tiny bio: U of Michigan BA in history/political science; Norwich Military MA in counterterrorism. I teach a section of 9th grade ancient history and am an assistant principal in CT.

For Congress: Not a huge fan girl for the hypertrauma-focused hypotheticals--"Joseph is a poor, hard-working farmer in x country who just wants to feed his poor starving children" arguments. Find other ways to humanize and personalize issues that leave people's dignity and autonomy intact. Plus, it's tired and basic. I know you can do better :) Staying unflappable during the question block is also impressive and don't get huffy-puffy if your chair doesn't call on you. Hard stats/evidence and then the contextualization of that evidence + impact always wins me over. No need to ask if I'm ready-- I'm always ready; can't stop won't stop.

Also, I should add that I think you're awesome for doing this. ALL of you inspire me. Seriously. Keep it up and take over the world (or at least Congress because we need you).

Hi, I'm Gabby. I am a senior at Phillipsburg High School and I've done quite a bit of PF. I consider myself a typical flow/tech>truth judge.

My email is barresi.gabriella24@stateliners.org

Here's some general stuff:

Read me a good warrant and if your opponents don’t respond I’ll believe it, unless of course you read that death is good or actual racism arguments. I am a more traditional PF debate judge who focuses majorly on clash, substantial weighing, and topical arguments.

More important things:

1) I can handle speed, however please do not spread this is PF.

2) Collapse in summary, and weigh as soon as you would like. The sooner the better. With that being said, please use comparative weighing. Interact with your opponents arguments and don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude".

3) While I am not the biggest fan of theory, run theory if actual abuse occurs during round. I’ll listen to disclosure, but if you are a big school and run a small schools link on a small school I likely won't be very receptive to your argument.

4) If you notice you are over time, finish your sentence and move on. If you begin to explain a new argument I won't evaluate it. If your opponents are over time by 2 seconds please do not hold up your phone stopwatch unless they begin to truly abuse the grace period.

5) I will never call for cards unless both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence.

6) The best way to win my ballot is by writing my RFD in your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you and what arguments I should vote for your side on. Please do not bring up new arguments in final focus only extend what has been previously said throughout the round.

7) Don't be rude and have fun!

LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~

PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.

Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.

Hi, I am 4th year PF debater at Lexington, and you can treat me like a tech judge.

- short version: weigh comparatively and extend your case in the last two speeches, signpost, frontline, and don't have anything new in your final focus that was not in summary.

- weigh weigh weigh, including comparative weighing. If one team runs probability and the other magnitude, I have no idea which to choose.

- signpost. If I don't know where you are, I won't be able to write your responses where you'd want me to and your arguments aren't going to come across cleanly.

- tech>truth. that being said, if you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I will drop you.

- I will vote off the flow, so don't drop things and make sure to extend your argument completely (don't only extend the impact without the link chain or vice versa). Make sure you're frontlining and extending defense throughout. Collapsing in first summary or earlier will help you in this way.

- I am fine with speed if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, enunciate, make sure your opponents are okay too, and signpost clearly.

- summary and final focus should be mirrored. I will not consider anything new in final that was not in summary and for an effective backhalf strategy, you and your partner should be on the same page.

- cross shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating or responding. Please ask and answer questions in a CIVIL manner. However, I will not flow cross so if there's anything you want me to vote off of that happens in cross, bring it up in your next speech.

- timing speeches/prep time is your responsibility. I will also be timing , but I expect you to be keeping track of how much time you have and how much prep you have - after you take prep, just let me know how much you took. I understand that sometimes you don't finish perfectly on time, so if you're in the middle of a sentence and the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence given that it is less than ten seconds over. Please do not abuse this grace period, I will cut you off.

- feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I feel like it helps you learn how you can improve in the future. i'm happy to give specific feedback after round as well.

- you got this, have fun!! If any of the more advanced things on my paradigm don't make sense to you, please ask me any questions. 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.

email for evidence chain: atreyib18@gmail.com

I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School and have coached with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

I believe in being the brand. I look for scholars who not only know their policy but are able to articulate it beyond the cards. An argument that isn't concise is no argument at all. I aim for my scholars to present themselves along with the materials they've prepared. I look for presentation and projection; if a scholar knows information but can't present it as if they wrote it, I deduct. I don't want you to memorize; I want you to enact the procedures of informing and persuading. Having worked in news and politics for over 3 years and being part of multiple political campaigns, I seek scholars who believe in the narrative they are pushing. A lack of confidence results in a lack of composure, and you can't win a debate if that's where you start.

Jacob.berkowitz@saschools.org

Strath Haven '23, PF 4 years

Add me to email chain: justinbi2004@gmail.com

Standard flow judge

• Real extensions, not just "extend ____ card"
• Compare evidence
• Collapse
• Weigh please
• Cross is binding
• Limited familiarity with prog
• If you're going fast, send a doc
• Don’t steal prep, I’ll keep track
• Preflow before round if possible

Ask questions if you have any, and have fun!

My name is Alex Brevde (she/her), and I am a senior at the Waring School in Beverly. I am in Varsity PF. So I come into the round with a guarantee I've done research on the topic and an understanding of the in and outs of Public Forum Debate.

> If you are offensive in any way, even if it's a "joke." I will report you to tabroom and you will lose the round.

> Respect Public Forum in its essence. What I mean by this is that PF is supposed to be accessible and should be understood by any person from off the street. Therefore if you spread (talking so fast that your words blend together), I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but just know you've lost some of my respect (and speaker points). Additionally, don't overuse debate jargon, because you are actively making debate less accessible.

> Please signpost, I'm begging you. What I mean is that tell me what you are saying. If you are responding to a contention please tell me that so I can flow it.

> Refrain from running Theory of Kritiks. I will listen to them but just know I very much dislike them. I think they are a cop-out for actually debating the resolved and I will think less of you. If you love Theory or K you should join Policy or Big Questions, because that's not what PF is about (PF actually emerged as a response to this!).

> Evidence ethics are important. Don't make up information, you should always have evidence.

>Don't mansplain, and let your opponent answer in cross please. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When someone asks a question in cross and then proceeds to answer it themselves rather than letting the opponent actually answer. Just be respectful and kind, it's not too much to ask.

I am a parent/lay judge and have a year of judging PF under my belt. I will flow the round and pay attention to tech issues (dropped arguments, no new evidence after 1st summary, etc).

