I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and now at Waring School since 2005. I have coached national champions in both policy debate and public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Ebarden323@outlook.com

January 13th, 2024

I debated four years at Emporia High School and Washburn Rural High School (Kansas)—class of 1991. I went on to debate at the University of Texas for three years. I suppose I should be considered a traditionalist, but I don’t have any predisposition against more progressive styles of debate.

My judging experience is mainly from policy debate. I expect my approach to public forum debate will be similar. You tell me how I should view the round. I will default to a utilitarian calculus, but it is up to you to define how I should rank competing impacts and values. I view the competing teams as authors of their own worlds, and I must choose which world I prefer.

Debates that demonstrate substantial interaction with the positions of the other side are more interesting than debates that operate in independent universes. Strategically, conceding too much of the case debate leaves you fighting an uphill battle.

I was around during the early days of the kritik, but I don’t have a lot of knowledge of most of today’s kritiks. If you abandon the case debate to focus on a generic kritik with only tangential links to the affirmative you potentially relieve the affirmative of their burden of proof.

Tactics that will help you win my ballot:

Be intelligible. I’m not going to flow the emailed text of your speech. I’m going to flow what I hear you say in the round. Go as fast as you want as long as you are not sacrificing comprehensibility. The goal is to deliver an efficient speech that maximizes word economy.

Explain the implications of the arguments that you are winning. It’s not enough to win the argument. Explain how the argument fits into how you want me to evaluate the overall round.

Specifically counter your opponents’ arguments. Highlight the weakness of their sources, or of the logic of their sources’ assertions. I’m looking for a demonstration of your ability to think independently of your front-line blocks.

Evidence is a tool to support your arguments and analysis. I’ll give more weight to a logical, original analytic than a piece of evidence with thin reasoning.

It’s an honor to participate in this activity with you. Have a great weekend!

I want to see the best round that you’ve gotat your ability level.

Novice Teams:

• Don’t stress! I love to see young debaters trying their best.
• Stick to the basics- Present your case well. Flow effectively. Try to address all your opponents’ points. Practice speaking with enthusiasm and confidence.
• CLASH! Listen to what your opponents are saying. Adjust your arguments so you’re talking specificallyabout the way your opponent presented their case. The more you can respond to what was said in this specific round as opposed to parroting general counter-arguments you’ve prepared, the better a debater you will be!
• Only spread if you really can do it.
• Use each round to practice skills you’ve been working on recently. Especially if you’ve gotten consistent feedback from judges or coaches, use this round to apply that feedback and see if you can perform better than the last round.
• Be respectful.
• Have fun.

Varsity/Experienced Teams:

• Show me what you got.
• Pick your strat based on the team you’re up against.
• When picking which case you run: I have no preference between truthful verses creative.
• If you’ve got a crazy case to run that will crush the meta, do it! Just make sure you have enough evidence and are familiar enough with your argument that you can pivot deftly to tough questions in cross or intense scrutiny as you collapse.
• If it’s a topic that simply insists on the meta, use it. I don’t care if we’ve seen the arguments a million times during a tournament if they’re effective. Argue it well and, if you’re bored, do it with flare.
• If you can spread and that will make the debate better, do it. If spreading makes you unintelligible, don’t. Emphasis
• While I like to see an attempt to line-by-line every point that’s brought up in case, as the round continues, I prefer meaningful clash on issues that grow relevant in the round OVER an unending fight on the veracity of each and every sub-point.
• Therefore: collapse. (If your opponent leaves things in your speeches untouched, go ahead and extend them. In this case, I still think it’s nice if you highlight a key issue that emerges in the round for me to vote on. But I if you get to keep all your offense, go for a blowout.)
• I love sign-posting. Be clear about your story of the round. It saves me thinking time if you spell out for me who you think has solvency, uniqueness, more standing arguments, etc. But also explainwhy.
• K and Theory only if it’s super awesome. I hold a higher standard for K then regular adjudication.
• No disclosure theory. That’s my only hard pass.
• In general, I will try to judge the round on the terms YOU set.
• Finally, I learn from every round. I reiterate, show me what you got. YOU teach US how awesome and varied debate can be.

Hi! I am a parent judge and this is my 3d year of judging.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, Summit NJ

Preferences: No spreading! Also, I am unfamiliar with debate jargon so make sure to explain the meanings of the terms you are using. Make sure to sign post and stay organized so I can keep up with the round. I expect you to self time, but I will also keep a timer just in case. Make sure to time all prep taken. Be respectful and have fun!

I have been judging PF for three years. I flow to capture and compare both arguments I appreciate the need for speed, but also ask that competitors don't speak so quickly, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic.

Excellent debaters and excellent debate rounds are characterized by the competitors' ability to speak clearly and understandably, identify the major underlying arguments at the heart of evidence and examples, and succinctly present a case for their own side as the round evolves. I value your ability to explain why something matters (more than just XYZ person said so in this article) within the larger context of an overarching argument. As the debate progresses, you should be telling me what the major reasons are to vote for you, as opposed to travelling infinitely down the rabbit hole on the details of a specific argument.

Treat each other with respect. This is most noticeable in cross fire. Ask your question and grant your opponent a reasonable amount of time to respond. Though in the moment you may feel the urge to interrupt, it is never helpful.

Qualify your sources, don't just say a name. Tell me who said it, where they said it, and the reason it is valuable.

Enjoy yourselves and relax, the round will always turn out better if you are having fun and learning.

Rcarragher19@gmail.com

A successful debate performance is one that is easily intelligible and persuasive to a general audience, listeners who are not trained in the arcana of debate terminology, and does so with a rate of delivery that is spirited but does not draw attention to itself by its speed.

Persuasion comes from a Latin word meaning "thoroughly sweet". Being persuasive allows the speaker to challenge the opinions of an audience by a fusion of rigorous logic and an oratorical style that does not offend but which urges the listener to buy into the speaker's take on the great issues of our day..

Br. Anthony K. Cavet

Catholic Memorial School

West Roxbury MA

Nov 19, 2020

Parent/lay judge familiar with other types of debate; have judged PF several times. Speaking briskly is OK, but if you speak too quickly for me to understand / take notes, it will be difficult to place weight on those points. Easier for me to understand if you minimize debate jargon. Both sides should be civil -- for instance, crossfire questioning time should be roughly equally distributed between both teams. Prefer fewer high quality arguments / crystallization to a smear of random cards or impacts that require suspending disbelief or logical leaps. If you strongly emphasize a piece of evidence I will probably ask to read that card. Please make sure it says what you argue it says. I don't understand "theory" arguments and believe that the debate should be about the stated resolution. If you exchange evidence you can include me on the email chain using apchuhome@gmail.com.

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

My Background:

- I am a parent judge who started judging when our son began debating as a freshman in high school

- Have judged Public Forum

What I expect from debaters:

- Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot stress this enough. If you speak too quickly and I can't follow you, you will not be helping your team.- --- Persuade me with arguments that are supported by evidence. Evidence should be presented with full citations and explained clearly. Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive.- Tell me why I should vote for your side by explaining with particularity why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.

Focus me on the important issues in your favor.

- Be respectful of everyone who is participating in your debate - your opponents, and your partner. Consider your tone, your conduct, and your words.

• Do not assume that I understand acronyms or phrases that are peculiar to the topic but not necessarily in common use in the English language. Please take the time to define them.

I feel honored to judge your debate and debating skills. Please do not feel I am ever judging you as a person. I feel privileged to hear your learned thoughts on the debate topics.

I have been impressed with all debaters I have heard to date and you and your colleagues gift me great hope for the future! :-)

Hi, I'm Ethan (He/Him). I'm a former PF debater from Sharon High (usually second speaker). I'm currently a sophomore at Brown studying Computer Science and Economics. Debate should be fun, so don't get super stressed about how I think the round should be. Within reason, everything in here is open to changing if you want to argue about it in round.

General Stuff

- Be nice, we're all here to have fun

- Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If you think your opponent said something discriminatory that I might not have picked up on, I would encourage you to bring it up however you kids enforce in-round decorum nowadays.

- I'm tech over truth. If you tell me that the sky is red, I will be sad, but I will still vote for it.

- Weighing is cool. This can be weighing using mechanism tags like "scope" or "timeframe" or more complex weighing and framing.

- Progressive args are cool, but I might not remember every little technical detail. I had experience running and responding to theory, so everything should be fair game. I know how Ks work, and I have looked at them a little. You can definitely run them, but don't assume I know K jargon or literature. No tricks.

- If this is a novice or JV round, you should ask your opponent if it's okay that you are running theory or a K. In Varsity "I don't know theory" isn't an excuse to ignore your opponents arguments. Varsity debaters have the skills necessary to respond to progressive args even if they've never seen them before. Also, it's Varsity. (This is coming from a small school debater who learned most of his theory online). That being said, it's hard to be 30-speaks persuasive if your opponent has no understanding of your argument.

- No plans or counterplans. This means no counterplan style alts on Ks.

- Average speaks is probably 28-28.5

- Be fair with your evidence. You can paraphrase, but you should have the vast majority of your cards cut. Please have cut cards ready even if you are paraphrasing. Sending a link and telling them what to command f is going to make me sad unless it's like one card that you read in rebuttal.

Constructive

1st Constructive

There's not much for me to say here. Read whatever you want to read. Preemptive theory is fine. Plans or counterplans aren't. If you are going to spread (> 250 WPM), send a speech doc or I won't flow your argument (because I don't want to and because I can't). Theory shells about what happened before round (like disclosure) should probably be here.

