Your typical student judge I'm a senior at Fremd, and I have done debate since freshman year. Tech over truth! I am also not super well versed on the topic, but I know a little, so don't assume I just know what your argument is right away.

• Keep your own time and the round going
• START CROSS RIGHT AFTER SPEECHES, I WILL JUST STARE AT YOU UNTIL YOU START
• Try to make friends! or at least be respectful-- I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKS IF YOU ARE BEING RUDE
• Args must be extended and weighed for me to vote on it
• The more emphasis on weighing, the better
• I don't listen to cross; that's your time to understand or poke holes in an arg. Bring it up in speech if you want me to weigh it
• Good with speed but if you go too fast and I don't catch it, I just won't write it down
• SIGNPOST & OFFTIME ROADMAP
• Explain how you get to your impact
• voting issues in summary please
• Have fun! Take risks and LEARN!!!
• Ask questions after round if you have them, I would love to help you out!!!
• Use a stopwatch, NOT a timer with a ringer

Overall I am typically a flow judge, I will be flowing thoroughly and voting based on it. Signposting is very important and I think it's essential when it comes to keeping everything organized. I can track fast speaking decently however, do not speak super fast unless you can do it effectively and understandably. If I cannot understand you I cannot vote based on what you’re saying. Generally, I am more truth over tech but I don't focus too terribly much on it unless something is blatantly untrue or illogical. I put a lot of emphasis on respect in rounds, don't interrupt other people's speeches, and generally give respect to your opponents, I think this baseline respect is crucial in debate. I will start at a 28/27 for speaker points and work from there. Even if you win the round on the flow I will be less likely to vote for you if you’re rude or immature during the round. Please treat the people and topics of the round with adequate respect. Overall try your best and have fun! :)

Background:

Adlai E. Stevenson (IL) '23| Pronouns: he/him | Email:calamariye@gmail.com

Previously competed in PF for two years and LD for one with a little bit of experience in Congress. Currently a college student studying political science and economics.

Novice: Be nice and try your best, I'm ideally looking at how you frontline, extend, collapse, weigh, and crystallize ^-^. Have fun, no ad hominem attacks, be polite and don't stress/worry too much about speaking points, I generally give an average of a 28, round strategy + clarity + creativity will raise speaks.

Round Details:

Set up an email chain and send a card doc before each speech where you read new evidence. pdf/word good; Google docs okay.

I'm fine with decent speed, but if you're really unclear your speaks will probably tank. With that said, you must slow down if your opponents call "clear."

Yes, extend, but it's not a big deal to me. You don't need to extend card names. I just want to know what link(s) and impact(s) you're going for.

Judging Philosophy:

Ethics>Tech>Truth. Debate is a strategy game, but it should be fair. As a default, my ballot will come down to whichever team can show me the strongest link to the most important impact. You can read any argument in front of me with the caveat that poorly warranted arguments can get poorly warranted responses.

With that said, there are some things I'll always intervene against:

1. Bigotry - Saying anything overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. will be an automatic drop for obvious reasons.
2. Evidence Ethics- Distorting, fabricating, or clipping evidence is a drop. I don't actively monitor the doc and check every card, so it'll mainly be up to the debaters to point out any abuse.
3. Abusive Tactics - Includes but isn't limited to not slowing down after being told "clear," going egregiously overtime, reading new arguments in the back half, being unnecessarily rude to your opponents, etc. I won't drop you for something minor, but I'll definitely drop the arg or tank speaks.

(Borrowed from Michael Kirylau)

Speaks:

I don't agree with the philosophy of how speaks are generally graded. Personally, speaks will be determined by your strategy and signposting (as well as anything else mentioned here). locals avg = 28, nats avg = 28.5

Everything Else:

-- very little experience judging progressive debate (completely flay)

-- If no offense by final focus I will presume w coinflip or both teams can postround for 30 seconds (I'll ask you)

-- If you have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me

Hello! My name is Harris Dorgan. I'm judging for University High School, where I did PF debate for 4 years. I've technically judged debate for 3 years, but this year is my first judging more than a couple of tournaments.

