I debated all through high school. I am a pretty laid-back judge, I was the first speaker so I pay very close attention to the summary and final focus. If you don't carry information through both the summary and final focus I will consider it dropped. I'm fairly decent with speed but remember this isn't LD and please try to avoid spreading.

Just a regular Dad who loves to support school activities, like Speech & Debate. First time judging Worlds (3 time PF judge). I value clarity, teamwork and risk taking. Not a big fan of hyperbole. Don't waste my time. I could be skiing right now.

Hello!! I'm Vritika

I compete in Open Public Forum at Tahoma High School and am well versed in debate terms, timings, topics, and speaking skill.

As a result, if you must speak quickly, I can most likely stay up to pace with what you are saying. Too fast however and it will simply be unintelligible. Furthermore, speak at a good pace as well as clearly. With Novice teams, I am fairly lenient with talking speed and annunciation, understanding it may be more difficult as a beginner (I was there too ❤️)

As for timings. I expect everyone to know the timings and stay within your speech limits. However, in an attempt to perhaps speak more clearly and slow your words down, going 10-15 seconds over your time limit is okay with me. If you go >15 seconds over, I will interrupt you and ask you to wrap it up.

Biggest thing, I expect and hope you will, rather than spreading (for teams who don't know, spreading is giving so many tiny arguments that your opponent could hardly refute them all), choose quality in your arguments. I am looking not for a case/rebuttal pinpointing many different things, but a concise and direct argument and a genuine argument of why your quality argument flows through. I choose attacking/harping on a few key points over small and useless arguments any day.

Be assertive during cross x. Be polite but don't hold back.

This seems to be an issue with a lot of parent judges but, any impacts/points that are not dropped by the opposing team WILL flow through, assuming you flow them through in your speeches as well. Anything not flowed through your speeches will be dropped. Parent judges don't usually do it but it's the true way to do it.

With Novice once again, DO NOT bring up new evidence in Second Summary or ANY Final Focus. Asking for cards will not cut out of your 3 minute prep times.

I am a first speaker and will be judging summary heavily. Make note that it is the most important speech in the round.

I am so excited to judge and I promise to give ample feedback on both Tabroom and after the round is complete. Bonus points if you have made it this far: I will give you high speaks (like really high speaker points) if you make a very noticeable Justin Bieber reference. I'm a Beliber all the way.

HAVE FUN ❤️

Hello, I competed for three years in public forum and did some speech.

As a debater and speaker, I want to understand you and be able to keep up with your flow. I speak fairly fast and can understand you but cannot flow as fast. So talk at no more than a 6-7 speed-wise. Please speak clearly so that I can understand your points and flow them.

Please keep your speeches on time and do not go much longer, and try to fill the time given to you. Please use evidence to back up your claims and weigh them. I want to hear the warranting and impacts.

Some rules, be confident in your speeches, friendly to others, no yelling or name calling, and just do your best!

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

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

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

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

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

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

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

Hello,

My name is Dan Chen. I place significant value on quality of argumentation, particularly with solid sourced evidence, personal logical analysis, and find your competitor’s logical fallacies. Be coherent. Speed is fine as long as everyone in the competition is happy with that. I try to focus on the debate itself and throw away my own opinion the topic.

Thank you! And good luck!

Hi, my name is Ethan.

I have not done a public forum in a long time, so please bear with me.

I am generally good at keeping pace with fast talkers, so feel free to speak fast.

Overall, I expect to hear concise and thoughtful arguments in your speeches.

Do not have new evidence in the second summary or either final focus. You get 3 minutes of prep time.

If you use the word watermelon in your speeches, I will give you high speaker points

Overall, be clear, be concise, and be good people. Have fun

- Ethan

This is my second year in Public Forum. I've researched this topic, so I know the gist of it and I'm okay with some spreading, as long as you clearly enunciate and signpost well.

Please make sure to signpost, especially in the Rebuttal and all following speeches. (Signposting is when you say what contention you are addressing.)

I would apricate respect and kindness towards your opponents, I don't mind if you get exited during cross examination, just don't be mean.