2nd Constructive

Same rules apply as 1st constructive. If they read a theory shell in first constructive, it's probably in your best interest to respond to it here, but you don't have to if they don't require you to.

1st Rebuttal

Signposting is nice. Read whatever responses you want to. Roadmaps are fine (you don't have to say that it's an offtime roadmap, just say it). Disads are cool. Weighing is cool.

2nd Rebuttal

Anything from 1st rebuttal that's not frontlined is conceded. Disads are still okay. Weighing is still cool.

1st Summary

Frontline 2nd rebuttal. Everything you want to "go for" needs to be extended. Extend cards with the tags and the warrant please. Also you definitely want to weigh here. No new rebuttals or offensive arguments.

2nd Summary

Everything you want through the end of the round should be extended here. You should definitely weigh here (no new 2nd FF weighing). Responding to frontlines is fine. No new arguments except interacting with the 1st Summary's frontlining.

1st Final Focus

Extend everything you want me to evaluate in the round. New quick weighing in 1st FF is fine, but no carded weighing. No new arguments. A good final focus should write my ballot for me.

2nd Final Focus

Same as 1st Final Focus except no new weighing. Please don't try to lie and read a bunch of new stuff in 2nd Final Focus.

Crossfire

- Be conversational

- Don't talk over your opponent or be rude

- A good crossfire should be an alley-oop for speeches

- I will listen to crossfire, but I don't flow it. If you think you "won" the crossfire, it doesn't mean anything unless you bring it up in a speech.

Theory

-I haven’t looked at PF theory in almost 2 years but am open to hearing it.

- I default to reasonability because it's more fair to debaters who are unfamiliar with theory. Feel free to tell me otherwise in your shell.

- RVIs are fine. RVIs bad arguments are also fine.

- Please tell me whether or not it's theory before substance. This is one thing PF debaters often don't do and it's REALLY FRUSTRATING.

I will not evaluate:

(This is a running list)

- 30 speaks theory (I will give everyone 25 speaker points to promote equality)

I will be sad about voting for (but probably will)

(Also a running list)

- Really stupid arguments

- Anti-paraphrase theory. I've seen just as many poorly cut cards as bad paraphrases.

If you have any questions, you can email me at checkitmaster5@gmail.com. I want to make the round as enjoyable and accepting for you as possible. I've never had a round close enough for this to matter, but I default con if there's zero offense on both sides.

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

I am a speech AND debate coach for Milton Academy. I am an experienced PF judge who values the key principles of PF. I have been judging PF since 2011, and I debated in 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, don't just state a weighing mechanism and assume that puts it on the flow, do not give me a super lengthy off time road map, that sort of thing. Add me on email chains: lindsay_donovan@milton.edu

I vote primarily on comprehensive analysis, on well-supported AND well-reasoned, "real-world" links, which are the logic building blocks to your impact (no matter how large or larger in scope they may be than your opponents). I do not like source wars, or taking long periods of time to call for evidence or look at evidence, especially out of prep time. If your only strategy is to call into question the validity of evidence, you will most likely not earn my vote. I will primarily vote on the flow, but I think persuasion is the crux of debate and can make flow better... and can stick out more to me than just an extended tag on the flow.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them"

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Theory/K/what have you: If Theory or K is fair, understandable, and well reasoned I can follow it. But in general I find most theory debates unfair in nature, most people just use it as a tactic to win and have no heart in it for the sake of smart argumentation. Notably I will not vote for Disclosure theory. It is a norm, not a rule :)

Pet Peeves:

• Tech > Truth (If you are saying something blatantly not true or distorting/mis-paraphrasing your opponent's evidence I will mark you down).
• Nuclear war impacts, unclear warranting or no warranting only evidence.
• Overly aggressive/rude tactics. Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. I tend to vote for more calm, collected, and cordial teams.
• "Collapsing" feels like a fancy way to say dropping all your points.... I don't like it. Why bring up points in the first place so easily to discard? Run a 1 contention case then... Never concede anything!
• Also - I hate Solvency (it is a Policy concept, and PF does not have the burden of proving/disproving solvency as a voting issue unless the resolution SPECIFICALLY calls for it.) This means, do not ask how they "solve for" whatever point or that I should downvote teams who cannot completely solve issues.

Spreading and Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread I do not flow. I do not believe that PFers should spread AT ALL, even for a “flow” judge. If you cannot speak well and argue well, then you are not competing in this event at your best ability.

Don't be malicious please! It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwards. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue (or if you ask me to! Always ask your judge to stop a round if you feel unsafe).

I am new to judging debates (I did 2 rounds in 2022). I have a son who does Public Forum debate at Lexington High School. I am an attorney and have practiced in federal government, in a large conglomerate, and now as a partner in a large law firm. I have judged law students in moot court practices and rounds for several years.

The most powerful argument method for me is recognizing and acknowledging when your opponents have effectively made a valid point and then demonstrating compellingly that your opponents' point weighs more heavily in your favor than your opponents' favor.

email me for questions/add me to the chain: tara.gill.527@gmail.com

tl;dr:

Me: "Do you know why I'm such a laid-back judge?"

Y'all: "Why?"

Me: "I go with the flow"

(creds to @Debate Memes on Facebook haha)

• yes I will vote off the flow
• honestly just debate well enough to make me care enough about the round (which means focus on the bolded text below)
• warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh and you're doing really well
• I don't think most debaters truly spend time explaining warrants or weighing
• things you want me to vote on have to be in every speech after first rebuttal
• I want the round to be chill and educational and fun so please make that happen

quick disclaimers

i'm now old and grumpy and care a bit less about debate than i used to so please don't assume i have extensive topic knowledge

novices:

it's so cool that you're trying out this activity even though it's probably kind of scary. If you don't understand some of my preferences in the long version, the tl;dr should be fine. Just know that you're probably doing great and that you got this :)

feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round.

Longer Version:

hi! I did 2 years of Public Forum at Lexington but I started out my debate career in policy which influences how I judge!

- i'm more tech than the average tech judge so please clash to avoid judge intervention, or at the very least weigh a lot on both link and impact levels :)

- in later speeches, please give quick narrative style overviews at the top of your own case then frontline/line by line (i still don't know what frontline means but just don't drop stuff) if u want me to vote on your contentions otherwise dropped defense will mitigate your impacts. this also means u should frontline in second rebuttal and extend defense in first summary.

- i will vote off most arguments including theory/k if they are debated well (my threshold for these being run well is pretty high lmao so try at your risk) and not used just to be exclusionary (check the bottom of my paradigm)

- do a lot of weighing/impact calc and logical analysis (not just for me, it is also strategic if you're lost/confused and I would know first hand oops)

- once again please weigh weigh weigh. really make the force of gravity a lot here (i'm sorry i'm a physics nerd)

- start collapsing by first summary because depth>breadth in terms of giving quality arguments in short PF speech times

- crossfire shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating please ask and answer questions in a non-aggressive and CIVIL manner or I will be frustrated, get a headache and probably dock speaks.

- if you want to take off a jacket or shoes in round feel free to do so because i almost never debated with shoes. this will not affect speaks or the result :)

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused, I will not dock speaks and I feel like it usually helps you learn how you can improve in the future

- i am fine w speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, make sure your opponents are ok too, slow down on tags, authors, and analytics, signpost clearly, offer speech docs if necessary

- lastly, debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary, follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you, and HAVE FUN!!!!!

Extra:

- fist-bump instead of shaking hands haha

- I'll default to a slightly above a 28 if it's by 0.1 and 28.5 if it's by 0.5

- i am also happy to talk after round, show you my flows, and answer questions about either debate or life :)

LD (MSDL States 2024):

i am fairly confident in my ability to flow a debate and understand arguments that are clearly explained to me, however, I also understand there are certain thing specific to LD that I am not familiar with.

• focus on weighing your arguments against your components, basic frameworks (util, structural violence) I am familiar with and are good for providing that comparison
• not sure about other "value criterion" that's a term i've heard but i don't know what that means so just explain to me clearly
• not super used to nat circuit LD speed anymore, but a little speed is fine
• rest of the paradigm applies

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) try and set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 3rd year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu ( if wanna join lmk! )

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine, weigh warrant, signpost, try not to be blippy.

How I evaluate rounds:

1st: Go through all pieces of offense extended into summary then final, then determine whether every piece of the argument is extended properly. If offense is not extended properly, I have a pretty low threshold for evaluating it.

2nd: Then I look for defense on each piece of offense. I only really evaluate defense if it's terminal, otherwise it better be weighed really well for me to properly evaluate it. If there is no weighing done on a piece of offense, then I default to the path of least resistance. However, if weighing is done I look to the argument that is weighed comparatively and smart (some smart ones include prereqs, link-ins, and short circuits). At this point, I will also look at framing and see if it applies to the round.

Overall Specifics:

• Speed: I am fine with speed, if you are CLEAR. However, I find speed unnecessary; good debaters can win arguments and frontline properly without the need to speak fast. Plus, for the most part, at least, the faster you speak, the blipper your arguments get. I will clear you if you are not being clear, but that has never been an issue in a PF round ive judged.