For my overall philosophy on debate, I tend to let teams debate how they are prepared to debate,so things such as your decision to frontline is up to you. Also, I judge on my flow, so flow your responses through rebuttal, summary, and final focus.

Below, I have some points on other elements of debate.

Speed of delivery: As mentioned before, I did PF for 4 years so I can handle speed but I prefer clarity over quantity of arguments.

Format of summary speeches: I don't have any specific preferences other than that I like to see a clear structure. I don't necessarily care what that structure is, as long as I can see and understand the structure you choose.

Extension of arguments into later speeches: If a brand new argument is brought up in 2nd summary or later, I will not weigh it.

Argument vs style: I value argument and style equally.

Special Note For January Topic - Repeal Section 230:

In my opinion, this debate has two parts to it:

1. What is the proper interpretation of Section 230.
2. Given the above interpretation, what is the best course of action to take regarding its future and why.

Successful arguments will address both parts.

Good luck!

About me:

I am a relatively new parent judge with limited understanding of debate jargon. My day job is developing software for a financial services company.

My approach:

I think I would be best described as a flow judge. I don't flow cross fire (so don't use it to introduce arguments or evidence), but I listen to it to correct statements I may have misheard. That said, if you bring up a point in cross fire that is a new point, I expect that to be brought up in a subsequent speech in order for it to impact my decision.

I don't flow speed really well, so spread at your own risk.

I think I am tech > truth. If you do not address your opponents arguments, I will accept them as true.

As the round progresses I am looking for your team to:

1. Clearly state your contentions.
2. Support your contentions with at least 1 piece of evidence.
3. Tell me the impacts, their weight, and their probability.
4. Tell me why the collective weight and probability of your impacts out weigh your opponents'.
5. Respectfully refute your opponents' claims, evidence, weighing or probability as appropriate, preferably with counter evidence of your own.

I will drop your speaker points for rudeness. You can passionately debate the topic and still be respectful.

I don't understand theory and Kritiks so probably best not to use them with me.

Philosophy and Framework: As a judge, my primary role is to fairly assess the arguments presented by both debaters within the framework they have established. I am committed to neutrality and will not inject my personal beliefs or preferences into the decision-making process. My decision will be based on the strength of the arguments and the quality of their presentation.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Clarity and Communication: I value clear and effective communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively. Use of evidence, examples, and real-world applications will enhance your clarity.

2. Content and Argumentation: I expect debaters to present well-structured arguments supported by relevant evidence, logic, and reasoning. Each debater should provide clear contentions and warrant their claims.

3. Framework: I will assess the validity of the framework provided by both debaters. The framework should be relevant to the resolution and provide a logical basis for evaluating the arguments.

4. Rebuttal and Clash: Effective engagement with the opponent's arguments is essential. Debaters should identify and respond to key points made by their opponent. Point out logical fallacies, counter-arguments, or any inconsistencies in the opposing case, and do it without being rude.

5. Evidence and Citations: Citing credible sources to support claims is crucial. I will weigh the quality of evidence provided, as well as its relevance to the debate.

6. Impacts and Weighing: Debaters should clearly articulate the impacts of their arguments and explain why they matter. Comparative analysis of the impacts from both sides will be important in determining the winner.

7. Ethical Considerations: Respect for ethical standards in debate is essential. Misrepresentation of evidence, personal attacks, or other unethical behavior will negatively affect your evaluation.

Time Management: Both debaters are expected to adhere to the time limits and maintain a balance between constructive speeches and rebuttals. Make sure you're clearly signposting so I can follow along effectively.

Ultimately, I will base my decision on the strength of the arguments presented, the ability to engage effectively with the opponent's case, and the overall persuasiveness of each debater's position. Best of luck to both debaters, and I look forward to an engaging and insightful debate! You're going to rock it!!!

As your performance, preparedness, and effort on your debate is valued and admired, I do prefer quality vs quantity. This helps me consider all important points in order to make the best decision. Speed is not favorable for me.

