me that it was dropped, and only then will I actually extend it. If you say something was dropped and it wasn't, I will not extend it, so don't make up drops. I can handle speed, but I prefer you speak at a conversational pace and definitely do not spread. If you do talk fast, make sure you are clear enough that I can actually follow along.

.

.

.

.

"Nah, I'd win"

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Matt (He/Him). I did LD for 3 years as my main event but I also did PA Parliamentary and World Schools. I am familiar with PF, but I am admittedly bad at it. I have been the LD Coach at Pgh Central Catholic HS since 2021. I've judged 162 rounds of LD, PF, Parli, and congress over the past 3 years on both the Pittsburgh-circuit level as well as State and National level break rounds.

Upper St. Clair '20 / Pitt '24

email: Matthew.hornak@gmail.com

TLDR: play nice, have fun, run whatever you want. I hate drops, think theory is usually unnecessary, want a strong framework debate, and won't buy impacts in LD that belong in PF/Policy.

NOTES ON DEBATE / CASES:

1. Framework. I understand dropping your frameworks when they are similar and debating them would just waste time. HOWEVER, framework is the heart of LD and what sets it apart from the other debates. Maintain that.

2. I like APPLICABLE philosophy.By all means run out of the ordinary things like Anarchy, AfroPess, Buddhist ethics, whatever you can think of. Just give me convincing reason to care about you bringing it up. Creativity in the framework is only gonna help you if you use it to weigh your impacts and extend it through the round. As for progressive stuff, run a K / theory if you think it'll actually lead to a substantive debate (don't steamroll some poor novice).

3.Evidence Ethics. Use scholarly and reputable sources. Don't expect a singular dropped card to win you a round. That being said, try and directly rebut line-by-line as much as possible. I prefer line-by-line to thematic, overarching arguments. If your opponent calls for evidence, you've got one minute to produce it -- I will heavily consider dropping you full stop for not being able to do so. I don't need you guys to do email chains but I also don't mind them, so do what you want.

4. Extinction/unweighted Impacts. I do not buy extinction impacts. they are inherently unweighable: how will causing or preventing infinite deaths ever be comparable to issues of inequality, justice, and morality? those arguments, if you chose to make them, need to be so excruciatingly clear and logical. After all, LD is rarely talking about the extreme ends of slippery slopes, but the grey area between both sides.

5. Cross-Apply. If you are going to say cross-apply a contention, you need to say more about why I prefer your contention over your opponent. I simply won't flow it and treat it as a drop if you just say "cross-apply" and leave it at that.

NOTES ON SPEECHES / SPEAKING:

1. Speed. I prefer slower, traditional style debate. If you need need need to spread, I can make it work for you, but I'd prefer you avoided it.

2. Speak respectfully. Debate is a space to explore and test ideas. Respect that ability for your competitor as well. Police your speech a little and try and avoid tropes that are easily misconstrued toward offensiveness. Before you come to a tournament, genuinely consider what positions you advocating; even if you are running "main arguments" of the topic, consider how your rhetoric may be implicitly xenophobic, racist, sexist, etc. ((in 2023, I heard "migrants will bring disease and copious amounts of crime" more times than I can count)). If your opponent is being rude and offensive, handle it professionally and if it is a genuine cause of concern for you, let me know privately post round / let tab know.

3. Drops are the necessary evil of debate, but they do not decide my rounds. If your final speech consists entirely of drops, I'm 90% sure I will not pick you up; your arguments are all why your opponent is bad, not why their arguments are bad or yours are any better. I still respect drops because those are the rules, but please don't hinge my decision on that.

OVERALL:

Have fun. not just as in "be happy when you win and remember its all learning Kiddos!!11!" I mean, crack some jokes, make me and your opponent smile! this isn't life or death it's 3 to 5 people sitting in a room way to early on a weekend. make this more bearable pleaseeeeee.

I am a parent judge, first year judging.

Tech over Truth

Speak slowly and clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying, I wont be able to flow your points.

Keep your own time and your opponents time.

Don't use debate terminology as I probably wont understand.

Use both statistics and logic in your arguments.

Clearly state in your last speech why you should win the round.

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

I have experience in Parli, PF, and LD debate and this is what I'll likely be judging you in. Please do not be rude or talk too fast. Speak clearly.

I value effective speech. I don't primarily vote off of it, but there is a minimum you must meet for me to understand and agree with you.

LD:

I am a traditional judge.

I would like to see effective use of framework and strongly consider framework debate in my decision. Explain the warrant for your cards as well, don't just list them as pure fact.

PF:

I am also a traditional PF judge. I expect a level of warranting with your cards, stating them as fact is acceptable because this is PF, but it will not get you as far as explaining their rationale and connection to your case. I also want to see reference to burdens when providing voters, explain why the resolution actor would like the voter.

PARLI:

Speak clearly. I value logical development of argument over pure statistics. Be sure to ask questions, and at least accept 1-2 POIs in a speech if offered the opportunity. I will make my decision on weighing of impacts based on the resolution burdens, so be sure to include these from the beginning, burdens are quite important.