• Weighing: Weighing is one of the first thing I evaluate on any flow. However, if the weighing is not comparative and warranted correctly, it will just seem like an extension of your argument. If you are going to weigh, please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing responses in rebuttal it makes my job easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

• Progressive: I have came to the conclusion that if you are at a varsity national tournament, you should be prepared to debate some type of progressive argumentation. Now, this doesnt mean run theory or a K on some novices. Specifics: K's better have a good alt that you can explain well (or it's just a DA and will be evaluated as such) + framing that is well explained in the round or don't expect me to vote on it. I would say my understanding of K's mainly comes from NFA-LD, which is more similar to HS policy and I don't know what norms exist in PF for such arguments. I have read some Cap, Set-Col, Virilio, Rhetoric K's, Security, and psycho, would claim to be an expert on any of these tho. Theroy is okay as long as there is an actual proven violation in the round. I rather not judge some bs theory debate that probably doesn't accomplish any real norm setting. T is fun but never read :(

• Extensions: Many teams think that if they frontline case, that just counts as an extension; I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made, and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions. Good extensions extend warrants and internal links.

• Collapsing: Collapsing arguments early makes your narrative so much cleaner, and also, I don't have to spam extensions and card names all over my flow.

• Evidence: I will not read evidence unless explicitly told to. I aim to minimize judge intervention via evidence

• post round me, idc.

Things I do not like:

• Overviews: I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments, but I will have a super low threshold for responses, and your speech will likely reflect this.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Things I like:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfjeGfX_5I&ab_channel=Tay-K
• house music.

Message me on FB here for questions or ask me before the round!

I am a parent judge. I appreciate logical and well articulated arguments that clearly convey the positions in a debate. Please focus on communicating your points clearly and use the rebuttals as well to enhance/strengthen your case. I may have some topical knowledge, so please ensure that your arguments are solidly ground in facts.

I also consider rude, racist or other obnoxious behaviors as strong negatives.

Parent judge, I'm still learning the debate jargon

Please talk slowly and clearly

Don't just share statistics and citations, tell me how they fit into your argument and why they matter.

Debate is not a race - use your time to tell a story, not just fit in as many words as you can.

If you are racist/homophobic/sexist etc I will drop you

Be kind, and have fun!

(My daughter wrote my paradigm)

This is my first year in the debate world and I am the assistant debate coach at Waring School. I come from a mock trial background and completed a summer institute in debate this past August.

In terms of debate itself, I believe that debate should be accessible. With this in mind, I appreciate sign posting. Regarding speed, debaters can choose to speak quickly but should know that if you are speaking so quickly that I cannot keep up I also cannot flow your arguments. Using evidence in debate is also important to me.

If you have any questions at the end of the round or the results, please email me at ehelstrom@waringschool.org

Hi! I'm a college student who did 3 years of PF at Sharon High School. I always vote from the flow. Here are my things:

-Don't speed!!!!!!!!!! I'm really tired this morning. If I don't get it on my flow that's on you.

-Track your own prep, but let me know when you're taking it.

-Probability weighing is cringe.

-Extend in Summary and Final. Not just the card name, but the warranting as well. Good warranting over bad cards.

-Don't do scummy stuff like new frontlines in 2nd Summary. Makes me sad :(

-No theory. If someone breaks a rule, respond in round. If something more serious arises, we can always stop the round and deal with it.

That's all have fun! Feel free to ask me questions about the stuff above or anything else!

Email for sharing evidence/disclosing (optional): irenesongherrmann@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Grace (she/her), a current college freshman! I competed in Public Forum for Sharon HS (Sharon, MA) for three years and was captain my senior year.

TL;DR: flow judge w/ mostly local experience, tech > truth, extend+collapse+weigh, include me on the email chain: gracehu32@gmail.com, be nice and have fun!!

Basics...

1. Speaking: No spreading. Jargon is fine as long as you warrant.
2. Tech over truth: I am not keen on evaluating blippy arguments, but if they’re cleanly extended and weighed, I have no problem voting on them. Please signpost and extend. Any arguments you want me to evaluate must be extended through the end of the round. You must respond to opponents' arguments in your next speech (besides case of course).
3. Theory/K’s/tricks: I am not opposed to evaluating prog, but I probably won’t be able to keep up with it on my flow since I don’t have much experience. Will definitely be truth > tech if you run anything!

Things I love…

1. Collapsing and weighing! Please condense the round! No matter the round, each team has args they’re winning and losing. I will vote for the side that tells me which points are the most important and why (i.e. YOU MUST WEIGH. I am a big fan of well-warranted prereq weighing. I believe that probability weighing is not real)!
2. Good evidence ethics! I'll keep up with the chain (email: gracehu32@gmail.com) and call for extra evidence as I see fit. I will not evaluate evidence if full text/sufficient context cannot be provided.

Other notes…

1. Be good about keeping time. Let me know when you're taking prep!
2. Disrespect/rudeness= docked speaker points or dropped. I will visibly cringe if you are rude during crossfire. Be kind!
3. Debate is not just a game— remember that it’s an activity that encourages the exchange of diverging viewpoints in a respectful & empathetic manner— something the world needs! The best debate happens when you reduce the pressure you put on yourself and enjoy the round. I’m very grateful to be here, and I look forward to hearing your thoughtful, nuanced arguments!

I am an Ethics and Morality teacher who is interested in learning. I am new judge with less experience.

If I am judging your round, please:

Keep the debate to a conversational pace - ideally less than 150 wpm.

Don't run any obscure arguments.

Keep the debate civilized and don't be rude in crossfire.

Time yourself! I won't speak in the round unless unexpected issues happen. I expect the debaters to be able to finish the round without my help/interruptions.

I will try my best to be impartial, and good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me during the round.

Note: I won't evaluate theory or K cases. I will give speaker points between 28-30.

Parent judge.

I'm a parent of a PF debater and have taken the role of judge in PF debate for two years.

Some preference below:

1. Analytical, logical and evidence.
2. Clear presentation, structure and signpost.
3. Engage with the arguments presented by your opponent.
4. Logical argumentation with good clash on the topic. Not constantly reading material.
5. Speak at moderate speed, but not top speed.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: zahrak031905@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and I am a freshman at the University of Rochester. I debated policy for 4 years at Lexington high school.

I’m open to all arguments, and if you are a novice it might be better to run something that you understand well so that it is easier to explain and support. The most important thing is to learn, try your best, and have fun!!

DO:

• Line by Line - make sure you are responding to all of your opponents’ arguments and extending your own, and keep track to see if your opponents’ didn’t answer one or more of your arguments, so that you can use that to explain why that makes your argument stronger

• Explain the warrants of your arguments

• Impact calc, explain why your argument is more significant by comparing your magnitude, timeframe, and probability to your opponents’

• Prioritize your arguments in your rebuttal speech

• Tell me the lens that I should vote through, and why I should vote for you

DON'T

• Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

• Be rude

• Interrupt your partner or your opponents

Also

• Let me know if you have tech issues!

• With online debating, clarity > speed

Remember, try your best, learn some new things, and have fun!!

As a lay judge, I come to the debate without extensive experience or expertise in the specific subject matter being discussed. This means that I will be evaluating the debate from a perspective of common sense and general knowledge, rather than technical or specialized knowledge.

While I will be looking for clear and convincing arguments, I will also be paying close attention to how effectively the debaters communicate their ideas to a general audience. I want to see debaters who can explain complex concepts in simple terms and make their arguments accessible and understandable to someone without specialized knowledge of the topic.

Overall, my goal as a lay judge is to provide a fair and objective evaluation of the debate that reflects the values of clarity, simplicity, and persuasion. I am excited to see the creativity and ingenuity of the high school students as they present their arguments and engage in a thoughtful and respectful debate.

I’m a parent judge, and this is my third year in debate. I try my best to heed the counsel of acting like an uninformed, impartial juror in assessing performance, awarding speaker points, and deciding on the winner. To do well, please:

- Speak clearly and at a normal speed

- Present a logical argument where it’s easy to follow your main contentions and supporting points

- Be consistent in your arguments in each speaker phase

- Use an off-time road map for extra clarity

- When weighing, please make believable assertions. I do internally roll my eyes when a student makes an unsupportable assertion (e.g., "this will save 100 million lives")

- Be respectful of your opponents – let them speak, minimize interruptions, positive body language. Rudeness, disrespectful behavior, or passive-aggressiveness will not be rewarded

- Relax and have fun

Not that I’ve ever experienced this as a judge, but anything said that's homophobic, ableist, racist, etc. is going to result in a "L" for your ballot and lowered speaker points

I am lay judge who has recently (since 2021) started judging PF debates.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I award speaker points based on how clearly you lay out your case. It helps if you provide a good summary of your case in the final focus.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

I am a judge from Regis High School. I'm in search of logical, well-reasoned arguments delivered in a civil, respectful manner. I like to see a significant amount of effort put in by the competitor, while still keeping in mind that this is meant to be an enjoyable activity. I am profoundly uninterested in a landslide of dozens of arguments; a few well-reasoned points is always preferable to a novel's worth of statistical sludge. More than anything, I want to see that you have spent a considerable amount of time evaluating the issue and which arguments are worth contending.

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

I debated for Horace Mann in NYC and was the president of my team senior year.

Treat me like a flay judge only in the sense that I prefer slower, well-warranted rounds over the current weird tech meta of dumping as many arguments as possible and making rounds incredibly messy. This doesn't mean that I don't know what's happening on the flow (i.e. don't drop turns or responses because you're debating as you would in front of a lay judge) – just slow down, speak like you would to a normal person, and extend well/provide warrants for everything you say (especially including frontlines and weighing). The more you explain something, the more I'm likely to vote for it.

If you want me to call for a card, tell me to in a speech. Don't read progressive arguments in front of me. I refuse to flow off of a speech doc so just speak at a reasonable pace. If you have any other questions about my preferences, feel free to ask me before the round.