If your side is con, facts or showing cards demonstrating why I should decide for con is important to convince.

Loreto Galvan-Alva

As a flow judge, my primary focus in determining who wins the round is on the technical aspects of the debate/arguments rather than the truthfulness of the arguments presented (I also do not flow through the crossfire, I simply listen so make sure points made in crossfires are brought up in a speech). However, in close rounds I recognize the importance of both tech and truth and I will consider both aspects in determining the rounds winner. Above all, I simply want every debater to remain respectful, and to have fun throughout this process!

1. Tech Over Truth

• Organization, Clarity, and Coherence (e.g., it's okay to speak quickly, so long as clarity isn't affected)
• Strength of evidence presented (e.g., stats, studies, data)
• Structured Speeches (i.e., organized, clash with opponents- speeches change depending on the debate itself/argumetns being presented)

2. Flexibility in Close Rounds

• While I prefer technical arguments, during close rounds I will consider arguments that challenge my initial beliefs or opinions.
• Strength of arguments and connection to why I should vote for either PRO or CON world is what I refer to when making a decision in close rounds (i.e., what are the main voting issues you want me to vote on)

3. Fairness and Behavior

• I encourage respectful discourse, I expect all debaters to engage with their opponents in a respectful manner (remember that you are clashing with the arguments, not the debaters themselves)
• Refrain from any potentially distracting behaviors while opponents are speaking (e.g, talking, giggling, expressive facial expressions)
• Plan ahead for any potential wifi/tech issues (e.g., not depending solely on computers), the wifi of other school's will be unknown until the day of the tournament (being prepared for any potential issues allows us to be respectful of other teams/judges times)

So simply put remember to be respectful, have strong arguments, and have fun!

*My personal preference is to not disclose at the end of a round, I will leave all feedback on the ballot*

As a judge, I want to hear clear and relevant evidence that supports your arguments. It is important for your case to be clearly organized and easy for me to understand. I listen for strong impact statements, voting issues, and weighing mechanisms that make it clear for me which way I should vote and why.

Hello! I am a Special Education Teacher and started judging for debate last year. As a judge, I prefer and value clarity in the round. Please do my work for me as much as you can; tell me what to vote on, why I should vote for you, and why you win. You have far more knowledge on your debate topics than we do, so please take time to clarify your arguments for your audience (your judges). Being too complicated or detailed only makes it more difficult to keep up and flow!

I flow through the cross and pay very close attention to it.

I want everyone to have fun and be respectful to each other during the round. I'll be engaged if you are!

Good Luck! :)

This is my third year coaching and judging debate. My background is in speech and Model UN. I feel that debate is a valuable learning experience and I enjoy hearing new contentions that make me view the world from a different perspective.

I am a flow judge so I appreciate teams that provide lots of evidence and include relevant impacts. In PF, I give a lot of weight to voting issues and mostly award speaking points based on that. I value truth over tech.

Respect your opponents; they help you become a better debater.

Please be mindful of the time limits. I stop flowing after your time is up.

Have fun! I'm looking forward to hearing your arguments :)

I am a Novice when it comes to judging PF debate. The most important things for me would be:

1. Clarity of thought and speech - try and put forth your points or arguments clearly.
2. Be respectful of your opponents
3. Have fun!

I will also be learning from you - no pressure :)

for Fremd tournament: I know you've had a few tournaments with this resolution, but this is my first time hearing it. Don't assume I'm familiar with the topic or have heard any of the common arguments, abbreviations, etc.