I value clarity, veracity, and logic in debate cases. Please think about whether your impacts can feasibly be supported by your evidence, and don't misconstrue or reach extreme conclusions unless well-warranted. Help me by pointing out voting issues, weigh impacts, and point out dropped points (truthfully).

Be respectful in cross, treat your opponents kindly, speak clearly (not too fast), and have fun! Also, pet peeve, please send cards quickly.

I'm a parent judge and I'm fairly new to judging. However, I have done a bit of debate before, so I kind of know how it works.

Please talk slowly and be very clear. If I can't understand what you are saying, then I won't be able to vote for you.

Please signpost(or tell me where you are on the flow) so it is easy for me to understand. Also, please don't spread.

No theory.

I want good arguments, so truth>tech. I don't really understand the technical side of debate, so I'll be voting on how strong your arguments are.

Please no insults and any type of racism, sexism, or discriminatory behavior directed towards ANYONE in the round. Try to be mature, and good people overall. If I see any signs of this type of behavior, I will report you.

I also like confidence, so if you sound confidence you are bound to be on the higher spectrum of speaker points.

Finally, just have fun and aim for a good round. If you guys are having fun, I'll be really pleased.

I'm a senior at Brooklyn Tech and I have been doing PF for six-ish years.

Extend EVERYTHING please, especially defense. I don't flow cross so bring up anything in the next speech. Please weigh, preferably starting in summary. I prefer a very clear linkchain over a bunch of cards. You need to defend your framework or I'll default to voting on util. Theory is fine, and I can probably evaluate a k, though I'm not very comfortable with it.

I'm comfortable with speed, but if you plan on spreading please send me a speech doc. I don't mind heated debate, especially in cross, but if you are blatantly disrespectful it will be reflected in your speaks. Don't waste your time in speech introducing yourself and telling me your side and the resolution. I already know.

I will not tolerate sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other form of bigotry in round.

Please add me to any email chains, my email is cconnor3138@bths.edu

Hey y'all

A quick recap about me, throughout my four years of high school, I debated in PF (freshman and senior year), LD (sophomore), and Policy (junior and senior year). triple homicide. Second speeches is my life I love second speeches.

Cards:

If you have a card, it is your opponent's job to prove to me that the card is false or unreliable. until then, I will assume that the card is true.

please don't take 5 years to send out a card. if it take you longer than 1 min then you need to move on

Public Forum:

• I am not super strict on time, but since it has the shortest speaking time, I would prefer for everyone to keep up with the time given
• remember it is not about who can make the best policies for me it is about who can prove to me that their way of life is better.

Lincoln Douglass:

• Don't hate me but I only did one year, so some of the terms may have been forgotten about
• Timing can get confusing for me, so I would prefer if you remind me about the timing in LD

Policy:

• I LOVE POLICY DEBATE
• if you are going off-case let me know. I take away speaker points if there is a lack of organization.
• if you are one of those teams that give 1,000,000,000 off cases, then you will see me give you a major side-eye. (LOL)

overall:

I will give my RFD.

Everything I say in the round will be put in TAB.

Have fun you humans.

My name is Eric Denby. I am a new History instructor at Phillips Academy, but have taught for eight years at the college level at the University of Illinois. Although new to PF, I am not new to argumentation, logic, and evidence. Clear and concise speaking is a must for an oral presentation. I notice many students speaking way too fast, so please slow down and be clear.

Good luck.

Profound believer of Jesus H. Christ, proud marxist, leninist, , LENIN IS THE GOAT, anti-vaxxer, supporter of bataillle’s cult of facism, and practitioner of human sacrifice.

• I don’t want to hear any of this uniqueness this, uniqueness that. You are not unique. You are a government sheep, and I will treat you as such.

• I studied economics after ‘Nam, and I proudly & singlehandedly instigated the ‘08 recession. Do not tell me about the inflations.

• I do not understand the turns; you are sitting still. I don’t want children dizzy on my watch.

• IMPORTANT!!!!!!! Please do not mention the word corona virus on round. Coronavirus is not real, it is a myth. Propagated by venezuelan government, made to let government people go on vacations by implementing government shutdown 🙂

• No “warrants.” Justice is blind and so am I.

• You LOSE if you mention a “cards.” I do not condone gambling.

• Do not tak about the debt ceiling my ceilings are very high and my pockets are very deep

dont take anything before this seriously plz I swear I'm joking + I'm an athiest

general stuff (tl;dr) :

• I'm annie. I do debate. LHS '24//UChicago '28 (btw I know nothing about sports. this doesn't make me more likely to vote one way or another but if you're debating the student athlete topic just know I'm about as well-educated on that as your average hermit)

• My job is to adapt to you! This paradigm gives you a guide to my default style but if you have any preferences feel free to ask me to adapt to them. This is just here so I seem like a serious person :)

• Don’t be a jerk! I understand rounds can be heated, but there’s no need to get mad over the US sending things to alaska. Also, if your actions end in -ist, I’ll be the destructionist of your speaks

• No need to speed! The best rounds are tech rounds that are still at a conversational pace, now I can flow faster rounds but if you choose to go fast make sure you are clear (NOTE: Spread at your own risk. Stay 250 wpm or below, lest you want me to not flow something)

• Tech>truth: This means that I will be okay with voting on any arguments as long as they aren’t problematic or exclusionary, if the argument wins on the flow I will sign my ballot for it

• Ask Questions! There might be a bit of jargon in my paradigm that might not be easy to understand so if you aren’t sure how to do something, need clarification on certain parts of my paradigm, or want feedback after the round I’ll be more than happy to help!

• I like raccoons: and if you make a joke about one that would be nice, but no speaker points boost im afraid :(

Substance round:

• I evaluate rounds level by level: I start with the weighing - whose impacts are more important? Then, I ask who wins the best link into that argument? That’s where I’ll sign my ballot

• Please extend and collapse: Choose your best piece of offense (contention or turn) to go for in the backhalf, and when extending the case (giving a quick narrative summary of your argument) in summary or final, please please please actually extend the argument instead of just reading the card name ie “extend smith ‘22” is not a full extension, explain it from uniqueness to impact

• We could be weighin but you playin (in other words, please weigh!): I know this comes up a lot on paradigms, and it’s because weighing helps judges determine which impacts are more important. If both teams win links into different impacts, it’s up to weighing to determine which impact is to be prioritized

• Evidence Ethics/Calling for Evidence: I generally won’t call for evidence unless I think it’s important or if someone in the debate tells me to. I prefer evidence shared on docs because then teams won’t spend too much time sending evidence over the sub-par wifi, but it won’t affect my decision. Miscut evidence would hurt your speaks and, if miscut enough, might lose you a few arguments