Judging Criteria

Clarity of the speech: Not too fast (please don't do 200 wpm), not too slow. I am flowing the entire session with all of you, so I appreciate everyone do not miss any important contentions.

Facts and figures: Whenever you cite a number, please include the source. Reputable sources command a higher winning score. Your interpretation of the source is required, don't just quote it without explaining how it validates your position.

Professionalism: I pay special attention to all speakers' eloquence, being aggressive is okay, but not personal insults. Confident speakers usually come with well-prepared speeches, and I look forward to an educational exchange of rebuttals and crossfire.

Points: All speaker points start from 27, and extra points are awarded for logical links, extending good warrants, and impacts.

I appreciate it if you could connect the dots for me, as to why your contentions make more sense compared to your opponents.

I will not call for cards unless I need them for my flow verification.

Content warnings for sensitive topics need to be disclosed at the very beginning.

"I have little to no understanding of theory, run it at your own risk!"

Hi! My name is Lotem Loeb and I am a first-year college student. I am traditionally a Public Forum debater with four years of experience. During a round, I primarily focus on the flow and your speech (how you articulate arguments, volume, and a strong speaking voice). The most beneficial and important things to do during your speech are:

• Provide brightlines for all major arguments. This clarifies the round and reminds me of your important points.

• Weighing in all speeches (including comparative weighing)! If you do this, I can more easily assess your impacts.

• Extending links throughout the round.

• Cross should not be a continuation of debating, make sure to ask relevant questions and not explicitly further your arguments.

• Please be sure to frontline starting in Second Rebuttal or First Summary.

• Do not under any circumstances make any offensive arguments. I do not tolerate any arguments that come at the expense of any groups or specific individuals and I will dock speaker points. Also, make sure to be respectful of your opponents during round.

• If you use a theory/K I will only vote for you if it is presented well (I would prefer you do not since your opponent may not have experience with such).

If you spread during speeches that is okay, just make sure to emphasize clarity in arguments and enunciate.

You will do great and make sure to have fun!

Email: lotem.loeb@gmail.com

I am a parent of a debater and a second-year judge.

I keep an open mind, judge behavior, and often believe that 'less is more'.

email: cbm2158@columbia.edu

I am a judge and coach for Brooklyn Technical High School. I mostly coach public forum now, but I have more experience with policy. I competed on the national policy circuit in high school ten years ago. I am currently a PhD student in English and Comparative Literature.

I do my best to maintain a detailed flow and place a premium on clear and consistent signposting.

I like Ks and theory, but I think they are difficult to run well in public forum.

I don't typically ask for evidence after the round unless there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says. Flag it in your speech, and I'll be happy to look.

Feel free to raise any other questions or concerns before the round!

I'm a parent judge who brings a multi-cultural and international sensibility to my role, a perspective also informed by more than 25 years of practice in the field of law. With clients that have included hi-tech companies, venture capital funds, and a governmental agency, I have always sought a fact-based and science-driven outlook that values substance over style and rationality over rhetoric. May the best debaters prevail!

Hey all, I am a graduated Varsity Public Forum debater so I have a solid amount of experience with all sorts of cases and debating styles so you won't have to worry too much about complex language or speed. That being said, I still am a public forum debater meaning that I do not have much experience with spreading in public forum. However, if you do have me in another form of debate, I can handle spreading and Ks as long as you break it down, please do not assume I know about the K you are running.

Flows: I'm not a huge fan of repeating yourself and over-explaining, so no need to get caught up or over do it. On top of that, I really appreciate good signposting and roadmapping so I can make as much of a lovely and organized flow possible. Also, I can identify when stuff is dropped usually, but, I still want you to show and explain why it is important that they dropped.

Speaking: Again, I've watched and participated in lots of debates, so no need to break things down too much. However--especially in the online world--spreading is usually lost on me, don't speak too fast and try to focus on diction. Coherency makes me a happy camper.

One additional nitpicky thing, I'm not super serious about strict debate formalities but I have one pet peeve regarding respectfulness. I, the judge am your audience so please do not address your opponents as "you", it can come off as hostile, please refer to them as "they" or "my opponents".

If you have me in Policy or LD, I have experience judging these types of debate so I do have a general knowledge of them but still, assume I am lay.

Thanks for reading and happy debating,

Aidan

Dear Debaters,

I am a lay judge who has been judging both debate and speech events for approximately five years.

I particularly value a clear presentation of a particular argument. Please consider the amount of evidence that you need to present to support your contention or your refutation of your opponent's contentions. Being able to clearly and logically present your arguments is as important as the volume of data that support your argument.

I do not like the approach of trying to present an excess of data in the hope that your opponents might miss a particular piece of evidence.

Good luck and have fun.

Ram Miller

I am a parent judge, my child is a current debater from Bronx Science. I myself am not an experienced debater from high school or college but I have been a Professor at a University since 2001. As an academic I have trained myself to judge topics based purely on evidence and not personal biases so I will try my best to do that here. That being said, I will judge based on what is and isn’t responded to, however I am unlikely to buy extremely outrageous arguments. I believe debates are won by people that present their arguments with confidence and I don't think volume of your voice is a reflection of the quality of your arguments.

This part my daughter wrote for me, translating my thoughts into debate-speak:

⁃ Don’t run K’s

⁃ Don’t run theory

⁃ Don’t spread

⁃ Debate is fun, be respectful!

⁃ Give off time road map

⁃ Don’t use jargon (delink, turn, etc.) I dont know what that means. Explain it directly.

I am a traditional judge who was President of my high school debate team. I vote based upon the flow but require warranting and extending your arguments to inform my decision. Include impacts in your argument and weigh/meta weigh during rounds. It is difficult for me to reach a favorable conclusion if you base your argument on theory, counter interpretation, or disclosure theory.

Other things to consider: Signposting is helpful. My decisions are influenced by which individual/team more clearly, concisely and factually presents and supports their case. You can speak quickly but don't spread (240 wpm +). Try not to fall into "debated speak" as it makes it more difficult to understand/relate to your arguments. It is much more important that I can understand and follow your line of reasoning and how you build your argument. Building a logical case supported by a well thought out line of reasoning with supporting evidence is much more important to my decision than how quickly you can rattle off information. It is very important that you can support (or cite evidence for) "statements of fact" in your argument. You can off time roadmap but limit this to less than 15 seconds. Focus on your contentions and countering your opponents arguments - DON'T focus on telling me what your opponent is doing wrong or the rules they are breaking (ex. bringing up a new contention in final focus) as that is just wasting time. Finally, don't laugh at, belittle, or otherwise show disrespect to your opponent or you will be docked individual points. Most importantly have fun, be nice, and we'll all have a great time. If you have questions please feel free to email me at trmoffitt@yahoo.com.

• You are responsible for timing.

• Don't talk fast.

• I appreciate novel arguments.

I look forward to judging your round.

I am in my third year of judging PF debates. My judging paradigms are -

1. Communicate arguments clearly with logical reasoning and good evidence.
2. Speak clearly.
3. Weighing arguments and comparison of impacts are important.
4. I will evaluate arguments that are extended through the round.
5. Collapse on the strongest arguments in summary and final focus.

Hey! I'm Anshul - as a former varsity PF debater at Acton Boxborough High School, I value respectful and clear communication in round. Any form of rudeness or bigotry will not be tolerated at all. While passionate debates are definitely encouraged, rudeness or bigotry in any form will lead to a severe reduction in speaker points and a loss for the round.

I am not deeply familiar with theory or Ks, so keep that in mind. Clear signposting and off-time roadmaps are crucial for me to follow your arguments effectively. Remember, clarity is key.

I'll be flowing every speech. Crossfire is important, but I won't flow it. If something significant occurs during crossfire, make sure you mention it.

Focus on collapsing your arguments rather than trying to cover everything. Make sure to extend all relevant contentions, impacts, cards, and rebuttals. Do not introduce new evidence after the first summary and refrain from bringing up dropped arguments in the final focus.

Effective weighing is essential. I appreciate when debaters use mechanisms like scope, magnitude, and probability to make their case stronger. Clear, early weighing helps me in deciding my vote.

Keep track of your own time, I'll be keeping tabs on the time, so make sure you do not exceed the speech time extensively. Finally, have fun! Be respectful to one another, and feel free to ask for feedback (more than happy to provide any).

Looking forward to a great round. Good luck!

Hi! I'm a current freshman at Cornell University and a recent Lexington graduate. I debated PF for four years in the local and national circuit. Feel free to ask any questions before or after the round. Thanks and good luck!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR

-Shruti Pokharna (she/her)

-Add me to the email chain → shruti.pokharna@gmail.com (Please subject the email chain using the following format: Tournament Name, Round #, School Name & Team Code vs. School Name & Team Code)

-If I'm judging you in any format other than PF, treat me as you would a new judge.

-I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round unless the tournament doesn't allow it.

-Will judge tabula rasa as long as your arguments are flowed through to the end of the round. Don't drop anything you want me to vote on - nothing is sticky.

-Weigh as much as possible! The earlier in the round you start weighing, the better.

-Warrant your evidence well! Logical arguments w/o evidence > unwarranted evidence. I'll vote on pretty much any argument if it's explained well enough.

-I will listen but not flow anything said in CX. If there's anything you want me to evaluate, bring it up in one of your speeches.

-I can handle speed, just be as coherent as possible and be able to provide me with speech docs.