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 5 years

General:

- keep speed within reason; if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll put my pen down and look at you until you slow down

- I judge off the flow, lay everything out for me, I won’t make any assumptions or connections for you

- arguments need to be extended throughout the round; if something gets dropped and doesn’t make it to the end of the round, I won’t vote based on it

- give me clear voting issues, I don’t care who won more arguments, tell me why the things you won mean that you should win the round, weigh clearly for me, tell me why I should care about the arguments you won, why do they matter

- I don’t flow cross; if something important comes out make sure you bring it up in a later speech so it ends up on my flow

- keep track of your own time and prep time, if you opponent is going way over, let me know

- treat me like I know absolutely nothing about the topic, I haven’t done any of the research you have

LD:

- I don’t care who wins framework, just make sure you weigh under whichever framework is agreed on

- I don’t like pointless framework debate, if your frameworks are compatible, like justice vs morality, just collapse and move on instead of wasting time arguing which is better

PF:

- If you’re speaking first, it doesn't make sense to go back and defend your case before you opponent’s rebuttal

- the round should funnel down; your constructive and rebuttal focus on the line by line, by the summary you should pick voting issues and address the line by line arguments that tie into them, in final focus I don’t want any line by line arguments, focus entirely on the voting issues for the round and weighing them

- no line by line in final focus, it’s too late for that

I am a varsity debater so if you need to speak fast, it's fine with me. Make sure you weigh consistently throughout the round, especially during summary and final focus. Also make sure you flow through arguments during the whole round. I don't flow crossfire as well. Have clear voter issues and weighing mechanisms. Be respectful to your opponent, or I will drop speaker points. Have a clear and loud voice, and try to be passionate during your speeches.

I have worked with debate teams for sixteen years and enjoy a healthy argument. I look for a debate with solid evidence that flows through to the end. Framework and voting issues are also appreciated as well. Be respectful to each other and mindful that a healthy clash of ideas often brings forth a refinement of your side. I appreciate the side that weighs their impact.

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years. typical flow judge, assume im lay on the topic.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- do email chain or speechdrop. send cases and docs

-- ~250 wpm max (w docs!!) but pls slow down in back half or i will 100% miss smth. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

-- metaweighing is kind of a cheat code ngl (do it)

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run prog at ur own risk. i havent judged prog much and what i have judged has (generally) been very mid. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like this guy and this guy

• Be kind to your opponent
• I do not flow speed reading
• You can win the round and still not get high speaking points. Ensure you are speaking, not just reading a speech.

Specifics to March LD 2024 (Criminal Justice):

• Please make your arguments concrete. Criminal justice reform is happening in the SQUO in America and beyond. Give me examples of programs. YOU be the one to set the definitions of rehabilitation. Instead of being so theoretical, show me what this actually looks like, please!
• I am OK with counterplans on neg especially for this topic.
• Remember that by round 6, your judges will have heard many of the same arguments. Maybe try to spice it up a bit with something unique!
• Have the best time this weekend :)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Hello! I am an English teacher and a debate coach of 5 years, and I judge both PF and LD. First and foremost, I want everyone to have a good experience during your round!

In both LD and PF,my #1 priority is this: argue respectfully! If you are rude to your opponents or exceedingly arrogant in your speeches, it will result in a loss of speaker points.

2nd Priority: make my life as a judge easy. Tell me what to do! They dropped your 2nd subpoint? Tell me! Want me to flow something through? Tell me! You're the experts here, and I'm just trying to keep up. Don't assume that I'll catch everything that you catch in a round :)

CLARITY AND SPEED: I value clarity over speed. Obviously sometimes speed is necessary to ensure your speeches will fit in the time limit, but if I miss a tagline or a name of a card, it's only to your detriment!

CONCRETE ARGUMENTS: 2nd point on clarity-- remember that while you have spent a lot of time and effort researching your topics, your judges have not. Before you make your more intricate or unique arguments, spend some time in your FW or contentions explaining the basics or the fundamentals of your case! Give concrete examples when you can!

PRIORITIZE THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TERMINOLOGY: Sorry, clunky, but I don't know how else to say it. Debate should be an accessible space for all, and when it's convoluted with hyper-specific debate terminology and lingo, it make it so hard for this really great activity to be somewhere that people don't feel totally intimidated to join. Also, I'm NOT a former debater. Everything I know I've picked up from coaching in the past 5 years. I vote on arguments, not on technicalities.