• Defense is NOT sticky: sticky defense means that if a team reads defensive arguments or responses in rebuttal, second rebuttal or first summary doesn’t need to respond to it. This rule was made back when summary was only 2 minutes long but now that it’s been extended to 3 minutes there is no reason for defense to be sticky

• I presume First: If nobody wins any arguments at the end, I will presume (vote automatically) for the first speaking team. would prefer rounds not to end this way

PROG STUFF:

Important: if you are an epsilon team reading theory against a novice/kappa team i'm unlikely to be very happy. y'all don't need to flex your theory knowledge on some first-time freshmen/middle school novices

Theory (if you must):

• I have no theory biases except trigger warnings are good and disclosure is good, I won’t hack for either of these but if you run theory otherwise you might want to keep that in mind

• If you make a trigger warning you should use a trigger warning form that is anonymous for respondents, I generally think that war/poverty impacts don't need trigger warnings (but you can argue otherwise and I will consider it like any other argument) but you do need trigger warnings for anything else that could be potentially triggering (feel free to ask me if you want me to clarify) eg trafficking, genocide, mental health issues, etc

• Quick defaults: CI, no RVIs, Theory/T>K, theory should be speech after abuse, blippy theory have low bars for reasonability arguments

• PLEASE WARRANT YOUR THEORY SHELLS!

• Extend the full shell through every speech otherwise it’s considered dropped, I have very tiny threshold for “spirit of the shell” especially if it’s frivolous theory

• I'm not a fan of people reading 3+ shells in a PF round. Not only do I not want to toggle so much paper but also because bruh, stop avoiding clash and just respond

Ks, Prefiat Framework, IVIs

• I will treat evidence challenge IVIs as round ending issues, but if I vote on an IVI I need it to be developed and warranted instead of a 3 second blip about why they should be voted down for doing X

• I am alright with prefiat frameworks but it’s better for them to be warranted in addition to the cards so the reasons why your framework means you should be voted up make sense even to debaters who aren’t familiar with prefiat arguments

• I am suspicious of “link ins are not allowed” arguments, not that I automatically vote against them but reading these arguments need a lot of good warranting for me to be open to it

• If Kritiks are read, they need to be slow and warranted, the same applies to T and perm do boths if you choose to read them in response

• If neither side wins or weighs between K and theory, I default to evaluating theory first but that changes depending on how you debate the round

• I’m not entirely comfortable voting on identity Ks against debaters of that identity, I won’t vote you down for this but it could potentially affect speaker points

Speaker Points Guide (I tend to be SUPER lenient about speaker points my coach yelled at me for giving too high speaker points so take that how you will)

29.5-30: debating was excellent, very well articulated, no big flaws in debating or strategy!

29-29.5:I thought your debating was good, maybe a few minor mistakes but nothing particularly bad

28-29: average, good debating overall but some mistakes, but not too bad (this is a pretty big range so the extent of a mistake or speaking style is going to impact where you fall on this scale)

27-28:made some pretty big strategic mistakes in this round

sub 27: There were a lot of large mistakes in this debate, or you were very unclear

I won't go below 26.5 but if you say something problematic. Then, I'm dropping your speaks to the lowest possible in the tournament .... just please don't UwU. We want to keep this a welcome space for everyone! If you feel unsafe please please please let me know ASAP - your safety is more important than a random high school debate round!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!!!!!

I’m a parent judge. My kid does PF, so I know the basics. I will take notes. Please speak slowly.

Hello! My name is Zev Ginsberg, I am a current undergraduate at Florida State University. I have judged PF and Parli both in person and remotely, but I am still relatively new to judging. As such, I ask that you please speak clearly and signpost effectively so I may most faithfully adjudicate your round.

State what your contentions will be, then say your contentions, then summarize your contentions. It is your job to prove to me which contentions and points I should be voting on. Ultimately, I will choose the winner based on which team has more successfully proven their position to be valid and true.

Finally, please be respectful of your teammates, opponents, and, most importantly, have fun!

Thank you!

Zev

COACH G - EMAIL : RYAN.GOSLING@saschools.org

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Citations after article introduction are preferred. How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? It won't How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? Empirical Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. How should debaters run on case arguments? Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. How should debaters run off case arguments? Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. How should Debaters run theory arguments? The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of method.

Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. What other preferences do you have, as a judge? Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

Hi! I am currently a junior at Lexington High School and have been competing for the past three years in Public Forum debate. I will be a flow judge. Here are a few things I would like to see:

1) Do not read cases too fast, if I miss something in case it will only hurt you!

2) Please extend contentions and links throughout all speeches

3) Interact with your opponents' responses-- too much card reading is often unnecessary.

4) provide a speech timeline before speeches

5) In final focus, tell me why I would be voting for your side of the debate.

6) If you see that your opponent is bringing up new evidence or new responses in summary speeches, or something was left unresponded to: BRING IT UP!

1. Clarity - express clearly and cogently.
2. Impact - arguments need to indicate significant impact on the main topic.
3. Linkage - arguments are supposed to weave a "tapestry" of sorts - so ensure the point being made is linked explicitly to either your prior arguments or the other side's prior arguments.
4. Final focus should be exactly that - focus on the main points where you think you have an upper hand leading to your win. No new arguments should be introduced and emphasis should be made on where you think you have won.

Hi everyone! I'm currently a Junior at Lexington High School (Co2025) and I'm in my third year of debating in Public Forum. If you have any questions post-round or if setting up an email chain for evi my email is 25stu468@lexingtonma.org

My overall TL;DR: don't be any -ists or perpetuate any -isms, and in an ideal world be topical, but honestly I can evaluate what you want to run, just make it really clear to me because if I can't explain your argument back to you, I won't vote on it. Signposting is important, besides just the name of your card (Ex. Last name Year). Time yourselves because I won't flow after a certain point! If you want to appeal the most to me and my style of judging, read the rest of my paradigm :)

In LD:

I'm really not that experienced with LD so treat me as a "flay" of sorts. I can understand and evaluate frameworks as well as substance perfectly fine. I'm a bit worse at evaluating Ks and Theory so run at your own risk. I'll default speaks to 28/28.5 in LD and similar criteria as in PF to increase/decrease. I also don't judge LD often so this may not even apply but just in case!