-Absolutely no tolerance in the round for anything sexist/racist/homophobic/ableist, etc. Your speaks and round results will suffer. Read content warnings if your argument warrants one. Please be respectful!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DO

Do clear evidence comparison in every speech, signpost throughout the round - especially rebuttal. Impact calc and comparative weighing are great strategies (try to start as soon as rebuttal) BUT tell me which weighing mechanism you’re using and WHY you outweigh.

For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns. Having link-ins from your case is a robust strategy. Extend by explaining your claim/warrant/impact and and don't drop any arguments you want me to vote on. During summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another. Anything not said during summary will not be used to evaluate the round.

Effective two world comparison in your final focus is the best way for you to win my ballot. Call out dropped arguments by the opposing team and tell me why it's important.

Make sure to speak clearly and time your own speeches and prep.

Bring up points from CX you want me to evaluate during any of your speeches.

Be respectful to your partner and your opponents. Read content warnings if your argument requires one! Please let me know if you feel unsafe during the round - I will stop the round and contact Tab.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DON'T

Once again, there's no tolerance for anyone in the debate space to be disrespectful/homophobic/sexist/ableist, etc.

Don't read arguments you can't explain or warrant strongly.

Don't bring up new evidence in the final speeches.

Don't steal prep or hog CX time.

Don't misconstrue evidence - it can have harsh consequences.

Don't trade clarity for speed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVIDENCE

No one’s prep is used while a team is looking for evidence. That being said, if it takes too long, I will either drop it off of my flow or run your prep. Additionally, please use sophisticated evidence that is consistent with the author’s intent in writing it. If a team claims that evidence has been misrepresented, I will take a look and make a decision on the validity of the claim. If I agree, I’ll drop the argument. If the misrepresentation strongly obstructs evidence ethics, the violation will be dealt with on the terms of the tournament or I will deduct speaks and vote the team down. I’m good with paraphrasing as long as you're able to promptly provide cut cards if asked and there isn’t any misconstruction or misrepresentation of evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE ON PROGRESSIVE DEBATE

I’m willing to evaluate any arguments but am not well versed in theory/k’s. If you choose to run any of these, please explain and clearly warrant them out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPEAKER POINTS

I’ll start at 28.5 and move up or down depending on your round performance (clarity, strategy, communication, etc.)

<26: must’ve done something horrible (homophobic/racist/sexist, etc.)

I am a parent judge and new to judging, so please make clear and articulate arguments and be courteous to your opponents. I respect and honor debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, and who use debate to find truth - based on facts and truth, and nothing but the truth.

My name is Ms. Reyes, I work at Bronx Science and I am first-time traditional judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not run any progressive arguments. I appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. Have a good round!

They/Them/Theirs

Add me to the email chain: queeratlibertyuniversity@gmail.com

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

Hi all! I'm a current Cornell student and alum of Arlington High School, where I competed in/captained PF. I flow rounds and give oral disclosure/RFD whenever the tournament allows.

TL;DR: treat me somewhere between a flow and "flay" judge, be respectful, and have fun.

-----

HOUSEKEEPING

Be respectful of each other. No bigotry or rudeness, personal attacks, etc.

If you're going to be discussing very heavy issues, please include a content warning at the beginning and treat these topics with sensitivity. I vote off my flow so this won't affect my decision. Having said that, I view this as a matter of respect and might dock speaker points accordingly. When in doubt, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Evidence sharing - requesting one or two cards is fine, then please run prep so that it doesn't become excessive. Before the round starts please decide if you want to flip computers or do an email chain. If you make a chain, include me (kcr53@cornell.edu).

-----

IN-ROUND PREFS

SIGNPOST clearly!! Please give an off-time roadmap and STICK TO IT whenever possible. I want to be listening to your arguments, not trying to figure out where you are in the flow.

I listen but don't flow crossfire, so if you want me to consider any concessions or points from cross in my final decision, you need to bring them up in a speech.

Weigh more and earlier than you think you need to! I love to hear metaweighing (ex. "timeframe is more important than magnitude because...") so if you get a chance, go for it. If both teams' offense falls through, I'll use weighing to make my final decision.

Collapse!!! It's very very rarely worth it to try to carry all of your contentions through all the way. Not collapsing is the #1 reason why I vote against teams in a close ballot - collapsing gives you enough time to effectively extend all of your warranting, impacts, and defense. Ideally, you should collapse in summary, but FF is fine too.

Extend everything that you want me to include in my decision, or I will consider it dropped. This means not just the card, but also any warranting, impacts, defense, and frontlining. Start in second rebuttal and continue throughout each speech.

-----

PROGRESSIVE DEBATE

Spreading - I don't love it, but I can handle speed with 2 caveats: 1. If you sacrifice clarity for speed and I miss something, that's on you. & 2. For accessibility reasons, ask the other team if they're okay with spreading, and you CANNOT spread if they refuse. If both teams are okay with it, go ahead and make sure to provide your speech docs.

I don't have a ton of experience with theories/Ks, so treat me like a flay judge here. Run them if you want but be sure to clearly explain/warrant them.

If you are from a smaller team or one with less tech-y debate experience, I will not hold it against you if you don't understand jargon, theory/Ks, or niche PF rules. My philosophy is that debate is primarily about effective communication and argumentation. Technique is important but secondary, so do your best and I will make every effort to evaluate you fairly.

-----

You're always welcome to come talk to me or email me with more specific questions after I give my round feedback. Have fun and good luck!

I am a parent and a lay judge with no debate experience except as a volunteer at two previous events. I have no preference for whether you stand or sit. I do prefer that you make clear statements about each contention. Please signpost. Please state your impact. Also, you should make a solid recap of why you should win in the final speech.

Have fun!

jonahpsah@gmail.com, put me on the chain and please send speech docs for case and rebuttal.

First year out, did PF for 8 years, semifinaled the prestigious 2018 middle school tournament of champions

I'm a flow judge, tech > truth etc. Everything said in a speech is true until someone says otherwise.

have fun/be funny; it's high school debate; I think rounds should be relaxed. that being said, I will do my best to take the round seriously. debate takes a lot of work and I know what it feels like to have judges who aren't trying their hardest, so I will do my best to match or exceed your effort.

Collapse (for your own good)

When deciding the round, I will look to the following: I'll evaluate weighing, then look if there is any extended offense being won off of the weighing, then to any other offense.

If it isn't in summary and final, I won't evaluate it (so extend case/whatever you're going for). Don’t just say “extend this argument/card,” you need to re-explain the argument/its warrants. I'm not really afraid to drop a team that is winning bc they screwed up their extensions. The one caveat is that I'm ok with the weighing debate unfolding kind of late: if there is new weighing in second summary, you can respond in first final.

Regarding speed: I can flow just about anything under 300 wpm if you are clear. A few caveats though: a) I won't flow off of a doc in PF unless I space out or something. I know that makes me kind of old-fashioned but as a wise man once told me, "this isn't an essay writing contest." If you ask before round, I will clear you so that you know exactly what I'm catching. b) SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS PLZZ like even in policy they do that, it barely takes more time

If it isn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, it's dropped. (This applies to offense and defense, but not weighing.)

It's not 2017, defense isn't sticky

cross is binding? obviously? what is the point otherwise? obviously bring up anything important in a speech. I will pay at least some attention to cross though so don't lie, it's kind of obvious

I don't care about presentation: wear whatever, be silly, swear if you want. this also means that the whole jostling-for-perceptual-dominance in cross stuff is unnecessary (in fact it kinda pisses me off). I'll give speaks based on how good the content of your speeches is, not how pretty you say it.

Unless evidence is a) going to decide the round and b) contested in a way that I can't resolve, I won't call or look at anything. I think evidence debates are the same as any other argument: something is true unless it is responded to. If someone indicts your ev, that indict is true until you say otherwise, and I'm not going to check it to make sure. The only time I will look at ev is if teams can't agree on facts about the evidence itself (eg. the date it was written, author quals, etc.).

An argument with evidence obviously carries more weight than one without, but I like when teams make a bunch of analytics, especially in rebuttal.

I'm ok with postrounding, if you disagree with my decision you don't have to dance around it with polite questions (as long as you aren't rude). It is entirely possible that I screw up a decision. I will say 2 things though: first, if I screw up it's probably at least partially on you. anything that can decide the round should be clearly laid out for me. second, you may convince me that I'm wrong, but that won't change anything. I can't change the ballot, so all that will happen is that I will feel kinda bad and you will still have lost. So by all means, go ahead and prove that I'm wrong, but it will only do so much for you.

FW: two thoughts: a) a group being underprioritized is not enough a reason to prioritize it: explain why there are fewer intervening actors or it leads to better real world policy etc. b) read it in case or rebuttal... I'm not gonna evaluate framing in summary, that's obviously so unfair.

Ks: I think Ks are awesome, I wrote/read some in high school (cap, securitization, orientalism). That being said, I was still in PF, so I'm not that familiar with most K lit. I also think Ks can be read kinda poorly, so make sure you have at least a link, impact and alt in your case (and that you extend them). It's pretty clear when people read args that they don't really understand themselves, and if you can't articulate your argument and I don't get it I won't vote for it.

theory: I will not lie. I find most theory rounds tedious and kind of boring and not that important. I learned a lot in debate, but I don't think I would have learned much more or less if everyone did or didn't disclose/paraphrase/whatever. That being said, I ended up having a lot of theory rounds, and I'm comfortable judging it. However, if anyone feels actively unsafe/uncomfortable, you don't have to whip out a shell: just tell me/message me on FB and I will stop the round.