ORGANIZATION: I appreciate a nice, well-organized, line-by-line rebuttal!!! Attacking your opponent's cases in order is a huge help to me for flowing.

CROSS: In general, I listen attentively and may write a few notes of good points brought up during CX, but I would prefer anything from CX to be flowed to your later speeches.

IMPACTS: Impacts! You can have all the cards you want in the world, but you need to be able to explain them and explain the impacts of your cards on your case. Again, I'm an English teacher, and I consider your impacts/explanation of cards to be just like your analysis of quotes in an essay. Without it, the essay falls apart!

SPEAKING: While it doesn't weigh much on my decision of who WON the round, I do also appreciate when a speaker uses inflection and proper emphasis in your speeches. Be convinced of your case and convince me to believe in it! I love a good stylistic speech. Keep me engaged! This will definitely impact your speaker points.

WEIGHING: I do prefer clearly listed voter's issues and weighing mechanisms, but not including weighing mechanisms won't necessarily cost you the round.

If you have any questions, just ask! Thank you and good luck!!!

Hello, I'm Aditya. If you are doing an email chain (optional) add me — ramesh18@illinois.edu

Background: Started in Congress for one year, moved to PF for the rest of high school.

Main things to take away from this paradigm: Tabula rasa, keep debate respectful, signpost and warrant your arguments well, and give me the exact reasons why you should win.

CONDUCT:

You will lose + auto 0 speaks if you are bigoted (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.). The other team does not have to point it out.

Any blatant rudeness (eye rolling, consistent interruptions, loud offhand remarks, loud snickering, etc.) that I catch is auto 25 speaks or less (the bar for this is pretty high). I do however appreciate aggressive cross and rhetoric in speeches as long as you aren't being demeaning.

Moderate Spreading is OK (200 wpm) as long as you enunciate and signpost well. Lazy spreading will give you bad speaks.

Try your best to be persuasive. Have some inflection in your voice when you go over important points, and feel free to use some rhetoric so I don't get bored.

Practice good evidence ethics — if your cards are horribly cut, extremely paraphrased, or taken way out of context, I won't evaluate arguments with them. You will also lose speaks.

I will be timing, so don't try to argue with me about prep or speech times unless your opponent can corroborate you.

Don't prep after prep ends.

Don't take forever taking out evidence (you SHOULD have a doc on hand).

Unless both teams agree not to, evidence sharing won't be on prep.

SPEECHES (PF):

Roadmap everything past Constructive, and signpost EVERYTHING. Give me clear warrants, clear impacts, highlight clash, and WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH (make sure it's comparative!).

Constructive: Signpost everything, have quality warrants for everything you say. If you Spread and I don’t understand, I will not flow it at all, and it cannot be extended throughout the round — be careful.

Rebuttal: Implicate everything, second rebuttal MUST have frontlining. Go down their flow and give me a clear off time roadmap.

Summary: Collapse, extend, respond, and weigh. No new arguments in second Summary.

Final Focus: Write the RFD for me. All arguments in this speech must be in Summary. Focus on the weighing, and use actual impact calculus.

All arguments need to be warranted or else I can't evaluate them. You also should extend your arguments through each speech, and I will only be evaluating what I hear in Final Focus.

I don't flow cross. Anything mentioned in cross needs to be brought into a speech for me to evaluate it.

I do value truth over tech to a degree; dishonest or misleading arguments will be weighed at a heavy disadvantage. However, don't abuse this. You still need to refute every argument well or else I will consider it conceded and it will get full weight.

"The author is politically biased", "the study is from a different country", and "the evidence is old" aren't valid evidence indicts. You need to provide an actual warrant as to why those things would impact the results of the study.

Remember that PF stands for PUBLIC FORUM. This type of debate is meant to be accessible, so don't be super technical, and warrant everything. And again, act in a manner where everyone stands to gain something from the round.

GENERAL THINGS:

Remember that I as a judge am still human. It is in your best interest to make sure I catch onto everything. The better you signpost, the better you articulate arguments, and the more you emphasize conceded point, the more likely I am to follow along — please extend and do not state things once and expect me to remember it throughout the entire round.