In PF:

Here's how I will be voting:

1. I am a flow judge, however, if you do not signpost, you're risking that your point may get missed as I try to find where on the flow you are.
2. When signposting, please briefly reference the material in your cards and not just the tagline, so that your argument can fit better together with the relevant pieces of your evidence. In the case that your opponents or I miss your tagline or author name it could also be very confusing to everyone when you reference some obscure "Day 24" by itself.
3. If you need to exchange evidence, I will time prep from when you get the card and start reading it. This doesn't mean you take forever to find the card, please try to take no more than 15ish seconds to find it. If you set one up, I'd like to be added to an email chain. It will only impact my decision if there's a piece of evidence that's hotly debated or referenced throughout the round.
4. I'm okay with spreading up to 300 wpm if you provide a speech doc before your speech. If you spread off your flow in the backhalf I think it's okay not to send a full speech doc but ideally please do just because I don't want to miss anything important.
5. I am generally tech over truth, I prefer arguments that are made better and I will generally vote on the flow. If it comes down to me that the weighing is unclear and I have to make a decision (assuming there's a util framework) I'll generally default to "truthier" arguments/impacts unless there is a significant difference in magnitude with unclear probability weighing on both sides.
6. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES! I will stop flowing 10 to 15 seconds over time and keep time to check, but not remind you when to stop. If you notice your opponents go over time and I'm still flowing, tap the table gently just to let me know they are over time and I'll stop.
7. Cross Etiquette: I will not flow cross and tbh I don't pay attention often to cross because usually I'll be working on my ballot, but I do want a civil, alternating question-and-answer format rather than a one-sided interrogation or a mutual screaming match. That being said, if you guys are not dialoguing at all and there's no real interaction then I'll deduct some speaks (like 0.1-0.2). The first speaking side should ideally take the first question but it doesn't impact my decision so it's fine either way if you feel like it. Please do not go over time, if you need to respond to the last question I'll give you a few seconds, but if you start a long response please wrap it up ASAP (don't keep going for more than 10 seconds). If any points stand out to me, I will also take notice, use your cross to your advantage, and don't waste it.
8. Prog is fine, but at least run at your own risk. I somewhat know how to vote off some progressive arguments such as disclosure/paraphrase theory and a few of the more common Ks, however, I believe the spirit of PF is to remain as close to the resolution as possible, and it will make all our lives more complicated. Especially true for frivolous theories/non-T Ks, don't run them if you can't properly make a solid case around it and make everyone's lives more complicated. Severance is bad for your speaks and I'm responsive to severance shells read in round if it comes to that, so again don't run arguments you're not sure you can defend throughout the round. If you violate your own shell, credibility goes down the drain and I will tank your speaks.
9. Frameworks: I will vote off frameworks if they are extended throughout the round, and you prove why you win on a framework debate. If you are proposing a framework as a response to your opponents, I expect the framework you propose to be extended from rebuttal (or if the fw is proposed after case, whatever the next speech your team has) to the end. Keep your frameworks relevant to your case because I will drop you if your impact doesn't fall under the winning framework even if it is your own.
10. To win my vote you want to have a good balance of your strongest offense and defense, you want to address clash in the round, and you want to convince me to prefer your impacts. I will be looking mostly at the summary and final focus for you to clean up the round, but please extend the points you want to keep to the end in both the summary and final. I won't evaluate new arguments past 1st summary except if you're responding to an argument introduced in the first summary (in which case the second summary can respond).

Speaker Points:

I'll default speaker points to a 27.5-28 but it's really easy to increase speaks: this is only assuming you don't stand out at all in the round (which is more difficult than it sounds).

I will increase speaker points for clear enunciation, good argumentation, and keeping crossfire engaging and civil. If you capture my attention (in a positive way) and keep me engaged, that would also be good for your speaks. This is generally the scale I see in the Varsity PF circuit, so I'm keeping similar standards as I judge because that's personally what I'm used to.

I will decrease speaker points for ANY offensive language or actions (racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. will be an automatic 25, if this behavior is repeated through the round I will tank it EVEN further and report to your coach so that they can take further action as needed), reading sensitive topics without a content warning beforehand (although if it's an honest mistake and you correct it going forward you should be fine), swearing in the round, going consistently over time (as in over 15 seconds every speech/during cross), and other inappropriate or disruptive behaviors that hinder the progress of the debate. If you violate your own shell, read prog on novs who have absolutely no clue what you just said, then I'll still evaluate the round fairly but your speaks will tank so hard that even if you break you'll be put in a tough bracket anyways.Honestly, I think it's very hard to decrease speaks beyond 27 so long as you're a decent human.

I am a parent judge. Please do not speak too fast.

I have been coaching and judging debate rounds since 1987.

I expect each kind of debate to resemble its intended design.

I will flow the debate. I will stop flowing the debate when time is up. I will not listen to anything once the time has elapsed.

I do not want to read all of your evidence at the end of the round; I want to be able to hear it the first time you articulate it clearly.

You should tell me “where I am voting.”

You should tell me “how I can vote for you there.”

You should tell me “why I am voting there and not somewhere else.”

This means I am not doing this for you; you weigh the round for me. I want to hear a clear narrative that has some resemblance of a clear framework, which deals with terms and concepts fairly.

In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense rather than doing weighing for you. (this means things that were dropped and clearly extended)

Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:

Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org

Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)

Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)

I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!

I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.

Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:

1. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
2. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
3. I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
4. I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
5. Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
6. Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
7. I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
8. I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!

I am a senior at Phillips Andover and have been doing public forum for the past three years, as well as congressional and speech for a few years before that.

Things to keep in mind:

• Carry all of your arguments through clearly in every speech.
• Weigh!! and argue within a framework.
• Creative arguments are great but keep things topical.
• Signposting is appreciated and an off the clock roadmap is acceptable but not required.
• Be respectful to your competitors (this will be reflected in speaker points). Argue as passionately as you'd like against their ideas, but do not resort to personal attacks! Unique points and examples are a great way to keep the round engaging!

Have fun and learn from each other — If you need to contact me, you can reach me at akorczak24@andover.edu.

I am a high school debater who has done multiple years of PF. Please include me on the email chain at evelynkung08@gmail.com

PF:

general:

I am primarily a tech judge, so I will be judging off of the flow. I don't mind spreading, but if I can't understand an argument it will not be evaluated. Please speak clearly!! I also don't really pay attention to CX (I will be listening but not flowing, so if anything important is said bring it up in other speeches).

I don't care whether you stand/sit during a round, whatever makes you feel more comfortable.