I'm not a fan of reading progressive arguments on inexperienced kids -- it will not lead to better norms/interesting discourse, it's just kinda mean. If you are being a jerk I'll tank your speaks so just use your judgment. -Maya sachs

If you read dumb stuff (you know exactly what I mean) you're getting like 0 speaks. I just don't think friv theory/tricks/whatever are that funny, and beyond that I have no idea what benefit anyone gets from them.

shoutout to my boo thang george tiesi #thepartnership

30 speaks if you can name all 40 barbie movies from memory before round. no notes or anything. blindfolded. in order of release date. while spinning around in a circle. while balancing on one foot.

I am a traditional debate judge.  I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments.  I do not believe that Kritiks and other cases like that have any place in PF debate.  Speed should be reasonable.  I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.  

I am a current high school English teacher and college composition professor. Although I never debated in high school or college, one of the focuses on my graduate study was in argumentative writing as a focus through composition, so I will be looking for debaters to form effective and solid arguments through evidence and solid logic as a basis for my judging. It is important that you speak at a conversational pace, so I can hear and understand all of your contentions for the issue you raise on your side. I will work hard to focus on the effectiveness of your sides issue for each round and by thoughtful about comparing the effectiveness of each side fairly against one another. The best debaters, in my opinion, are respectful to one another while clearly building a strong and effective argument for their own side of the issue before focusing on the weakness of the opponent.

rajendra10031@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years. I am now a senior at City College.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. If you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that. Tabula Rasa

FOR RIDGE:I haven't judged since the end of last season. This is my first tournament on the federal debt topic, but I have looked up topic analyses' on it so do with that information as you well.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

tech > truth

did PF for lambert, current freshman doing APDA at Harvard, here’s my competition record if that matters to you

add me to the chain: sahilsood@college.harvard.edu

send me full case and rebuttal docs with cut cards. no exceptions.

order of prefs: good theory>friv theory>traditional K's>meme cases (spark, ddev, etc)>substance>identity K's>non-T aff>trix, but i’ll eval anything

**note if you read a K of any sort: while I am receptive, you need to do adequate research of your own. I've seen K's in PF work and not work because the speech times are so short. if it is obviously stolen off of a policy or LD wiki, I will be much less receptive. if you choose to run these arguments, run them well.

regardless, win the flow and I'll vote for you

would love if you skipped grand cross and took 1:30 of prep

feel free to post round i think it’s educational

someone please call a TKO

speaks:

• 30 to any second speaker who can give a rebuttal off the flow (doc-botted rebuttals are fake smh)
• minimum 29.5's if you read anything that i have preffed higher than substance in my prefs above
• otherwise, i will probably average around 28.7-29 with speaks (i try to be generous)

Hello. I am a parent judge.

I have been judging Varsity Public Forum for the last two years.

Please speak clearly and don't rush your presentation so I can understand and digest your points and arguments. This is important since I take notes during the debate so that I can reference them when making my final decision and awarding speaker points.

Please don't throw around evidence, instead, give solid reasoning for all your points. I am influenced by data and credible evidence supporting your positions with good reasoning as well. I appreciate a good argument and am looking for clear evidence to back up your argument.

I would like to see respect shown on both sides of the debate. Talking over each other in the crossfire is not the best way to get your point across.

Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Hello, my name is Qibin

This is my second year and fifth tournament judging, I am a lay judge.

A few preferences:

1) Please don't rush/speak too fast

2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite

3) Please signpost clearly so I know what arguments you are addressing

4) Please weigh in summary and final focus

5) Please have clear extensions of your arguments so I can understand them better.

Let's have a fun and educational round!

Hello My name is Aravind (pronounced as R-vind). This is my second time judging Debate-first one was LD and now for Big Lex PF Varsity Judge.

Background

I am a Senior Director of Operations in a Biopharma Company and have a master's in chemical engineering and MBA in management and operations and technology.

Preferences

I am ok if you want to go fast on your speech if you want to cover enough material and that's your style go ahead I can catch up but prefer medium speed so I can comprehend and catch up and take notes. Make sure you get your ideas in that I can understand and be convinced.

I would prefer strong convincing arguments over any stylish jargon on debate. Looking for strength and confidence over aggression and unnecessary arguments, respect each other.

Don't forget - this is about you having fun!

Good luck!

I debated four years pf, ld, and policy in high school and four years of policy in college.

I can flow pretty much everything, and I’ll evaluate all the arguments to the best of my ability. Try to give your arguments impacts and help me create a framework to evaluate the debate.

Update April 2024- some thoughts after a few years of judging pf

I'm considering not allowing off-time road maps as I think they've become super long-winded and silly. It's my preference that you say, "pro case then con case" or vice versa. Sometimes there are extra sheets of paper that's fine, but I've been in too many debates when the off-time road map sounds something like this, "I'm gonna start by talking about the major issues in the round, then I'm going to address some of the things my opponent has said, before frontlining and then weighing at the bottom." That is, essentially, meaningless to me.

I think that debaters should reward punctuality and timeliness. When I was a debater I didn't realize how much judges are on the clock. There is a judging deadline and if the debate starts late, or seems to take forever. Besides extenuating circumstances, I am always trying to be on time and I think it's selfish to make the tournament run late. That means if I only have two minutes left before the decision deadline, I am spending two minutes deciding. It is in your best interest as debaters to give me more time, not less to think about the round.

I've watched a few theory debates this year. I tend to think RVI's are silly. PF theory is not my favorite but I have voted on it before.

I do really like it when debaters make arguments comparative and have a lot of topic knowledge. I'm often interested in these topics and it's nice when you are too.

e-mail chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Eli! Binghamton University (Bing TC)

Personal thoughts (on debate): Debate is legit a business. To debate is work. Like yes, enjoy the activity, but after a certain point what is the plan for how you interact with this space (and especially your arguments)?

That said, I do not have the capacity to busy myself with argumentation that is a waste (meaning it lacks intention, a goal, and/or a purpose). I'm deeply intuitive and clock things with ease.

Let me not feel about your arguments how Grace Jones felt about meeting Lady Gaga:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/grace-jones-on-meeting-lady-gaga-i-just-didnt-feel-a-soul-2015510/

-

For PF: you can read this paradigm to understand the framework I will evaluate arguments, but the threshold is lower (except for everything I wrote after the Theory section). Do you, have fun. I don't particularly care.

-

Top of the line: I like ethos. I vote for the team who best articulates a politic that shows an understanding of the world beyond technicalities and jargon.

-

Speed: If I yell clear twice, more than likely I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, if it comes down to the flow, please make sure I understand the important points. For your sake, not mine.

-

Policy Affs- I need a clear framework for how I am to evaluate the plan (and round) beyond a reactionary response to the negative. I also require a clear link story to the impact(s), and how the plan actualizes a politic to secure a resolution to the harms of the 1AC.

In many words, block out for T. That seems to be a lot of policy teams' weakness when Affirmative.

T/Framework: I think procedurals can be a proper way to contest the aff's methodology and solvency mechanism. That depends on nuance and the way it is read. So, T-USFG: that’s fine, but you're not gonna go far if the block is just surface level on questions of YOUR wants.

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. In order to justify a win with the DA, I require a very clear and concise link story as well as impact comparison to justify the DA as a takeout to Aff solvency. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... this feels like a huge FYI and still don't know why I should care (judge instruction)...

-----

The K-

Aff: Let the aff be in discussion of the topic. If not, I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: I think it’s important for content and form to be aligned. I require strong judge instruction because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to. This applies to Affs as well, but I specified here as the Neg has the burden of rejoinder. Meaning y'all have to win an actual DA to the Aff and/or an outweigh claim.

POMO: I require an advocacy that could easily be materialized or understood in a way that I can intuitively see it solving for the impacts. Examples and analogies would be best.

"Identity": to win my ballot, you have to win your Theory of Power and that your method best alleviates the violence that incurs from power (as opposed to being an 8/9-minute FYI). I'm familiar with many and live in the intersections of many. Black Fem args have my heart tho

~~

Performance: Your stylistic choice in itself is also a critique. Be strategic and use your 1AC/1NC to leverage offense throughout the round.

-----

Theory: No one reads it properly for me. Divert from only reading unspecified shells. Apply it to the actual performances of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate the importance of this voter. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

/

Any rhetoric that defaults to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I have the complete right to drop you and end the round. I do not care. Auto-loss.

//

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down (iykyk).

////

I (still) flow on paper.

/////

Add on to previous: I do not flow from the doc, but from speech. Clarity benefits you.

//////

I vote fast because I am actively thinking about the round. My written RFD will be short, but the verbal RFD will be plentiful. Take notes and ask questions.

///////

I cuss, but only to emphasize certain points. That said, with Novs/JV I'll watch my mouth but varsity? I view y'all as growing academic peers and therefore will speak to you as such. Do not be surprised if I say a curse here or there, it is what it is.

Hi! I am a first year out and did debate for 6 years but I wouldn’t treat me as a flow judge.

I will flow the round

I will time your speeches and stop flowing around 10 seconds after your time is up

Don’t expect me to know anything about the topic

Logic > evidence

Let me know if you want feedback in person or on the ballot

If you want more information, my old paradigm is below.

——————————

First things first, please be respectful to your opponents, partner, and in general. If you are intentionally racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, etc. you will be dropped with low speaks. I know it can be unintentional, so if someone points it out, just apologize and don’t keep doing or saying it.

As for judging, I will try to adapt to your style the best I can. However, going fast and card dumping does not impress me because most of the time, they aren't implicated and there's no educational value. That being said, here are some general parameters.