It's alright if you are nervous, I get it. Just take a deep breath and keep going.

Your speaking skills will be reflected in your speakers points. (Not the outcome of the round, unless it is a close tie.)

The way you win the round is when the points that flow through have the larger impact and clearest argumentation.

Be sure to include evidence backing your arguments and counterarguments.

I also don't flow cross, so be sure to bring any important details for statements up again.

Please ask me before round what my rules will be. Changes depend on the event and whether it's open or novice. Please be respectful, no phones out in the round. I'm here for you so know even if I'm not smiling, I'm cheering you on.

PF: Main things I'll be voting on is quality not quantity of arguments. Don't drop arguments just because your opponent did. If you have a card for something, tell me the evidence don't just tell me you read me a card. Explain through your arguments, give me clear impacts. If you really want to win, make sure that I know why. If you are disrespectful in xc, I will bump down speaks.

Hello, I am a lay parent judge with one year of judging experience in Public Forum. I am new in judging congressional debate. English is not my first language.

Truth > Tech. Please speak at a reasonable pace. I will be taking notes but not flowing. Please do not be rude. No debate jargon. Please do not post round me.

Make your arguments make sense to me. If I still do not understand the logic of your argument at the end of the round, I will not vote for it (or I'll have a hard time voting for it).

Please do not just say "drop their Contention One because..." I will not drop it unless you tell me very clearly WHY I should drop it or why it's important.

Speaking matters. Be clear and confident. Realize that I won't understand your argument if I can't hear your argument.

Tell me very clearly why I should vote for you.

At the end of the day, this is a high school activity. Try to have fun and don't give me or your opponents a hard time :)

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging on this topic. Please time yourselves, and make sure to stay within the time limits. I will stop flowing if you go over the time.

If you want to win, I need to understand what you are saying. If you want to speak fast, speak clear.

I value well written arguments. If the core argument does not make sense, even with no refutation against it, I cannot guarantee I will vote for it. Even so, make sure you are prioritizing touching on all of your opponent's points down the flow. I think that using evidence or logic as a refutation is good, as long as it makes actual sense with realistic backing.

I will listen in on crossfire, so make sure you are able to answer questions and understand your own case, but I will not flow cross or vote on arguments brought up in crossfires. Make sure to further them in later speeches.

Again, I understand the need to cut people off in cross, but please be sure to stay respectful to your opponents.

Former high school policy debater.

First time judging in over a decade.

Flow judge, I like clash.

Please do not run arguments you do not understand.

I’ll vote on what you tell me to vote on, weigh the impacts.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM (Policy Paradigm Below)

I AM A FLOW JUDGE. The Flow will Decide all things.

I was a policy debater in high school.
I have judged both policy debate and public forum debate at multiple tournaments.

Feel free to ask me anything before the round. I am open to all speaking styles and open minded about arguments. I try to keep my own bias out as much as possible.

Cross-X
I do not have strong opinions about cross.
This is a chance to clarify, question, and have direct interaction with your opponents.
I do not flow cross-X, but I do listen. Anything stated in cross-x only becomes binding if it's brought into the round via a speech.

GENERAL
If you are going to be jumping around it helps to tell me where to flow your arguments. Example "now go to their card/argument about x and my responses are as follows" I am also fine with off time road maps and sign posting as you go.

Make as many arguments as you like. I am not afraid of a bit of speed/spreading. However, keep it within reason. I feel most PF debate rounds would benefit from fewer arguments, replaced with better analysis and more clash. The more depth, the better.

Timeframe arguments and frameworks.

This keeps coming up. Please do not tell me to vote on timeframe unless your impacts come first and are more likely. If your impact is extinction, that is fine, but if it is an uncertain future impact, you really want me to weigh on something else, probably Magnitude.

Unless you tell me how to weigh arguments, I default to weighing Impacts on magnitude and scope above other considerations.

I take source and date into consideration when choosing between cards. Good analysis helps.