I prefer substance debate over Ks and theory. If you chose to run a theory or a K that is your choice, but know that I am not entirely comfortable judging those. Please do not run disclosure theories.

Weighing is one of the first and most important things I evaluate in my flow. You must weigh at the end of your summary and final focus speeches otherwise my decision will slightly tip towards the other team. The earlier you start weighing the better.

When extending you must extend the full argument (warrant, link, impact) otherwise it doesn't count on the flow.

Sign post throughout the round!!!

Please start collapsing in first summary, it makes it so much easier for me to flow the rest of the round. It also makes your overall narrative clearer.

I love off the clock road maps.

I do not anticipate asking for evidence after the round unless something is unclear. Also do not bring up any new evidence/arguments in FF speeches. They will not be flowed.

speaks:

Nothing racist, homophobic, sexist etc. I will automatically vote for the other team.

Be kind to your opponents otherwise speaks will be tanked.

I am a first-time parent volunteer. I'm a former middle school math teacher with an affinity for public speaking (high school speech team-not debate and communications minor in university)

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can digest your points and take notes. I will be looking for well developed arguments that are clear and substantiated. Please watch your tone of voice and avoid being rude in general. Respect and civility are important features for me.

Best wishes and have fun.

Hello - I am a first year of judge and English is not my first language - so please speak slowly enough so I can clearly understand your points.

Please understand that I cannot vote for you, if I cannot understand you.

Also I am a lay judge but will try my best in flowing.

One last thing to add is - please do not run spreading or theory during the debate.

'24 Spring Note: Being at nationals is a huge achievement (and privilege) and I hope you are all incredibly proud of yourselves for having made it through a year of debate as the world falls apart over and over. I take my role as a judge especially seriously now because I know that this competition is incredibly important to the debaters. I also see now as a more critical time than ever to ensure that our research projects in debate are based in facts, not fascism. On a personal level, please remember that this is one weekend out of your whole life, and I hope sincerely that you are taking care of yourself, your mental, and your physical wellbeing during the tournament and after.

Who I am

I (she/her) debated college policy (CEDA/NDT) at The New School, where I started as a college novice. I read Ks that were research projects about things I cared about. I value debate for its educational value, the research skills it builds, and the community it fosters. I have no issue dropping speaks or ballots for people who undermine the educational value of the activity by making people defend their personhood.

**I will be wearing a mask. I don't know y'all or where you've been and I don't want you to breathe on me. It's not personal. Please ask me for any other accessibility accommodations you need before the round and I will do my best to make the round comfortable for you!

For all formats (specifics below)

Email for the chain: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I vote on the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it. If provided them, I follow ROBs and ROJs seriously in framing my decision. I have voted both on the big picture and on technicalities.

I am excited to be in your debate, especially so if you are a novice, and I would love to chat post RFD if you have questions! :)

Policy:

DAs, CPs: Fine, no strong opinions here.

Ks: Yes, fine, good. Explain your links and your impact framing.

T: Hate when blippy, like when thorough & well-explained and have voted on T when it has won the debate many times. I am unlikely to vote on an education impact vs a K aff, though.

High theory for all of the above: Explain yourself. I don't vote on arguments I don't understand.

Likes: Clear spreading, smart debating, impact calculus, well-warranted arguments, case debate, thorough research, debaters from small schools.

Dislikes: Unnecessary hostility, bad evidence, blippy T blocks, strategies that rely on clowning your opponents, mumbling when spreading.

I am by far most comfortable in clash and KvK debates. I don't really care about policy v policy, but will give it the proper attention if put in them.

Public Forum:

If you don't share evidence, strike me. And also re-evaluate your ethical orientations.

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain. The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence. Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

Debate is a communication activity, but it is also a research activity, and I think that the single most important portable skill we gain from it is our ability to ethically produce argumentation and present it to an audience. I believe that PF has egregious evidence-sharing practices, and I will not participate in them.

I like smart debating, clear impact calculus, and well-warranted arguments.Do what you're good at and I'm with you! This includes your funky arguments.

I am fine with speed, but going fast does not make you a smarter or better debater and will not make me like you more.Debate is above all else a communication activity that is at its best when it's used for education. I can't stand it when more experienced or more resourced teams use a speed strategy to be incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things. It's bad debating and it perpetuates the worst parts of this activity.

Please be as physically comfortable as possible!! I do not care what you are wearing or whether you sit or stand. It will have literally zero impact on my decision.

I am far less grumpy and much more friendly than the PF section of my paradigm might make me seem. I love debate and go to tournaments voluntarily. See you in round!

What's good. I did interp and congress in high school and am now a college student. Respect your competitors. Speak well.

Im a high school debater with 3 years of PF experience. Don't spread and don't run theory. I won't flow cross. Time your own prep. Keep speeches organized. Be respectful and have fun! Pretty big on weighing. Tell me why you deserve to win the round.

1. Whenever possible, please stand.
2. Please no spreading!!
3. Speak clearly, loudly and slow enough so that every point is heard and understood.
4. Be sure to frontline speeches.
5. Please remain respectful of all debaters.
6. During final focus, absolutely no new evidence should be presented. Speeches should clearly tell me why your team wins the round. Please make my decision easy and simple!!

Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the day!!!

Hello!

My name is Vivek Manchala, I am a junior in Highschool and have been debating in Public Forum for 3 years.

Here are a few guidelines for you to follow

email - manchalavivek9@gmail.com

- disclose your case at the start of the round so I can follow along

• Any offensive statements to ANYONE in the round will lose you the round

• BE RESPECTFUL TO ALL

• I will judge based on the flow.

• Im fine with speed in speeches, dont go to fast though.

• If you are fast make sure I can understand what you are saying

• Extend your arguments or I wont consider them.

• Pet Peeve - Dont say things that are false or bring up new arguments after first summary.

• Please begin to frontline in second rebuttal, and first summary for the team speaking first.

• MAKE SURE TO WEIGH AND INTERACT WITH YOUR OPPNENTS WEIGHING

• HAVE FUN

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing and that's a problem.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

I am a high school debater who has done multiple years of PF. Include me on an email chain at laurenvmontgomery@gmail.com

I am primarily a tech judge, so I will judge off the flow. I don't like spreading, and if I can't understand an argument it will not be evaluated. I listen to CX but don't flow so if something important happens, bring it up again.

Weighing is one of the most important things I evaluate. Weigh at the end of your summary and final focus speeches otherwise my decision will probably tip towards the other team.

