Background:

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

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

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

Round Details:

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

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

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

Judging Philosophy:

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

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

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

(Borrowed from Michael Kirylau)

Speaks:

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

Everything Else:

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

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

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

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

Bring passion to the round, I don't care if you use strong language, whatever gets your point across. No filters needed. Crossfire can get as intense as the teams would like, and while I will not weigh cross I want to see points/responses referenced in summary or rebuttaI.

I do not care how you dress.

Time yourself and keep track of prep also.

Weigh for me remember you are doing the work, not me.

Use believable impacts (Not everything in the world ends with nuclear war)

Don't act like I know about the topic.

Talk as fast as you want, I have debated for years and will understand. Speaking fast does not mean you should talk quiet or mumble though...

Cross apply contentions.

Bring up contradictions the opponents have.

Make jokes if you want, the world isn't actually on the line, despite what your impacts say.

At the end of the day have fun and don't take anything too close to heart cause everyone here puts in way to much work to leave and feel unaccomplished.

Loreto Galvan-Alva

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

1. Tech Over Truth

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

2. Flexibility in Close Rounds

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

3. Fairness and Behavior

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

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

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

I am a current PF debater (second speaker) at my College. However, I know nothing about the current topic. I expect respectful rounds, but encourage thorough questioning in cross. I vote on my flow -- in terms of who flowed arguments through the best while attacking their opponents' arguments line by line (collapsing is always an option for a cleaner ballot on my end). Weighing is crucial in debate -- make sure you weigh. I want to emphasize what summary is as well -- it is for voters, you're not giving a second rebuttal. I will give 1/2 speaker point for "riddle me this"

Look at the judge during all crosses

contentions should have impacts -- it helps with overall weighing and understanding of the contention

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

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

Background

I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). I judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style/Strategy Preference

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate, unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (aka tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.

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

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

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

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

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

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

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

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

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

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

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

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

everything else:

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

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

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

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

glhf :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preciate it, GOATS!

I have a background in debate, having competed at the high school level in both policy and Lincoln Douglas debate - (including at state and national tournament levels). I also competed in speech events including extemp, original oratory & storytelling.

I have been judging Public Forum for the past four years. I would say I am a purist to the idea that the debate should be directed to the well-informed citizen. So, I can follow speed/spread to a point, but I would strongly prefer the debaters concentrate on clear communication, solid analysis and reasoning - skills that will serve them well beyond debate! I particularly look for analysis, strong speaking skills, and development of clash in the debate.

School Affiliation: PALATINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

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

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

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

I value style as well as substance equally.

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

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

Speaking tempo: Please speak slow enough to allow flow. If I put my pen down, it is because I have stopped my flow.

I am a parent judge. This is my first time judging. I am looking especially at how well arguments are constructed and counterarguments critiqued. Other important factors for me include clarity of presentation in terms of oral presentation and case construction.

I look for the following qualities in the debates I judge:

Preciseness

Accuracy

Rationale

Natural Portrayal

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

Please:
Keep time

Please give impacts, clash points, and weighing mechanisms.

Weigh impacts

Be respectful

Signpost/offtime roadmap

Explain how you get to your impacts(Link!)

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

Good luck :)

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost

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

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

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