I won't call for cards unless there is significant disagreement on what the card says, and it factors into voting. NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and the date (minimum) so you should do that if you want me to accept evidence as "legally presented"

Your evidence should agree with your tags. Mis-tagging, or power tagging makes me grumpy as a flow judge. I have seen a fair amount of this lately, though often it is unintentional.
Just remember, A good tag is taken from what the card actually says.

I prefer clash, but if your opponent refuses to address your arguments, please extend them. Tell me to pull arguments across. note why they matter and point out when they are dropped. If both teams completely drop arguments in rebuttal, I am less likely to resurrect them onto the flow in final focus.

Important for Public Forum, I am not keen on running Kritik's or other theory arguments. Those do not fit well in PF. Please save those for other formats like Policy.






POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

General Note.
If you run your arguments in order down the flow top to bottom in the same order as they were originally presented, you do not need to sign post. Please Warn me with a road map if you are going to jump all over.

When you are refuting a specific argument or card from your opponent, I prefer you call it out as you go.
I don't want to make the mistake of flowing arguments unlinked or in the wrong place.

Prima Facie Stock Issues. If Aff meets their prima facie burden and avoids or defeats outweighing Dis-Ads, Counterplans, etc. Then Aff wins the ballot.

Neg needs to attack the Aff position with some real menace. I like on-case arguments from the Neg, but it is not mandatory to win. A single off case argument that links well to the Aff case and has heavy impacts can be enough to outweigh and win.

I will pull off case Neg arguments that are dropped by Aff and weigh them as voting issues if prompted. Aff - I need at least a blurb in defense for each off-case position, even if it is only summary. If neg claims your plan causes teddy bears to explode, thus impairing children while yelling "wont someone please think of the children!", spend the 10 seconds it takes to tell me there is no demonstrable link, or evidence for this. If you do not, I am automatically weighing explosive bears as an impact for the Neg.

Aff - Pull your Solvency and Impacts through to rebuttals. If something is clean dropped by Neg, I am happy to weigh it for you in voting so long as you tell me to. Please do not assume that I am going to weigh every piece of evidence presented in the 1AC if I never hear about it after that.

NEG - Beware of overly abusing the Neg block. I allow new argument and evidence in the 2NC. However, I prefer not to see 8 minutes of completely new evidence in the 2NC followed by 5-minutes of extensions in the 1NR.
If there is no way the 1AR can address the amount of bomb you drop on them in the Neg block, then there is no way I am going to punish them for it and will take it into account when voting.
AFF - if this happens, just cry abuse, point out the new stuff and then address what you have time for the best you can.

TOPICALITY Warning, I have big feels about T.

Neg - Do not run topicality arguments on clearly topical cases. I allow some flexibility for Aff in meeting the resolution.
If you run T for 30 seconds and then spend 7.5 minutes running through dozens of case-specific and off-case cards, you clearly have sufficient ground.
If I suspect this is simply a time suck mechanism that you just kick out of after being refuted, I'll be grumpy about it and will consider a Reverse Voting Issue argument from Aff.

Always run T on non-topical cases.
If a case is non-topical, commit to your topicality argument and give it some real care. I want to hear the contempt you hold for an Aff refusal to debate the resolution properly. You showed up ready to debate against the resolution and the Aff wants to talk about clowns on unicycles instead. Blast-em.
I like when you provide definitions for and underline words in the resolution you feel the Aff has neglected specifically.

K & THOERY

Everything is on the table. If you run an argument about how sock puppets help improve the educational side of debate and provide sock puppets for everyone to use while speaking, I am fine with it.

Two words of warning on K & Theory.

1. Please do not turn the entire debate into theory only. Let's at least have an attempt by both sides to debate the resolution.

2. Please do not run arguments about how debate is bad. We all showed up for just that purpose. It is tiresome to argue that the activity we are all engaged in voluntarily is somehow inappropriate. I do not like it, will not flow it, and will not vote on it.