Please extend the full argument, warrant, link, AND impact. Signpost throughout the round!!!!!!!

Do not be unnecessarily rude to your opponents or overly patronizing to seem nice. Speaks will be lowered.

hi!!

i'm alexa (she/her) and i'm a senior. i've debated PF for 4 years and world schools for 3, and i'm a current member of the national debate team.

here are some things about my judging

1. don't spread too fast. its not perceptually dominant, just confusing
2. i value structure a lot. signpost please, follow the flow, and stick to your roadmaps.
3. tech over truth. my opinions will not interfere with my judgement of your performance

in general, debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. if i note that you are not being friendly nor welcoming (sexist, homophobic, racist), i will drop speaks and perhaps you will lose the round. be civil

my email is alexa.murphy@mastersny.org for chains/docs

debate is hard and i know you are doing your best. we all have off rounds and we are all learning together so don't take losses very hard at all. also, feel free to reach out to me at the above email with addition questions/concerns if you have any

love, alexa

I'm a parent volunteer judge. I did parliamentary debate in Ireland in the late 1980s — in other words, I know little about contemporary American PF jargon. I've been listening, and I've read the paradigms of fellow judges who have deep and recent PF experience and I'm slowly learning from them! Learning on the job, from judging, from talking to coaches and from talking to my daughter who debates.

So what do I understand? I want to understand you! Speak slowly, I want to follow your argument, and I want to feel like you're having a powerfully felt conversation with your opponents and with me. Don't talk at me, talk with me. Use tone intentionally. I'm your kind but slightly cranky uncle at the Thanksgiving table, you want to persuade me. You can use warmth and humor, as well as clarity and ruthlessness. Give me facts, but give me a point of view.

Lastly, and above all. Listen to your opponent. Really truly listen to them. Don’t talk over each other, but also don’t take a minute to ask your “question”—“don’t take up cross.” Try to understand the very heart of their argument. If you "block" the heart of their argument, you are more likely to win than five little nitpicks. (Yes, I'm learning, I know what "block" means, and heart of the argument is another way, perhaps, of "weighing"—the heart weighs more than five nitpicks..)

One last thing—my day job is as an executive and leadership coach. In that capacity I work a lot with leaders of large organizations, often helping with public speaking and executive presence. Show leadership, gravitas, charisma and presence out there!

Truly the last thing: a debater told me I should say, Truth over tech. Though her coach pointed out that’d be pretty obvious from the above.

Hello :)

My name is Dimitry and I am a senior at Newton South High School; this is my 3rd year of debate.

I am a flow judge but:

1. Pretty please do not run a k or theory, unless it's funny.

2. Don't talk so fast that you sound like a Looney Tunes character.

Remember that weighing is very important because it lets me know why I should vote for your side, and it's just a way to make all the points you made come together. Moreover, although I said I am a flow I do value truth a lot too, so if someone runs some bogus argument it's important for you to tell me why it's improbable or whatnot.

I do not flow cross so make sure to bring it up in other speeches if your opponent concedes something important.

Lastly, it's oK to loosen up and try to have as much fun as you can.

My opinion? All good debate starts the same way:

Stand up, introduce yourself, confidently and clearly. You are representing your team, your school; most importantly, yourself - and perhaps even a position with which you do not agree. Be counted. Be heard. Gird Your Loins...

Be prepared. Know your material profoundly. Present it, rather than reciting or speed-reading it. Effective Public Speaking is a connection with your audience, not a listing of innumerable facts.

Draw from the strength of your convictions. Ergo: Have conviction. Every argument deserves its airing. This is true even of the one you're making. Convince me.

Words matter. Speak slowly to present your argument. If your words are too fast to be heard, you've already discounted them yourself. Cut to the chase. Distill. Edit. Much better to make a thoughtful, clearly-articulated argument than to try to pack in the absolute limit of facts.

Amaze me with the quality of your research, the extent of your reading - and the depth of your insights... Show me you have some overview of the history underlying the arguments you're making. Study. Learn. Study it again. This is what you're here for.

If you think you've covered it all, go back and dig deeper. There's more.

You're all brilliant. You make the job of judging difficult, which is why we're here.

Keep up the Good Work!

I've been a lay judge for a couple years now and enjoy it but still consider myself new-ish to judging. I've learned a lot from you all!

Consider sharing evidence directly on your device- it's the fastest. If you prefer emailing please include me-- raruna@yahoo.com

Please title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order.

Judging philosophy

1. I am a scientist by training (PhD) and value logic, cogent arguments, supporting evidence, weighing, warrants and impact, combined with clear delivery and thoughtful presentation of ideas. You can collapse or not, I don't have a preference, as long as it makes sense. If you're collapsing, please weigh so I can understand why your impact is more valid than the other team's.

2. Clash is awesome but be respectful. You can be classy, even when you are passionately defending your perspective. It's a great life skill.

3. Try not to speak too fast. Medium-fast is ok but if you spread I may (will) not follow. If I miss your point I can't evaluate it. Please signpost- that would be appreciated.

4. Again, I value impacts (meaningful impacts, not far-fetched ones) and warrants and especially appreciate weighing.

5. Avoid jargon. It might mystify me.

6. NO theory, K's, etc! I DO NOT understand the highly technical aspects of debate and would not be able to judge those.

General

7. Rules. Just follow the ground rules, please (time, prep, collegiality, no new arguments later in the round, etc etc). It makes for a fun and fair debate. You can (and should be) be strong and passionate speakers but you don't want to be that team that won the round but made it a miserable experience for everyone else in the room (including the judge).

6. TIME. Part of Rules (#7) but important enough to warrant its own section. Stick to time. Please. We both have rounds to go on to so keep each other and yourself honest. Be ready with and quick to share evidence and cards (I'm flexible within reason). I keep time but occasionally forget to, so don't depend on me. I will stop flowing a few (5-10) seconds after your time ends. Be professional and don't try to game the system (draining opponents' time by asking for a dozen pieces of evidence/squeezing in prep time, etc). It's annoying and I'll see through it.

7. I'm judging you but I am also supporting you. I recognize the hard work this sport takes, to think on your feet and construct and deliver persuasive arguments under time pressure and to be judged critically. I'll do my best to provide thoughtful feedback.

Good luck!!

