Hello! I'm Tony, and I'm excited to judge for you all today.

Preferences:

• Talk slow.
• Be respectful and passionate.
• I am a very flow heavy debater/judge. I will do my best to leave out my own inferences. In other words, I want you to tell me what to think in a compelling manor (with evidence, supportive reasoning, etc.). The only exceptions to this is if you make an outrageous claim, such as "the sky is blue" or something bigoted. Again, I just want to heavily emphasize this, tell me what to think! Do not leave anything out in the open. Your opponents may pry on that (such as refuting an argument or acknowledging you're not refuting one of their arguments or weighing against it). If they do, that's fair game.
• Off-time roadmaps are encouraged.

I will provide as much detailed feedback as I can. I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have, so if it's a little underwhelming, shoot me an email, and I will gladly provide more: huq7kn@virginia.edu

A little about me:

• I'm an ex-debate captain for PF (not for LD).
• CS major in college (UVA), interested in computational biology. If you want to chat about that, college, debate, or anything related to STEM, hit me an email.
• I do not regret debate. In fact, I treasure the experience and look back on it positively.

I am new to judging this school year (2023-2024), but have now judged in a few tournaments. I very much enjoy listening to the debates, and understand and appreciate the work the students put into them. When I listen to the students, I cannot help but think the future of our country is in very good hands.

What I look for in competitors is the following:

1. Competitors who speak slowly and clearly. I would rather listen to a few well thought-out contentions than try to keep up with someone who speaks fast and tries to squeeze in as many arguments as possible.
2. Competitors who are respectful. Especially those who are respectful to other competitors.
3. Well presented rebuttals. Competitors who make good rebuttals to the opponents contentions makes a big difference in a debate.
4. Speaking directly to me. Making eye contact keeps attention sharp. So try not to spend all of your time as if you are reading to me from your materials or laptop.
5. Confidence speaks for itself. I understand why students might think it a good idea to ask for my vote, but it is not necessary.

Experienced coach and judge for 24 years in PF, LD, Congress, and PD. Traditional approach - I flow and can keep track as long as speed is clear. Weighing at the end of the round is important - especially in close rounds. Open to unique arguments as long as they are clearly developed and supported with evidence/analysis.

***IMPORTANT***LD is not policy, so don't act like it is. Framework comes first and arguments only matter if they are impacted out under the framework. I will not vote on anything that's not clearly tied to the framework.

I participated in LD throughout Middle and High School and am now a coach, so I have a good amount of experience with all traditional rounds. I'm comfortable with any speed as long as it's coherent. Evidence is important, but I greatly prefer reasoning and thoughtful explanations to card-reading in rebuttals. Please feel free to email me at sedabu01@gmail.com with any questions regarding the round, I’m happy to give more thorough feedback.

Spreading makes for an ineffectual argument. Off-time road maps are welcome. You may time yourself, but judge timer is official. I look for clear, logical, arguments that address the opponent's arguments effectively.

Hey, I'm Ms. Granchi I am an executive in medical devices. I have judged for 2 years now. I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me as as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.

I know people have lots of questions, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.

1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I will decide for myself purely based on substance if you do not do these things. It will also reflect poorly on speaker points.

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (for example, don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

3) Please respect each other in the debate round, I do not tolerate any misconduct/harassing.

4) I allow progressive debates if there is an actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaker points.

7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

8) If you postround me, your speaker points will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. I welcome questions, but my decision is what it is.

P.S.: I have a dog named popcorn and if you relate the argument at the end with my dog popcorn, I will give you an extra speaker point! ????

-Ms. Granchi

.

I am an academic rather than a former debater - I'm a professor of political theory and political science - and that means I care more about the quality of your arguments than purely technical issues (though I am sensitive to the latter). I also tend to weigh quality over quantity, so you do not need to cram as many arguments into your cases and rebuttals as possible.

Competitors:

Thank you for taking the time to read this paradigm, I trust that it will provide the necessary information to your success in this round.