Lauren Gardner (Hillard)

LD: My origins are as an LD debater but I debated in the early 2000s. Because of this, I am a fairly tradition LD judge. What this means for me: Weigh everything through the framework and link arguments back to the value and criterion. Prove to me why you win based on the framework. I do not love the debate strategies that are traditionally policy debate (Kritiks, things leading to nuclear war etc). However, if they are argued clearly and well, I won't let that affect my decision if you clearly win based on those points.

Both LD/Public Forum:

While my origins are in LD, I have been judging Public Forum for 16 years.

I do not flow cx/crossfire. Bring up any arguments based on what happened in cx later in your speeches.

Speed: speed is fine within reason. Make sure that you are clear and enunciating properly.

Be respectful of your opponents.

Be clear.

Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards. *For this January/February topic I understand it is essentially a Policy topic in LD so to be fair on this that doesn't mean I can't understand progressive LD but like shown in my Policy Paradigm above I have disclosed what I am cool with and what biases I have tread carefuly if you don't read it thoroughly.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.

2023-2024: Engage me with your thoughts, arguments, questions, and personality. I want you to leave an impression, to know you're passionate about the topic at hand. Although I'm judging, remember you have the floor, it is your space...OWN IT.

Be respecful to your competitor during this process. Speed doesn't bother me as long as you can articulate your points well.

A great debater is like a skilled artisan, meticulously crafting compelling arguments and presenting them with eloquence and finesse. They possess a deep understanding of the subject matter.

Great debaters are not just assertive; they are active listeners, attuned to the nuances of their opponents' arguments, ready to counter with the precision. Their words carry weight, like a seasoned poet who weaves verses that resonate with both reason and emotion.

Flexibility is their forte, adapting to the shifting tides of discourse with the agility of a seasoned dancer. They navigate the complexities of the debate floor with the strategic acumen of a grandmaster playing a chess match, always thinking several moves ahead.

What sets a great debater apart is not just their ability to argue persuasively but their commitment to intellectual integrity with confidence.

In essence, a great debater is a multifaceted performer. They elevate the debate from a mere exchange of words to a captivating performance, leaving a lasting impression on both the audience and their intellectual adversaries.

-Parent Judge

-First year as a Judge

-Have judged a few tournaments

-Appreciate conversational speaking pace and not too rushed

-If in doubt, please ask me, I am accommodating to your needs like timing, prep etc.. :)

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!

Experience: I debated Public Forum in high school for four years.

email: jackmadeoy@outlook.com

Delivery: Speed is fine so long as you enunciate and have adequate volume. I will give you an indicator if you are going too quickly or being too quiet. I can not flow what I can not hear or understand.

Public Forum Paradigm:

I will do my best to keep up with the current topic and will certainly have some knowledge. However, assume I know very little going into the round so please explain events as if I were a lay judge. I want to know why something is of relevance and how much it should be considered throughout the round. Please self-time and try to be as quiet as possible during prep. I find it rather obnoxious when one team is talking quite loudly while everyone is attempting to concentrate. I also have no problem with jargon.

Framework: Please only utilize this if you actually have the intention of using it and can explain why it is of relevance to the round. If no valid explanation is provided I will not take it into consideration.

Evidence: The expectation is that your evidence is carded properly and from a credible source. Please sight cards as needed (especially during the constructive) but don't go overboard and keep it to a minimum during your summary and final focus. Nevertheless, I will take any argument into consideration regardless of evidence (within reason) so long as it is vilified by logical explanations. Note, that I will look at all cards that are contested at the end of the round, and misconstruing or outright lying about evidence will heavily way on my final decision. Also, if you make an argument that is blatantly false or uses verifiably false information such as the current Prime Minister of Canada is Ryan Reynolds or the U.S. economic system is communistic I will not take it into consideration.

Crossfire: I don't flow cross so anything of relevance that occurs during this time please bring it up in your following speeches. Despite this, I will certainly be listening so please don't spend time calling for cards. You can call for cards outside of speeches without any impact on your prep time. Use this time to ask questions of relevance or to trap your opponent, this can affect/shape the entire round!

Etiquette: Obviously be respectful to your opponent and do not personally attack them. However, I really don't care if you're a bit rude and find a clever quip to be hilarious!