Hey guys

I'm Avni (she/her), and I'm a junior at lex :) This is my third year doing LD. add me to the email chain 25stu090@lexingtonma.org

For novices, you can speak fast but just make sure your opponent is ok with it, and if you aren't clear/I can't understand you, just know that i'm not flowing it

I like policy/trad the best, but if you wanna run a k or theory I'm very familiar with too - I'm not the biggest fan of T but i will vote on it if its warranted and I am not a big fan of phil or trix. my number one biggest thing is to have VOTERS and WEIGH!!! tell me why I should be voting for you and why you outweigh. also make sure to tell I should frame the round and how you win under that FW.

just some other general noyes - please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow - if there are multiple offs, give me a second to switch flows before you keep speaking

Don't be homophopic, racist, etc. and if you say anything offensive to your opponent regarding that I will drop you

Finally, debate is supposed to be a fun activity, so don't take it too seriously! Have fun!!

Background: Junior, 3rd Year High School LD Debater at Lexington High School. I judge LD primarily but have judged PF at one tournament.

Email: 25stu474@lexingtonma.org (Add me to the email chain)

Arguments:

I'm fine with pretty much all arguments as long as it isn't obviously racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. Read whatever you're comfortable with.

How to Win:

1. Weigh all your arguments: It makes it more difficult to vote for you if I do not know why your arguments deserve to win the round. How do I know that your extinction impact is worse than your opponent's if you don't tell me why?

2. Crystallize your links: If your argument is not explained well, it is difficult to evaluate. Make your links clear; don't make me guess what they are. Also, be clear on which arguments from your opponent you are responding to.

3. Extend: Make sure to extend all of the arguments you want to keep in the debate. A blippy restatement of the title of your contention is NOT an extension. Make sure you restate the general idea of each argument. If you do not extend an argument, you basically drop it. Also, if you drop your opponent's argument, you can not respond to it later on.

4. New arguments: I will not evaluate new arguments in your final speech. You can still respond to your opponent's arguments or extend your own arguments but you can't, for example, read a whole new contention or add a new impact to your case in the 2AR.

Speakers:

• Make sure I can hear and understand you. If you speak faster or spread, make sure to enunciate your words

• Emphasize important words to tell a more clear and engaging story

• Make my job easier by organizing your speeches. Give a roadmap before the speech, signpost and tell me when you are moving on to the aff or neg, and try to respond to your opponent top to bottom on the flow. If you do not go top to bottom, be very clear on which argument you are responding to

• Give a powerful cross-ex. Point out where your opponent's case falls short. Get your opponent to contradict themselves. While I do not evaluate cross-ex in my ballot, it is important for speakers

• Give clear examples to further support your reasoning

Have fun debating and feel free to ask any questions!

hiya i'm abby (she/her) and i'm a debater on Newton South's PF team!

email -- abbyshin06@gmail.com

super excited to judge you all, let's make the round as fun as possible

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

TLDR:

essentially make me do as little work as possible, basically write my rfd

• flow judge

• tech>truth

• no postrounding

• be respectful or your speaks get tanked

• any explicit bigotry will result in an L25 and a report to tab

SPEED:

not really any preference, but if you spread:

1. send me and your opponents a speech doc

2. check with your opponents if it’s ok with them

EVIDENCE:

1. don’t misconstrue evidence -- paraphrasing is fine, but make sure you have good evidence ethics

2. i’ll only call cards if a team tells me to and it is important towards my decision

CROSS:

1. bring up cross content in later speeches if you want me to evaluate it

2. please be respectful

REBUTTAL:

1. signpost -- tell me where you are on the flow

2. if u do off-time roadmaps keep them concise please

3. well-warranted analysis > blippy cards without warrants

4. second rebuttal should frontline completely

BACK HALF:

1. NO STICKY DEFENSE final stuff better have been extended in summary or ill cry

2. the weighing debate is crucial, please don't forget

3. weigh turns or they’re just fun facts

4. interact with your opponents weighing in the speech after it’s introduced or it's conceded

5. meta-weigh (weigh the clashing weighing mechanisms)

PROGRESSIVE:

u probably shouldn’t run it because idfk how to evaluate this stuff – only know theory basics

please ask your opponents pre-round if they’re comfortable with you running progressive arguments, given that it’s not accessible to all

This is my inaugural year judging. I am thoroughly enjoying the experience of meeting so many talented young people. The following are my preferences:

1. Please do your best to make eye contact while speaking.
2. Feel free to talk at a pace that's comfortable for you, just as long as it's not excessively rapid.
3. I appreciate politeness especially during cross-fire with your opponents.
4. Don’t bring up any new arguments in 2nd summary or final focus.
5. Please be mindful of the time and avoid extending it unnecessarily.

I'm a senior at Lexington High School, qualified to TOC twice, NDCA thrice, NSDA Nats twice

-send me your case docs and +Evidence (For a speaker point boost): ambilusiva@gmail.com

• if you show me that you use cut cards not paraphrased that is very good

General (Everything you need to know)

• Debate is a game so tech>truth (I'll buy any argument (that's not exclusionary)

• Speed: go as fast as you want, but I'm not going to ask you if I miss something (ie be clear), would prefer you to debate on the slower side

• You should respond to the opponent's responses immediately in the speech after; thismeans 1st summary needs to frontline second rebuttal

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me

• If I look confused, I probably am

• give trigger warnings for certain arguments- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.

____________________________________________________________________________

Detailed Stuff:

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do (However I prefer that you debate the topic provided)

Rebuttal

• I think you need to frontline (respond to their responses) in the second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,

• Anything not responded to in the second rebuttal is regarded as conceded

• Turns that are conceded will have a 100% probability

Summary

• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"

• Don't do "extend our link"

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended

• please extend warrants(reasoning), I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary

• this also goes for arguments that are conceded

• First summary

• Should address your case, front lining, weighing and if possible, their case

• The second summary should do the same as the first summary but doesn't have to frontline unless there are no responses left over

• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

• Don't change what a response means or read a new response

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech if something important is conceded

• I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

If you say anything homophobic/sexist/etc, I will stop the round, drop you, and give the lowest speaks possible. Just don't please, make sure to treat everyone with respect

Feel free to ask me anything before and after round.

Good luck and have fun!

anthony "andy" stowers forest (they/any pronouns)

anthonymstowers@gmail.com

My personal bright lines (updated for TOC PF):

#1: I will drop you if you claim that victims of human trafficking, child abuse, and childhood sexual assault are more likely to be criminals. This is unnecessary and harmful, do. not. do. it.

#2: Please omit graphic depictions of SA, child abuse, and human trafficking.