What I value most in PF/LD debate:

1) Logically sound arguments. It does not matter how eloquent your speech sounds if your contentions are not logical and thorough. However, this does not mean that a good delivery is unnecessary; a solid delivery helps one properly convey the points of their argument. This is just to say that I don't want you to waste time on flowery language and irrelevant words that make one sound intelligent, if it is at the expense of your argument. Just speak plainly and strategically. Spreading is okay; but, if you are slurring your words it will be increasingly difficult for me to follow your arguments.

2) Good Cross-Ex. This back-and-forth is vital, and often where the winning team separates themselves

3) Be competitive, but always show respect to your opponent. This is a debate, so the conversation should be intense. However, this does not come at the expense of disrespecting your opponent or acting in an unprofessional manner.

I debated in high school, worked as a lawyer and have been judging debate for the last two years. I don't have many strong preferences and I like to leave debaters room to be themselves, but here are a few things I'd like - or wouldn't - to see in your round.

1. I'm a stickler on time. Please avoid off-time roadmaps (but feel free to sign-post within time). Also be warned that I will call time precisely... even if you are still speaking.
2. While I don't object to assertiveness or passionate debating, please remember to be courteous to your opponent and respect the forum. Personal insults are never appropriate.
3. Be mindful of your opponent's need for quiet during their prep time.
4. I don't have a preference for any particular kind of argument: philosophical, policy and evidentiary arguments can all work if well presented.
5. I also do not have any strong opinions on speed as long as you enunciate clearly.
6. I give points to debaters who really listen to their opponents and shape their rebuttals to creatively and decisively counter them.
7. I give points for values and especially value criteria that are well-tailored to the resolution and incorporated into the debate, including rebuttals.

I truly admire all of you for your commitment and hard work, and I wish you great luck in the round!

I am a new judge. I debated in high school.

I have a background in High School Debate and was a competitor for 4 years.

My preferences:

• Don't spread
• I weigh impact and value clashes the most
• I allow offtime roadmaps
• Be respectful and considerate

LD: Convince me that your value is the better choice presented for the current debate topic. I value clear, persuasive delivery of organized and logical arguments presented in a respectful, professional manner.

PF: Convince me that your arguments on the current topic are stronger/more desirable than the opposing arguments. Present and support your arguments in a clear and organized manner and explain why/how they outweigh those of your opponents through direct clash. I value clear, persuasive delivery above speed and expect all debaters to be respectful and professional at all times.

I am a debate coach from Colgan HS with experience judging in LD and PF for the last eight years. I prefer more traditional debate. I place emphasis on evidence and analysis and frown against spreading. I value respect for your opponent and to the judge. Please be mindful of language that comes across as attacking or offensive.

1. Speaking Style: Please speak clearly especially when you spread if you want to be understood. If I can't clearly hear your points, I won't be able to flow them.
2. Clarity: Make sure you tie your contentions and refutes to the resolution. Please signpost in your refutes.
3. Structure your final rebuttals in a format that is easy for the judge to organize. Off-time roadmaps are very helpful.
4. Engage the totality of your opponents' arguments. Use time for cross-ex wisely.
5. Cite LD rules where you can.
6. Good luck and have fun!

Especially in this technological time of tweets and social media, effective communication becomes so much more vital. Events in public speaking are a valuable tool for developing a critical mind and a well-expressed person. I have never seen a person who did not need to be able to express themselves coherently in some fashion; now is the best time to develop those skills.

More experience equals more confidence. I would encourage all of you to attend as many tournaments as you can; get that experience level up. There no worthless experiences; if one event doesn't pan out, try another, we have plenty from which to choose. And never feel embarrassed to reach out for assistance. Quite often the greatest mistake people suffer are right after they decided not to ask for help.

To quote Thomas Edison: “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time.”

Speech:

Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance.

In interpretive events, make sure your characters, narration, and transitions are crisp and clear. I shouldn't have to interpret your technique to discern the success of your interpretation of the literature. If you introduce physicality by moving across the floor, make sure it is within the rules and is not distracting. Physicality should not get in the way of delivery. There are some who use noises to signify a transition, we shouldn't need a sound cue to do so. In the end, I should be able to at least discern the gist of the piece as a whole, either your particular cutting or the work in toto.