Winning the Round: I consider Summary and Final Focus to be the two most important speeches. Anything that is not brought up in these two speeches I will not take into consideration for my final decision. Do not bring up new evidence/arguments passed the second Summary unless in response to new arguments brought up in the first Summary. I consider impact calculus to typically be the deciding factor in rounds but your warranting/narrative needs to be sound. Whether it may be a link-turn or extension, explain why it is of relevance and why it is superior to the opponents' argument. I highly recommend you don't spend time on arguments you are losing and just explain the ones you actually have a shot at winning. It will save you time and effort and will give you the best chance at winning a few arguments rather than losing everything.

Speaker Points: These can be helpful indicators of how decent of a speaker someone is or completely ludicrous based on the opinions of people who have no idea what they are doing. So if the round is good I will honestly just give everyone high marks. Also, if you give a clever Prequel reference or make me genuinely laugh, I will give you an automatic 30. Other references such as other Star Wars films (tread carefully with the Sequels), Marvel, DC, etc will get you high speaker points as well. If '30s are not achieved by everyone I will go based on enunciation, speaker ability, and quality of speech and then add any additional points achieved. If you have questions about different references please go ahead and ask.

The biggest piece of advice I can give is to not take this too seriously (like me) and have fun with it. The more fun and relaxed you are the better you will do. Also, feel free to ask questions regarding my paradigm or anything I may have missed. Best of luck!

I'm Madeline, I've competed in public forum and I'm excited to be here.

Please speak clearly and be kind and respectful to your opponents. Be confident in your words but no yelling please.

I don't like when people interrupt their opponents during cross. Also I will not be flowing cross.

Evidence and explanations are important to me.

Make sure your impacts are clear. If your opponents don't understand what you're saying I don't either.

Good luck and have fun!

I judged Public Forum 2 years ago for one online tournament and a single round of LD last year. With this level of experience, I personally still consider myself a novice judge and wouldn’t claim to be more.

Be aware that my hearing, while not horrible, is sadly not great. Please refrain from spreading. I will dock points if I can’t understand what you are saying. While I understand the need to fit a lot of information into a short period of time, please articulate and speak clearly. Otherwise, I will miss key points which may affect my ability to take notes and ultimately in my overall decision-making.

This is a learning experience and I don't expect perfection. I don’t normally give feedback at the end of rounds as it takes me a while to fill out the paperwork and I don’t want the tournament to drag on longer because of my pace. I also am not big on spectators. Understand that I may ask them to leave as with my hearing, I try to avoid any potential distractions as I need to concentrate on the speakers. During the round, please be nice, keep it civil, and don't be rude.

This is my third debate tournament judging. For best results speak slowly with an economy of words.

I'm a parent judge. Professionally, I'm a former patent litigator who now manages a number of litigations around the world.

I have no hard and fast rules and wish to let each participant present their arguments how they see fit. That said, I do have a few pointers:

• Slow down. If you are speaking so fast that I can't understand you, I can't understand you. That's not persuasive and also suggests you can't prioritize good arguments from just any argument that comes into your head.
• It will not kill you to acknowledge when your opponents have a good argument. It is much better to point out why their argument shouldn't prevail even though it has some initial appeal than to pretend it is a weak argument. Preserve your credibility at all times.
• Always be respectful to your opponents, even if you think their arguments are insane or utter nonsense.
• There's a well-known saying among litigators: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither...pound the table." There's a lot of truth to it. So if I see you pounding the table, it's not a sign of how passionate you are, it's an implicit admission you know your arguments are weak.

- I prefer well-developed arguments with solid evidence over a multitude of weak arguments.

- I greatly appreciate debaters who signpost.

- I do not appreciate debaters who spread, use fallacious arguments and/or misrepresent their evidence.

- I appreciate debaters who focus on the broader implications of their contentions and clearly explain why their arguments matter in the real world.

- I value active crossfire engagement. Debaters should use crossfire to clarify, challenge, and highlight weaknesses in their opponents' arguments.