- tech > truth to a degree, my willingness to vote for you will go away faster than typical tech judges if your argument is just blatantly not true. I feel like debate is more about education than just being a game

- I will flow the round and I can handle speed fairly well (but know that the faster you go, the less happy my 3 brain cells will be)

- Please collapse and WEIGH your arguments, I will like you even more if you do comparative weighing. So explain why your weighing is better than their weighing.

- I’m a huge fan of analytical responses and logic, if you can tell me why you’re right and your opponents are wrong with just logic, I think it is 100xs better than reading a card or block that doesn’t have any explanation

Progressive Arguments

- Please ensure your opponents are okay with running progressive arguments before round, as it can be incredibly exclusionary in public forum. If there is a serious violation during round, you may run theory in paragraph form.

- I have had some experience debating progressive args (mostly theory and krtiks) and will flow/try to understand them, but I will be less receptive than say policy or LD judges.

Show me that you care, but you don’t have to be incredibly serious and aggressive to win! If you have any other questions, you can ask me before round or email me (selinatang@college.harvard.edu)

I debated at PolyPrep. My team code was Poly Prep TS.

Email Chain: gdtiesi@gmail.com

I hate when judges are way too picky about how kids debate so literally just do what you want. I'll adapt to you and anything you wanna do. I'm open to any args just if you're are running some crazy stuff, warrant well and make it digestible to my dumb pf brain. Also I don't care about the speaking part of the round but if I can't understand you I'll be a way worse judge.

Frontline is 2nd rebuttal, 2nd sum is too late imo

Also obviously nothing offensive, I'll instantly drop you if you endorse any sort of hate speech.

Disclosure theory: I will evaluate Disclosure like any other theory argument and will be as impartial as I can be. With that being said, you need to understand that I am probably the most anti-disclo debater on the circuit. Anyone that knows me well knows that. I truly do believe it's a bad norm and bad for debate. If you want, convince me! If you want to run it, and you are confident, I urge you to do it!

Speech docs:I don't like when teams use speech docs to get their point across. If I can't understand your speech I'm not reading your doc. If I don't get something on my flow, that is your fault.

Good Luck and have fun!

Shout out to my boo thang Jonah Sah #thepartnership

If you need more details, I will be mostly (some of her takes are... questionable) aligned with Sophia Lam.

Hi my name is Gaby and while I've never debated PF, I have debated Parliamentary before and do enjoy debate.

Here are a few things to keep in mind about me as a judge:

• Tech over truth. Respond to arguments presented or I will allow it to stand as 'truth' and conceded.
• If you use speed to get more words in but I cannot understand or follow you, it will not end up on my flow and I won't be able to judge on it.
• Track your prep time, but let me know when you are about to take it.
• I have no problem with heated discussion during crossfire but I will not tolerate any disrespect or cruelty.
• If the timer goes off mid-sentence, finish your sentence but no more after that.

It takes a lot to get up and present an argument, so make sure to have fun and let me know if you have any questions!

Hi I am Audrey! I'm a college student who did 3 years of debating PF at Sharon High School. Consider me a flay judge. Here are my things:

Email: audrey85t@gmail.com

-Don't speed like crazy! If I don't get it on my flow that's on you.

-Track your own prep time and time your own speeches, but let me know when you're taking it.

-Probability and Solvency weighing is not really weighing, please weigh with something else too. In a round with no offense left, my ballot comes down to the weighing.

-Extend! Not just the card name, but the warranting as well. Good warranting is the only weigh I will vote.

-Please no theory.If someone breaks a rule, respond in round. If something more serious arises, we can always stop the round and deal with it.

Be nice because I will tolerate a mean team, if there is a serious problem, I will drop you or your speaker points. Lastly have fun and let me know if you have any questions!!

I'm a freshman in college, and I debated in public forum in high school. I judge a lot, so I'm happy to give advice and answer questions at the end of the round.

Add me to the email chain: rv2529@barnard.edu.

• I'm open to theory and progressive arguments when ran well.
• I can follow speed, but please provide a speech doc if you expect I will miss something on my flow. That being said, speed shouldn't tradeoff with clarity.

• In both rebuttals, I expect teams to 1) signpost as you go down the flow so that I know where you are and what is being responded to 2) weigh the arguments and not just say, “we outweigh, ” tell me which weighing mechanism and WHY you outweigh.

• For second rebuttal, frontline terminal defense and turns.
• PS: I like link-ins from case and preq. arguments a lot. I don't like when teams use their case arguments as their only responses ie. deterrence vs. escalation debate (interact with the individual warrants and links!)
• In summary, extend all contentions, blocks, frontlines you are collapsing on. Please weigh to show me how these arguments compare against one another.
• I like meta-weighing -- tell me which mechanism is better.
• Not a fan of sticky defense but I will consider it if that's what the round comes down to.
• The final focus speech is a good time to slow down and explain the argument and the direction the round is going in. Please do not bring in any new responses or implications during this speech.
• I generally enjoy listening to crossfire. Still, I will LISTEN to crossfire, but I will not FLOW crossfire. I can only evaluate good points made in cross if they are brought up in speeches later.
• Clarity and strategy are the key factors that will impact your final speaks.

• I like framework when it is well warranted and unique... I don't like "cost-benefit analysis" framework

Parent judge - speak slowly and make sure I can follow the logic in your arguments.

Nastiness is not appreciated.

Debated PF in high school; will be voting off the flow; tech > truth. You can consider me a "flay" judge; don't assume that I know anything about the topic (and don't assume that I am not knowledgeable about the topic, either!).

Speak clearly and be nice to each other. Write my ballot for me in summary and especially final focus — tell me exactly why I should be voting for you. A necessary precondition for this is weighing and signposting early and often. Please extend terminalized impacts throughout the round.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread in PF. (If you're not sure whether you're speaking quickly or spreading, ask yourself whether a lay observer can understand your words without looking at your speech doc.)

Progressive argumentation: Run theory/Ks if you think it's your best chance at winning, but it probably won't be as effective as traditional argumentation. This is PF, so make sure your entire link chain is crystal clear. This also means that I have a rather low threshold when it comes to responses to these sorts of arguments. I'll still evaluate anything that isn't blatantly egregious. I appreciate a good framework clash.

Let me know if you have any questions, and have fun!

I was in LD and state-wide extemp debate at Newtown High School (2006-2008); I've also judged tournaments off and on throughout my college and working years (2010+).

On speed (slow please): I used to speak fairly quickly in my own rounds, but in the real-world the slow spread, speaking slowly, or great word economy will help you in your own careers long-term. You will likely need to persuade people higher up the ladder or others (e.g. in college/job interviews) down the road: this work requires clarity and persuasion. Generally speed at -2X. I'll flow throughout the round.

On structure:

1. Don't want to use a value/vc framework (LD)? Fine. Want to have a ton of a priori arguments, underviews, overviews etc.. No worries. Give me a heads up on what you're using and how I should evaluate it if you're doing anything that's not a value/vc f/w.
2. I like when you're creative and throw in interesting arguments that make me think; use whatever technical terms you want but I need you to explain what they mean to you etc.
3. Always a fan of weighing. Do the work and tell me how I should evaluate the round :). Looking for multiple voting issuses.
4. If someone is making arguments that seem silly and unlikely, I need to hear specficially why they are silly and unlikely.

A bit more..

1. Looking for things like sign posting (tell me where you are going e.g. opponent contention 1), enumerating (numbering) your arguments, weighing (also why your weighing is better than your opponents or why I prefer yours), talking about the argument that was dropped or why you're extending through something etc.
2. Don't forget to breathe and take a chance to practice some voice inflection when making an argument.
3. Try hard to use plain language: the ability to translate more technical terms into easy-to-understand language is key.
4. If you’re extending something, briefly summarize the extension (try hard for less blippy extensions while balancing being succinct).

On cards: When reading off cards, I'm looking for some synthesis e.g. (1) what is this person saying (2) why does it help your argument. I still see cards that have no actual evidence e.g. x person says Y; if your opponent goes in and says no warrant, there's not much I can do.

On final arguments: Again add that synthesis in. Show me where you extended an argument that was unresponded to and crystalize your main points. I can go do the work for you (it may not be what you like), but it's helpful as a speaker when you do it for me (summarize the round and tell me why you win). Give me multiple places to vote on via number (#1, #2, #3) even if we've collapsed issues (I won X of arg, I've turned their arg and it's better/worse in my world -- don't forget to generally mention oh and btw they aren't winning their offense).

On civility: Be kind. Having a great argument and being even-keeled in the process is great -- it makes for a persuasive speaker IMHO. Looking for CCC: calm, cool, and collected (though spirited debate is of course welcome).

Please do not shout at me or your opponent during the round. Please use the speaking voice you use every day when at school or talking to friends. There's no need to shout in the round for me to understand what you are saying. Thank you!

LD debater for Ridge High School for 2008-2012. Have judged across CX, LD, PF.

Speed: I judge sporadically, so keep that in mind when spreading - clarity is important regardless of the speed. I will yell "clear" twice, after that it is up to you to determine if I am flowing.

Casing: No preference in the type of argumentation (K, Theory, LARP, stock) you run in front of me, however, if you are running something that skews away from the stock, please spend the time to explain the argument, interactions of the argument on the flow, impact, and weighing.

Theory: If no justification, I assume competing interpretations. However I am open to whatever framework that is justified in round (e.g., reasonability, RVI). Just be clear on how you want the ballot to function.

Feel free to ask specific questions before the round - I tend to find that more fruitful.