Debate is stressful and competitive. Remember to go out there and put your 100%, but while doing so enjoy yourself and have fun!

Good luck!

My overall philosophy is to be kind, have fun, and avoid rude commentary (Especially during crossfire) I know that's corny, but if we're spending our Saturdays here together, we should be making friends and enjoying ourselves. Below are some other features that I tend to value in a round because I heard y'all wanted a bigger paradigm. Here we go $$$

Fairness, Clarity, and Case Development: All arguments must be structured logically from A-->B. Every argument should be weighed on its merits and building strawman arguments is mad annoying and will not be considered. High value is placed on the use of credible evidence and sound reasoning. Arguments should primarily be supported by facts and studies that have been developed within the realm of relevance. Unless used as a historical example, a card should be published no later than seven years ago (2017)

More on Cases: Arguments should have direct links. Overextending an idea to meet the needs of your case will damage your argument and your ballot overall. This creates a slippery slope and will most likely not flow through. This feels similar to what I said above, but I'm going to keep it there anyway.

Impact Analysis: Try to place an emphasis on the significance and implications of arguments. Scope is most important to me as a judge.

I don’t need solvency, I just need you to show me how your argument does LESS harm.

Preciate it, GOATS!

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm going to be a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

I am a new judge, with little experience on debate so here are some things I look for.

1. Clarity. Please be clear so I can understand. Explain why you win compared to the other team(weighing)
2. Respect. Your speaks will be docked if you do not show proper debate etiquette.
3. Quality>Quantity

In the end I am a more lay judge, but I do flow.

As a public forum coach and judge I enjoy seeing a lively round with lots of purposeful clash and respectful exchange. I have been coaching debate for 8 years. Any disrespectful behavior including abusive frameworks may work against your partnership. SPEED READING will not be flowed, and I will put my pen down. It is important for me to hear your contentions, links, evidence and impacts. I value accurate use of evidence and weighing in the round. Intentionally muddling a round is manipulative, please do not try to confuse the round with irrelevant information or worse misuse of evidence. I want you to tell me why you are actually winning by proving how you outweigh and pulling your arguments through the round. Line by line is preferable, but a logical narrative can win around if well supported by timely evidence and historical depth of knowledge. In the end I vote for the team that tends to understand the topic and the research, presents with calm and clarity, and crystalizes the debate in the summary while providing voter issues. Additionally, I vote for truth over tech! Happy debating!

I have been assisting in coaching and judging for both LD and PF for a year at Fenwick High School. I will be evaluating each team based on clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, thoroughness, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

I am open to a variety of arguments, conventional and unconventional, and look for the following:

1) Speed of delivery can be brisk, but must be clear enough so argument can be appropriately heard, processed, and flowed.

2) I prefer our second rebuttal for PF to hit more big picture themes and flaws

3) Voting issues are essential - please include them

4) A lack of extension of an argument will not hurt your score, but successfully extending an argument is certainly a sign of a well-constructed debate

5) Argument is valued over style

6) Debates can be won using an opponent’s framework, but must be as well-constructed and multifaceted as if they used their own.

7) Evidence is CRUCIAL. No evidence = no basis for argument

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

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? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

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, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Junior at Libertyville, student judge. I go off flow but please no bigoted arguments. Feel free to ask questions before/after the round.

Please:
Keep time

Please give impacts, clash points, and weighing mechanisms.

Weigh impacts

Be respectful

Signpost/offtime roadmap

Explain how you get to your impacts(Link!)

If you can successfully run nuclear war as your impact i'll give you +2 speaker points.

Good luck :)

I expect a clear delivery. This affects more than speaker points. In my opinion, it can affect my judging of that round. Articulation, speaking at a pace where words can be understood, making contentions and impacts clear are important.

Unique contentions and impacts with good, current, solid evidence will sway my vote.

Respectful conduct, always. A good well organized delivery is important.