Oratorical events, such as Original Oratory or Extemporaneous Speaking, must first and foremost have a central concept or theme. In extemp, that is not difficult as there is but one topic; the ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question addresses the speaker's poise and understanding of the topic question. For OO, your topic is yours to determine, but the end is still the same: clear communication. I want to know what you plan to talk about, how you are going to explain it, then tell me what we did, basic speech structure, at minimum. Fluency and ease of delivery are key; those are traits that will only flourish with time and practice. If you're going to do "the walk", make it fluid and not scripted. A good speaker flows from point to point, both verbally and physically.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look to rank the competitors. Being able to make an in-depth analysis of a topic in a short time is impressive when done at all, extra points!

Student Congress:

In general, this is my favorite event in competitive forensics. This combines so many different elements and requires a well-rounded speaker with personality and charisma. I truly believe this is one of the more difficult and rewarding events offered.

As a Parliamentarian:

I am looking for any and all actions that promote the business of the house. Not allowing dilatory motions is not only the job of the Presiding Officer, but also the house, as well. Every member of the house should make an effort to observe the business in the house and be ready to make a Point of Order if needed. I also wish to promote and reinforce courtesy and decorum in the house. Proper address is rewarded. The business of the house is to advance debate and legislation, not just to make sure someone gets a speech in. Being aware of the business of the house will inform the members that it may be time to end debate on a bill, so make sure the proper motion is used.

For the coaches, the speeches are tracked by speech number: Bill number/topic-side in my comments. This is to ensure that they are aware of the place and time of the speeches by the students.

As a Judge:

I will be looking for clarity in argumentation and a clear reason for or against the motion on the floor. Delivery is rewarded more than reading; speak up and out to the house. After an authorship speech, these become debate rebuttals; speeches should refer to the bill, the author’s speech, or previous speakers, all in the goal of advancing the business of the house and debate. As debate advances, we should see new points or aspects for or against the legislation; rehash means that the topic is done. An effective member of Congress combines persuasive speaking and evidentiary substance.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I am at first, a flow judge, meaning that I want to see a debate run from beginning to end. Leaving large holes on the flow makes judging the round much easier. After that, I look to the actual caseloads. Core Values and Value Criteria must not only be presented, but supported by the contentions. Strategic use of an opponent's value, criterion, or contentions to uphold their own is risky, but a winner when done correctly. In the end, I wish to be convinced.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into L-D. This is a philosophical event "we should", not a policy debate "here are all of the solutions". Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the debater points. Also, if a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977". Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in L-D. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

Be courteous to your opponent. Allow them to answer questions, do not cut them off. Turn off all noisemakers, including your timers. Please do not make unnecessary noise and distractions during the opponent's speeches. If you require 14 different pens to flow speeches, change pens silently.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of debaters. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

Policy Debate:

Nope.

Public Forum:

Public Forum Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects the assigned resolution. The focus of the debate is a clash of ideas in a persuasive manner that can be understood by a “lay” judge. Good debaters should display logic and analysis. They should use evidence when needed. They should win their case and refute that of their opponents. They should communicate effectively, using the fundamentals of good speaking. The format keeps a team on its toes. This is an event that should be able to be judged by a lay person, making a convincing case is critical. Therefore, abstract concepts and debate-specific jargon doesn't make a strong case per se.

I judge the quality of a debate first on maintaining a consistent debate. If, for some reason, both teams decided that there is one major voting topic, that is fine; sometimes the round evolves into more argumentation on fewer points. Next is on the quality of the debate. While I look to evaluating caseloads as a policy or conceptual level, a weak caseload is more difficult to defend from a good opponent. Next is the quality of the crossfire periods. While minor, if I hear a good question, there's an extra point right there. Last is speaking quality. I do like to hear a well-spoken case.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into PF. Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the team points. If a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977" Give us a source that is relevant to the topic and topical (recent). Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in PF. Debate the topic, not the debaters. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of teams. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

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

I competed for four years in high school (James Wood and Sherando High Schools, VA 1992-6), three in college (Laurel Ridge Community College, 1996-9). I did almost every speech event offered at the time (Duo Interpretation, Prose/Poetry, Humorous/Dramatic Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu); placed at Virginia High School League in Extemporaneous for three years at state, regional, and district levels, qualified to NCFL Nationals in Duo, Phi Rho Pi member, Eastern Seaboard champion in Impromptu and Duo. Also competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate and Student Congress. A 2023 graduate of the University of Virginia with a Bachelor's Degree in History & Politics, my intent for the near future is to teach high school history and government.