- I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and maintain good eye contact with the judges . I prefer speakers who balance passion with professionalism, avoiding excessive aggression or rudeness; rudeness will result in lower speaking points.

- I prioritize well-sourced, relevant, and recent evidence in evaluating the strength of arguments. I prefer debaters who not only provide evidence but also explain the context and implications of the evidence in relation to their arguments.

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!

Hello!

I am a senior at Tahoma High School, and a beginner judge with the speech and debate program. I am at the moment unfamiliar with most speech and debate jargon, so avoid using ultra-specific terms if at all possible. That being said, I am involved as a member of Tahoma's We The People civics debate team, and am relatively well-versed in politics. Don't shy away from case or legal terminology, and be willing to demonstrate a well-rounded knowledge in your case.

My number one rule is to keep the round civil. Talking over your opponent, showing disrespect in any form, or otherwise not being a good sport will reflect poorly on you, and there is no benefit to doing so.

Additionally, I value quality over quantity, so avoid spreading out a modicum of various points and focus on emphasizing the most airtight sections of your case.

While I can listen quickly, please do your best to speak clearly and with understanding, and I will not stop you if you veer within 5~ overtime because you slowed your rate of speech.

Make sure I know why your argument matters, give weight to your points and express reasoning as to why your side is a clear winner.

Thank you, have fun, and good luck!

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

competed PF all throughout high school for Bellevue

consider me a flay judge, I'll flow but I most likely won't catch everything

- I have to write feedback, I'll flow constructive on paper, don't worry I'm still listening when I type feedback after constructive speeches

- please be kind in cross, but don't let the other team walk over you. I like a heated cross, but no insults thrown pls ????????

- I don't flow cross, but I'm listening

- no Ks or anything crazy, I'm not tryna work my brain too hard

- NO MUMBLE RAPPING or else I will start crying and throwing up in round and make ur speaks 0

- please interact with the opponent's case, don't assume I know everything you're talking about, and WEIGH

- truth>tech

- be kind and have fun, bring me food or compliment me every time u start prep for +1 speaks (u can tell me my hair looks nice or smth)

-NO NUCLEAR WAR PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

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.

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.

Hi, I'm David Zeng, a high school senior. I mainly do speech and I'll be judging novice LD.

Spreading is fine. No theory plz.

Be mature, be good to people.

• I flow

• Im okay with speed, I am not okay with mumble rapping

• run wtv u want just keep in mind I will unlikely vote for tricks or frivolous theory

• don't bang the table at any moment

• General preferences :

Rabula Tesla, BS>truth>tech, I define BS as any words that come out of my mouth so please quote me to win.

Second re-bundle must line-front and first summary must extend deed feces.

I will literally be weighing your arguments in a round by bringing in a scale. Print out your cases and put them onto the scale. Whoever’s arguments weigh heavier are the ones I will look to first. The same applies to extensions. Every time you extend an argument, please stretch the argument on the piece of paper or else it will not be evaluated. Longer extensions win rounds. As for collapsing, sadly the tournament told me I cannot encourage kids to faint in rounds. Sorry. No collapsing in my rounds or else I will have to report you to tab for my own safety.

Speed:

Unfortunately, with my debate experience, I have developed a fervent dislike of normal speed speeches. If you don't go over 300 wpm, i will give you very low speaks.

Progressive:

As a flay congressional debater, I do not understand Prog. However, I do understand Pog, so if you can yell pog as many times as you read your progressive arguments, I will vote on them. (Example: a is the pog interp, debaters must not poggly paraphrase. B is the pog violation: they paraphrased poggly.)

Speaks:

I believe everything in life has to be earned step by step so speaks start at a prompt 0 and go up .01 for everything you did that I liked. If you have ever done the wonderful art known as congressional debate, your speaks will start at promptly -1. This is a simulation for the real world in which nothing will come easily.

Cross: Debate is an activity that prepares you for the real world. In the real world, you WILL have people who yell at you when they ask questions. So naturally, you MUST be louder to win those confrontations. Thus, whoever yells louder in cross will get +5 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