Please don't do something that requires a topicality.

hey! i've competed in ld, parli, exd, and pf, and i'll most likely be judging you in one of these events.

-----

general:

you can speak however fast you'd like to as long as it doesn't affect clarity.

ld/pf:

i think prog args are cool but i probably won't understand them as well as you'd like me to, so i wouldn't recommend running them with me as your judge. however, if you still choose to, please make sure that your opponent is not a novice.

make sure to weigh impacts, extend arguments, and call out drops - i will rarely do the weighing/extending/dropping for you.

i appreciate quantitative impacts!!!! please do not solely use logic/create logical link chains with no evidence to back your claims up.

parli:

please don't do anything that calls for a blatant topicality, it defeats the purpose of the round.

be sure to ask/accept at least 1-2 questions per speech, but i won't penalize for not answering if you're short on time.

-----

any questions before or after the round can be emailed to me at k.pasrija1013@gmail.com.have fun and good luck!!

(i'll up ur speaks if u spin every time u say turn lol)

I am a traditional judge. I judge on the strength of your argument not my view of the topic. Logic and clarity of thought in your contention is important to me. Please speak clearly and at a pace so I can understand you and make eye contact.

Have fun!

I did debate for a few years in high school before shifting over to speech. In debate, I really value kindness and civility in round.

I am a traditional judge. Speak loudly, clearly, and please do not spread unless you are experienced enough that you can do it successfully.

flow judge; debated pf for 4 years

PF preferences:

General Round Info:

• I value warrants more than evidence (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to card your responses, however); every response and argument should have a warrant behind it.
• All turns should be weighed because they are independent reasons to vote for you.
• I will keep track of time, but I'm not too strict. You can go 5-10 seconds overtime in order to finish your last sentence.
• I'll only call for evidence if you tell me to AND if I think it's important to making my decision.
• Time your speeches! I'll time them too, but this helps you know what to cut out/add and how fast you should be speaking.

Case:

• Don't spread
• No friv theory, theory and progressive arguments are fine but I won't know how to evaluate them.
• I'm tech > truth. Even if what you say is blatantly false, but your opponents don't respond to it, it's considered true for the round.
• If you are running potentially sensitive arguments, please include a trigger warning.

Crossfire:

• Be respectful but also assertive.
• Any concessions in crossfire are binding
• Any concessions in cross must be brought up in speech in order for me to flow it
• When the time runs out, whoever is speaking can finish their thought (max 5-10 seconds more).

Rebuttal:

• Make sure to signpost and try to weigh as well.
• 2nd rebuttal should frontline and collapse.

Summary:

• Weighing is especially important in this speech (You should do the work for me in your speeches so I don't have to intervene).
• Make sure to be organized throughout the speech. You can do this by signposting as well as having a structure to your speech. Offtime roadmaps are encouraged.
• No new responses in 2nd summary.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Please extend your case.

Final Focus:

• Everything said in FF should have been in summary.
• Make sure to extend case and focus on weighing. (Look to the summary section for more specific information.)

I debated for four years at William Tennent High School, mostly LD (but I did a good amount of Policy as well). I am now an Assistant Coach at Pennsbury High School and a student of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. The details of my personal life may bore you, but I only include them so you can know that I am not completely clueless in the realm of debate.

To save your time and mine, I have attempted to reduce my judging philosophy to a handful of bullet-points:

>The most important aspect of my judging philosophy is tabula rasa.

>I keep a detailed flow and value line-by-line debate. I will probably notice if you drop something.

>I am fine with spreading. Just be sure to say taglines/author names clearly. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

>I love good framework debate. It's easier for me to pick a winner when I have a clear lens through which I can evaluate the round.

>I guess evidence is nice and a good thing to have. Extending that evidence throughout the round is also nice.

Feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. I will answer them to the best of my ability.

"As the biggest library if it is in disorder is not as useful as a small but well-arranged one, so you may accumulate a vast amount of knowledge but it will be of far less value to you than a much smaller amount if you have not thought it over for yourself..." - Arthur Schopenhauer

I am a traditional LD judge. I do not approve of theories or any other critiques. Please use simple language and while I can follow most spreading, if I cannot listen to you, it is your loss. I enjoy framework debating so try your best to weight under both frameworks. Lack of evidence is not a real rebuttal.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

A final note on LD - Lincoln Douglas is styled on an election debate - you are trying to get elected, persuade the judge to vote for you - you are not trying to cram in as many words as you can in hopes that one of them might give you the win, if only you speak so fast your opponent can't physically flow your speech.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

Hello!

I am a former speech competitor. I am going to try my best to flow this debate, so, spreading is not appreciated. I am definitely familiar with the basics of LD and PF.

Other Notes:

Please be respectful to everyone in the room (Before, During, and After Rounds)

In addition, please label all of your main arguments, and any new arguments brought up in the final speech will not be considered. I prefer when your final speech literally is clear to write my ballot.

Have fun, work hard, and good luck.

wisniewskitori@gmail.com