If you have any post-round questions or future judging opportunities, you may contact me at solo_falcon@hotmail.com

My own background is parliamentary style debate: seven minute speeches, extemporaneous, no notes or props. Consequentially, I dislike spreading, especially in the constructives. Six minutes is long enough to talk at a human pace. Also, I'm flowing during the debate, so if I can't keep up with you, I'm missing your cards and links. On the flip side of that, good rhetoric stands out to me and will earn you higher speaker points.

Off time road maps are fine, but I think signposting during rebuttals is much more helpful.

Debate manners matter to me. Both competitors, when possible, should stand when it is their turn to speak and during CX. Check to see if your judge and opponent are ready before the round begins. Don't refuse to answer questions in CX (a little dodging is fine). Be confident but polite even when there's strong clash in the round. No new evidence in AR2.

It is important to use your prep time to plan your rebuttals. I'll count significant unused prep against your speaker points unless you give a great speech in NR or AR2, and really prove you didn't need to prep.

Framework is key to Lincoln-Douglas debate. Make sure the link between your V/VC is strong and you tell me why it matters for the debate. At the same time, dragging out the framework clash all the way to AR2 is only justifiable if you have a point. Just reiterating "my value is broader and more essential" over and over again doesn't help. I'd rather you recognize that you have the same value as your opponent in different words than waste time splitting hairs. Your contentions need to be linked to your V/VC.

Evidence matters, but just having a card alone is not enough. Make sure you explain your links clearly, especially on impacts. A card from one expert telling me that the Aff world will result in economic growth is easily countered by a card on the Neg side saying the opposite. Make sure you can explain the link to the card if this is a crucial point. Impacts matter, but more so when they are topically relevant. Sure economic growth is good, but if it is not topically related and you can't explain the link, it's not that helpful.

Point out drops and tell me why they matter. I will double check drops in my own flow. If it is there and you can extend the impact of that drop, it will really count for you in the round.

I follow voter issues, so make sure you choose them well and devote adequate time to them in NR and AR2.

Finally, because Lincoln-Douglas is values based debate, argumentation matters more to me than sparring on evidence. Good solid links with sound logic tied to your V/VC count heavily in your favor. Pointing out the inconsistencies in your opponent's case will also count in your favor, and I'll usually reward it with high speaker points.

I am an experienced lay judge. I am averse to spreading, but will not dock you if you spread. I can only judge on what I can understand and flow. Simple, succinct and deliberate is the winning formula for me.

This is my 3rd tournament as a judge. I prefer arguments to be presented logical and calm manner. I'm an Engineer by education, I always like logical reasoning behind any statements made. Apart from content, I also pay attention to the presentation style of the candidate. I prefer speeches that are slow to medium-paced and clearly stated.

About me: I did PF in high school so I have some exposure to the event. I've been judging for the past couple years, so I'll probably be able to make a good decision if you read this and follow along.

Publlic Forum

1. Tech > Truth but if you're rude you're probably getting low speaks
2. Respect is important
3. The team that wins the more impactful argument gets the win
4. Final focus should be voting issues and weighing
5. In terms of speed, 200 wpm is probably my max but I'll flow off a doc if provided
6. I won't evaluate theory or Ks

Debate the way you think will win, and I'll follow along.

Avoid at all costs: Tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, off-time roadmaps, time suck arguments.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution. Ensure resolution ties. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. I am not a judge that will vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent.

Speed—I take notes and flow.  Speed of discussion should not be so fast as to lessen the judge’s ability to record. If it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but I will be tracking time as well.  I will let you know when time is up. 

RFD: It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I put great weight on effective rebuttals than constructive speeches.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I urge debaters to always put their best foot forward. Address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

I am a parent judge with an extemp past.