#3: My yarmulke is not an invitation for you to make hateful comments about Muslims or Palestinians, nor is it an invitation to make weird (and usually ignorant) virtue-signalling comments about Israel, Oct 7th, or the Holocaust. In rounds, these comments happen often. Please be cool, I love my Muslim friends very much and they love me very much too.

Technical debate preferences:

-SPECIFY SCOPE.

-Any speed is fine w/ me. If your opponent is spreading and you don't want to, that's also fine.

-K is fine, as long as it's genuinely well-considered and sportsmanlike (eg don't run K against a novice who clearly doesn't know what K is.).

-Speak with respect about all groups of people. I have beloved friends from China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria.... It's really tough to take xenophobic arguments seriously when I've been received with unbelievable hospitality by the people you're talking about.

-Please don't waste the entire debate arguing about the rules: make verbal note of the violation and move on. I can take it from there.

-Please do not make your main impact in every round nuclear apocalypse or climate apocalypse (or claim your argument can uniquely prevent them). I think those things are high-probability no matter WHAT, and I don't think it's realistic to say that one side or the other will uniquely cause or prevent them.

-Differentiating people and government is critical. The Russian government makes extremely questionable choices. Russian PEOPLE have fed me repeatedly when I was a stranger to them, showed me cool sights in their hometowns, and made sure I was safe visiting dangerous places (both in Russia and in the US). I really do try to be tech over truth in a lot of ways, but it tends to be laughable to me when I hear broad generalizations about Russian, Chinese, or Iranian PEOPLE (etc.) being anti-American. I need you to make that people vs. government differentiation because otherwise some of the claims being made are absolutely laughable in comparison to what interactions with these groups of people are actually like.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Hey, I'm Lux (he/him/his). I'm a rising senior at Concord-Carlisle.

email: lsun25@concordcarlisle.org

First, any problematic language/behavior and not providing trigger warnings will get you reported to tab if need be. That includes stuff like suicide/self-harm, sexual assault, abuse, mental illness, and addiction.

GENERAL :

1. Please write my ballot for me! That means weighing properly, extending, and warranting evidence and responses. If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be pulled through the flow. If something important happens during cross, bring it up in a later speech.
2. tech > truth and tab rasa, mostly (i'll evaluate whats on my flow and only whats on my flow, regardless of my opinions/biases on the topic).
3. Progressive arguments (theory, ks, etc) are fine.
4. Please time yourselves. I'll stop flowing when your timer goes off.
5. I'll allow paraphrasing if it keeps the original spirit of the evidence. HOWEVER, if your opponent calls for the card(s), you need to be able to point to which parts you paraphrased.
6. I tend to give fairly high speaks unless there's a reason for me not to (i.e. bigotry and extreme rudeness)
7. Speed is fine up to ~250wpm, but please be mindful of your opponents (and have speech docs if you plan on spreading)
8. Please weigh!!! I cannot emphasize this enough
9. Novices, you're doing great (and please know that we're all on your side here)
10. Sidenote: I'm not offended by swearing, but please try to keep it to a minimum in round. If it just slips out in the heat of the moment, I totally get it (and realistically might not notice), but still

PF:

1. Please let your opponents get a word in during cross
2. 1st speakers: try to collapse in summary please
3. 2nd speakers: please, please, please weigh in ff
4. ninja edit: please do NOT run prog in BQ if you can avoid it

LD:

1. I started off in pf, which influences how I judge this event
2. I have never competed in this event but have judged it enough to still be a flow judge
3. At the end of the day I am a pf'er so evidence/clash does weigh pretty heavily in my decision
4. please stick to your own definitions of your value

Lets make the best of today - We all had other options to spend our weekend. We are here by choice. So put your best foot forward!

Yes, I am a lay judge or rather a term I prefer - "citizen judge". FWIW: I have been judging PF for last 4+ years.

I enjoy judging and come to the table with open mind. I leave my pre-conceived notions outside, and do not check your record prior to the round.

So what do I value:

* If I can't understand you, I can't flow for you, so please speak slowly, clearly and loudly. No spreading, please.

* Simplicity of thought and explanation, BUT focus on specifics. Especially, during cross-X, I love when team not just "ask for the card" but know the weaknesses of the research and exploit it.

* It helps me to flow your speech if you give me an off time roadmap, so please do so. If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts.

* Its an intellectual fight. Dont shy from it. But the best team are those who don't "spike the ball" after scoring touchdown. Lets be civil.

* I will NOT do your job - I m here to judge, not debate. If an opponent does not point a flaw in argument, I will accept it.

* PL do not - appear dismissive (leave your eyerolls outside) or rude. Its distracting and unprofessional. I will ding u points, but not the outcome (so ironic).

* I know things like theory and kritiks are starting to show up in PF, but I am not the right judge for that kind of argument. I will only vote on the substance of the resolution.

PS - Sorry if I said your name incorrectly, or used wrong pronouns. Please correct me.

jack.valentino@saschools.org for the chain.

I competed in LD, PF, and Extemp for Chaminade High School (NY) until I graduated in 2018. In college, I studied congressional politics and law while keeping up with current events. I'm now a coach at Success Academy Harlem East.

Medium speed is okay, but it needs to be understandable. Taglines need to be read slowly!

I give speaker points for confidence, articulation, and poise. As such, I'm looking for a well orated and well "weighed" round from the winner, not a line-by-line or technical win.That being said, I'm anti-intervention -- if they drop an argument completely in multiple speeches but you don't bring it up and tell my why that's important then I won't intervene and count it as offense for you. Similarly, if they tell me the sky is red and you say nothing and they extend it... the sky is red.

Engaging with the resolution at hand is CRUCIAL to me. Not receptive to Theory or K's -- engage with the resolution itself. Non-topical contentions need to be clearly articulated as to why I should vote on them. Clarifying/debating definitions of words in the resolution is part of debate, but rewriting the resolution is not.

PF specific: Open cross-examination needs to be agreed to by both teams for it to exist outside of grand cross.

Speak slowly/clearly, connect cases back to the topic ESPECIALLY CLEARLY, and feel free to be appropriately witty or humorous :) This is a public speaking activity, not a spreading activity.

I am a Principal Scientist working in Pharmaceutical Industry, my R&D career is always inspired by patients and driven by science. I have a 9^th grade boy who is a Novice with unbelievable passion about debating, and he has taught me the basics of PF debating. As a new judge, I believe that a good debating is more often characterized with presenting solid evidence, speaking clearly with a logical flow, and focusing on 2-3 key points.

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.