I base my decision on both a properly outlined and properly defended argument. Quick speaking is expected but rapid fire speaking that cannot be followed will cost you a round. If I cannot follow your argument and I can follow your opponent, your opponent has won. I like to give constructive criticism to the best of my ability, my goal is to help the students improve and come back again. Nuclear war/end of world arguments never work. This is an activity we all enjoy so it should be fun for all the parties involved. I do not have a lot of tolerance for rudeness and this will be reflected in both speaker points and comments.

Hi everyone! I'm a current college student but debated/captained varsity PF at Arlington High School and judged at a couple past tournaments. Here are my preferences:

First of all, be respectful to everyone in-round. Debate rounds can become intense and passionate, but any sort of bigotry, overt rudeness, condescension, or personal attacks will dock you serious speaker points or possibly lose you the round. Provide content warnings when appropriate and respect pronouns.

I'm okay with some speed but I very heavily discourage spreading, on principle. Ask yourself: would the average debater in your division be able to understand and flow what you're saying without reading along? If you spread and I don't get something on my flow, that's on you.

If you run theory/Ks be warned that I don't have much experience with them and won't really know how to evaluate them properly. Overall, I believe that Public Forum debate at its core is meant to be accessible to everyone, even to those without large teams, coaches, and extensive resources. I don't like how super techy, progressive LD/Policy strategies have started to seep into PF in recent years. In most cases I value the spirit of debate and good argumentation over nitty-gritty progressive arguments about, for example, some minor and obscure technical mistake your opponent might have made with no ill intent.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost clearly and use off-time roadmaps to make it clear to me where we are in the flow. I want to be listening to and evaluating your arguments, not trying to figure out where we are. Don't forget to signpost and QUANTIFY your impacts!!!

Remember to extend all the contentions, impacts, warrants, rebuttals, and frontlines that you want me to vote on! I don't usually get evidence tags (ie "Smith 23") down on my flow, so extend the actual content of the impact/warrant/whatever instead of just the name of the card. DO NOT bring up new evidence past first summary, ESPECIALLY in final focus, and DO NOT bring up dropped/conceded args or evidence of any kind in FF.

Weigh clearly and early! Weighing mechanisms (scope, magnitude, probability, etc.) and meta-weighing (comparing weighing mechanisms) are really helpful. I want to know exactly why I should be voting for your side. I also love when debaters clearly tell me exactly which specific issues I should be voting on-- make it easy for me to write my ballot. However, I'm not a fan of when debaters aggressively address me in-round and demand that I give them my ballot.

Collapse! Don't try to carry through all your arguments.

Please frontline in second rebuttal.

I pay attention to crossfire but don't flow it (unless it helps me clarify something on my flow from cases), so if anything happened in cross that you want me to vote on, you must bring it up in an actual speech.

Please time yourself-- I'm not going to time anything. Be respectful to me and your opponents and do not go wildly overtime.

Decide BEFORE the round if you want to show cards by flipping computers or by an email chain. You can add me to the chain if you want (my email is maren_white@brown.edu) but I probably won't look at the cards mid-round. I really don't like misconstrued evidence, but it's your responsibility to examine and point out errors with your opponent's evidence in round. Remember to run prep while examining your opponent's cards, but you don't have to run prep while looking for evidence (within reason). Please make evidence-sharing speedy and efficient.

I'm excited to see some good rounds! Good luck :) Feel free to email me with any questions or to chat.

I am a parent judge for Concord Carlisle HS. I am new to judging so please make clear and articulate arguments and be courteous to your opponents. I expect fact based arguments that are truthful.

Hi, I debated Varsity PF at Sharon High for three years and was co-captain my senior yr. I’d consider myself a flow judge (n sometimes flay judge depending on my brainpower) so don’t do too much lol

*Please send all case docs and speech docs to elizabethrxu@gmail.com before you read them in pdf form

Speed is ok, but it’s been a while so please speak slower if you want me to fully understand the depth of ur args. i’ll tell u if u are being incomprehensible.

Extend and weigh ur arguments so I can intervene as little as possible —not tryna sweat too much in round cuz that’s y’all’s job now

For me to consider ur weighing fully u need to have offense on ur side. so while i prioritize weighing, there r some other things u need to do:

• respond to all offense and defense (this one is important to me!)
• don’t try to bring up new stuff
• be respectful bc debate doesn’t need any more toxicity

Things I’ll do:

• DROP YOU OR TANK SPEAKS IF YOU ARE BEING RUDE (depending on how bad i think it is). There must be a safe space for discussion to have a fair debate.

• vote tech > truth unless it’s problematic ♥️ or badly written/argued

• Give win off of turns and other more techy stuff as long as it’s fleshed out ex. make sure u have uniqueness or i have to default to theirs
• In case of stalemate, turn fully lay and go off vibes (or default to smaller schools)

Things I like:

• Collapsing on ONE CONTENTION (please y'all cmonn)

• Quality of responses over quantity --> THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT TO MEE (I rly don't wanna hear you extending 7 responses in summary like i'm so tired by that point and i wanna hear ur sharpest, most intellectual points yk)

• When finding evidence takes only 45 seconds max (˵•̀⤙•́˵)૭ efficiency is key

• Weighing of responses so I don't have to choose which one I personally like better. Don't just counter each response with the same ev you extend in each speech, explain to me why I should prefer it over their response whether it's on recency, specificity, etc.

• METAWEIGHING!! ONLY IF IT'S GOOD THO (i don't want to have to do any intervening when it comes to weighing either LMAO)

Theory/Ks

never truly learned theory/K stuff so if u do that i’ll be lay. like if i agree with what ur advocating for ill vote for it, but if it’s too techy and i dont get it then no.

I have debated in some capacity at some point in my life, current PF coach for Boston Latin School/APDA debater. Tl;dr normal tech judge. (My paradigm used to say flay judge but Ive come to realize I’m a lot more tech>truth than most judges. Read anything as long as it’s not racist or bad.)

my email is lemuelyu@bu.edu, please add it to the doc/email chain/carrier pigeon

At the end of the round, I will look down at my flow and do a few things, in the following order.

1. I will look at any framing, characterization, burdens, overviews etc. and evaluate the clash (or lack thereof) there. The winning arguments will serve as a filter for arguments in the round or as a way to determine the top layer of the round.

2. I will look at each individual contention or piece of offense within the round and determine what is won and how much it has won (i.e., how well it links to its impacts, a function of warranting, INTERNAL LINKS, uniqueness, etc). I will look at defense and evaluate whether it is terminal or mitigatory, and whether defense has been properly frontlined. Importantly, I will only look at offense and responses that are both extended and implicated in the final foci, and pulled directly from summary.

3. I will look at weighing. I often think about this as “layers” for the round, the side that best accesses (via probability, scope etc) the highest amount of the most important impact will win the round. This means weighing impacts over other impacts (i.e. death over poverty), and then weighing access to impacts/link weighing (i.e. more death over less death)

4. I will vote for the argument with the best link into the greatest amount of the best impact (not necessarily the greatest quantity).

some procedural stuff

- tech > truth but there is a threshold of believability for your arguments. if you claim that the sky is neon orange, you better have some EXCELLENT evidence for it. also, if you're argument is straight up racist, sexist, etc. i will not remain tabula rasa.

- I have never learned theory in my life, so I am not receptive to it. However, if you feel like running theory and get your opponent's ok to run it, you're welcome to run it at your own risk. Might make the round more interesting...

- light cussing is fine but full on spewing invective is not fine.

- I can generally flow relatively quickly but if you're gearing up to pull up speechdocs I will stop flowing. I will only flow what I comprehend.

- please don't be disrespectful. If you are disrespectful then I will be disrespectful to you :((. I don't care if you have fun or not, that's up to you. But don't make it unfun for other people.

- Weighing and warrants are important, they're what win rounds. Weigh before final focus and have a clear narrative. If no weighing is done throughout the round I will default to some stupid weighing mechanism like "who weaponizes the gay frogs". No one wants that. Also, I won't vote for an argument I don't understand.

- second rebuttal is required to at least frontline turns, otherwise they are considered dropped.

- Please signpost.

- Be as aggressive or passive as you want in cross, i'm usually not listening unless it starts to become whack. Aggressive =/= disrespectful. If both teams agree you can literally use cross as prep time if you want.

- Don't postround please, the round is over and you should have made it clear during round.

- If a card becomes heavily disputed in round, I will call it.

- If a warrant for an argument is not given, "this is not warranted" is a valid response.

- If the argument is well warranted and not empirical, "this is not carded" is not a valid response.

- if you concede defense to frontline a turn, tell me what piece of defense you concede and how it gets rid of the turn. Being able to wipe offense off my flow simply by saying “we kick out” is dumb.

- speaks start from 27 and go up from there. If I give you a 27 I think you were kinda poopoo. A 28 means you were aight. 29 means you were very nice, and a 30 means you were very very nice. Anything below 27 means that I think you're a terrible person

- Don't go more than 10 seconds overtime. I'll stop listening to what you say after that. Abuse prep and your speaks will tank.

Hi! I am a parent judge and this will be my first time judging.

I am not very familiar with the format/rules of PF, so please run the round and time yourselves. I have no prior topic knowledge, and do not know any debate jargon.

Explain everything very clearly and tell me why I should vote for you, do NOT spread/speak fast as I might not be able to follow and will miss arguments. No progressive arguments please.

**Keep in mind I am not a native speaker.**

You can add me to your email chain at matthew.x.l.zhang@gmail.com, please also send your cases/speeches to me before you begin if possible so I can keep up better.

Good luck and have fun!