In LD, I try hard not to impose my own stylistic or strategic preference onto competitors. Do your thing. That being said, clarity and the art of rhetorical persuasion matter, especially if the evidence and argumentation are close.

Off-time roadmaps = okay but not especially worthwhile.

please add me to the email chain - cwhaldebate@gmail.com
he/him
Order is policy, then PF

Do not trivialize, commodify, or deny the Holocaust.

Are you a high schooler interested in debating in college? If so, you should contact me and ask about it. If you are being recruited by or are committed to UNL, please conflict me!

I graduated from Patriot High School (VA) in 2022, having done WACFL PF for a year. Currently, I'm competing in NFA-LD (election reform, nukes) at the University of Nebraska. I usually judge as a hired gun of sorts for Ivy Bridge, as well as various schools on the Nebraska circuit.

Outside of debate I'm pursuing a Bachelors' of Science in Agricultural Economics with a minor in Agronomy. I'm also a tutor, a research assistant, and an intern with the state extension agency. I mainly research risk management (price volatility) and anti-trust policy (amongst other things).

Evidence sharing should not be complicated. I'm generally pro-disclosure. I don't care if you sit or stand during your speeches. I'm fine with observers so long as both debaters are.

My flow is generally pretty tight. I tend to prefer the line-by-line, and debaters who are able to stick to it tend to do better in front of me. Obviously like (almost) everything in this paradigm this is a default, so try to change it however you like. I am not persuaded by team clout, verbal abuse, or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside of debate and I have my dogs.

That said - if you have questions (about the round, my judging preferences, college apps, econ help...) - feel free to reach out!

I think about debate pretty similarly to (in no particular order) Ayyah Al-Jibouri, Zach Thornhill, Justin Kirk, Adrienne Phillips, and Sarah Stevenson-Peck

Case debate - The best. I will almost never not vote for a solid 2NR case collapse, if you pull this off in front of me you will almost certainly get 30 speaker points no questions asked. I'm not entirely sure what a "risk of offense" even is and will readily pull the trigger on presumption if it's won.

DA/CP combo - Yes and yes. Run your cheater counterplans in front of me - almost anything goes so long as it's in the topic lit and you can do any additional justification. PICs are (almost) always good, consult/QPQ is fine on IR topics, and delay/miscellaneous conditions is illegitimate.

T v. Policy - Was my bread and butter during the elections topic. Using T to set up other off-case positions (either you're non-topical or you link to this DA, etc) is always a good time. I default to competing interps and don't need proven abuse.

Theory - I default to reject the arg, not the team in most instances. Most neg theory save for T/FW, test case (chef's kiss) and vagueness (my beloved), are probably frivolous. The only reject the team argument in terms of aff theory (save for condo) is probably object fiat. If you argument is best described as originating from circuit LD (cough cough three tier method cough cough), then I'm not the judge for you.

T-USFG - In a bloodbath, I wouldn't consider myself a hack - that said, I'm pretty receptive to the TVA. Do with that what you will.

K - If you know what you're doing, go for it.

Up my alley: Cap, Orientalism/Terror Talk, Militarism, Miscellaneous Ks of Economics (if you run Cybernetics and do it well I won't be able to shut up about it)
It's a wash: SetCol, Biopower, some Psychoanalysis (the nukes topic is wild)
Not my forté but I can follow: AB/Afropess, Fem IR, Queer Theory, most other arguments not listed (if you have specific questions ask)
Please don't: Heidigger, Agamben, Nietzche

PF specifics

1. For WACFL tournaments (this is important!!), the best case scenario is that I get approximately 5 minutes to make my decision before the tabroom starts busting down my door. Please be time efficient.
   
2. Only way to get a 30 is to share speechdocs with unparaphrased evidence (policy-style cards).
3. The line-by-line and keeping a tight (and clean) flow are your friend.
4. Tag team crossfire is welcome. I don't flow crossfire but I do pay attention during it; if in doubt, anything you say is binding.
5. I don't tend to jive with PF jargon (quantify, scope, de-link, terminal offense, etc).
6. First rebuttal should not extend their own case. Doing so guts any advantage you get from speaking first. On the flip side, second rebuttal is expected to attack and defend.
7. Please don't steal prep.