For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

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.

A short paradigm for an attempt for Tabula Rasa.

Intervention on Equity Issues.

Generally, weigh more, explain link chains.

Beyond these, I come from a Midwest school of policy from a the mid 2010's then Parliamentary debate later. Use this as you will.

I work in the investment sphere, and had a legal career in global finance prior to transitioning to the business side. I taught International Negotiations at George Washington National Law Center, to a mixed class of law, business and government students. In my work I spend a lot of time on strategy and persuasion in relation to making investments, which always have many sides: founders, management, investors, buyers, sellers and clients/customers, as well as regulators sometimes. I have one year of experience judging PF debate at local tournaments, live and on Zoom.

PF Debate: I vote for the advocates who formulate a robust, convincing framework for their arguments, who prepare well and know a wide range of aspects related to the topic, and who speak clearly. Arguments should be logical, based on a comprehensive paradigm, well supported by evidence, and responsive to the opponent’s arguments. I tend not to favor debate gimmicks, rapid-fire speaking, or snarky approaches. I tend to give some weight to showing respect to the opponent where principled. I am not looking for a team looking just to "win", but one that will sway me and an audience, as ultimately the purpose of the debate is to influence a broader society. Civility and professionalism are important.

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is downesc@sidwell.edu — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

CX

Some stuff you probably care about:

Ks, K affs, performance, and other, non-normative ways of engaging with debate and the resolution are fun and fine in my personal view, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial.

Speed is ok. Clarity is essential. Paperless debate has gotten debaters into some very bad habits, among which is thinking that they can rely on judges to read speech docs to reconstruct basically unintelligible 1ACs and 1NCs. I won't be doing that. This is an oral advocacy competition. It's impossible to articulate a brightline on this but them's the breaks. So consider being conservative on this front. That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I need you to slow down to compensate for that.

Some stuff I care about:

Cross ex matters. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round for me. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism and if that's obvious it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact where the link story is poorly articulated and badly warranted. Relatedly, I will vote on presumption and feel strongly that the aff has the initial burden of persuasion. I realize this all makes me sound a million years old. I don't care.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

PF

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad disclosure and evidence exchange practices combined with the use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this concerning state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for voting on this stuff or signing a ballot on an evidence violation. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

For related reasons, I have a very high threshold for voting on theory in PF. If you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical theory arguments to bully a less technical team I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Courtesy and promptness in satisfying requests for cards are something that I will take into account in speaker points. As far as I am concerned (and per NSDA rules), your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly provide to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased.

Congress

If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and it contains no clash, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and you appear to be reading the speech in its entirety, with no extemporaneous elements at all, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If your speech is substantially repetitive of prior speeches, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech.

I will generally rank a PO who effectively manages the chamber at #3. Other than the PO, I rank largely based on my scoring of speeches.

LD

I never did this event, don't coach this event, and have judged it only a handful of times. I do have a background in philosophy; it's what I got my undergraduate degree in. You'll probably find some helpful things under my CX section. I'll do my best.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I turned into a K debater while learning everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty. Following a hiatus from debate I was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia from 2018 to 2022. I have been the debate coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian, a socialist, and a practicing class action plaintiff's lawyer.

Former debater in the JV/Open Policy Division for James Madison University, 2nd place finish at JV/Novice Nationals, 2-time VHSL State Qualifier, and former varsity PF captain for Harrisonburg High School.

Hell yes include me in the email chain:

phillipduong51@gmail.com

If you guys have any questions after your round concerning the debate, please email me/ask me I’d be more than happy to answer anything debate-related and give you my view of the round (either why you won or lost).

Basics:

I currently view debate as a game we play to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. If one side has successfully developed the debate with a clear argument and direction while refuting the other side and providing offense against the opposing team's args, they will win my ballot. If you’re putting in hard work debating, I’ll work hard in evaluating correctly with little intervention providing feedback for both sides on how you guys can be the best debaters with the experience I’ve had in your shoes. The relationship between debaters and judges is a two-way street, if you don’t give any effort/don’t care, I won’t care either.

Conduct- Don’t be a douchebag, I encourage aggressiveness in rounds and during cross-ex but you know when you’re being a douchebag, I will stop the debate and tell you if you are but you’ll already know it and you will be docked points. Any explicit language and disrespect, I’ll vote you down.

Time- You should keep track of your own prep time and opponent's speech times, prep ends when the document is saved. don’t go over your time.

Debate Preferences:

Clarity vs. Speed

I’m fine with speed if you’re good at spreading. AKA if I can’t understand you while you spread, you‘re not doing a good job. If you can spread while having clear and concise diction then feel free to but if you’re not a good enough speaker yet, don’t do it. Slow down on analytics, don’t speed through them because they will get lost.

CX

For policy, I prefer one on one cross-ex’s if you want good speeks unless your partner is really struggling, like badly. Don’t be an a-hole and don’t talk over your opponents or even your partner, you’ll be docked points.

Policy

I’ve been a policy debater for most of my JMU debate career, so if you debate policy I have high expectations. Do warranted line-by-line analysis and have solid args starting with the basics. I really value top-level impact calc, and like love it, if you don’t address impact calc at all you will lose the round.

DA’s

If you have a DA you need a rock-solid link and good uniqueness args. If you lose any of these it will be really hard for you to win any risk of the DA happening. Do impact calc and turns case args, I love offense for both sides.

CP’s

Have a good perm other than that, I’m fine with generics but if you’re running an advantage cp then explain it thoroughly because I don’t run these often as a debater.

K’s

This is the side of the debate that I’m slowly getting into so don’t assume that I know everything but I do know a decent amount. I’m still catching up on lit but give short explanations and actually have an understanding of your literature but slow down on those analytics because I will admit I can get lost in the sauce. Love a good alt debate, I prefer alts that actually do something but if you flesh it out it’ll make it easier for me to analyze the round. Have a rock-solid link, and try and make them specific to the AFF, if you don’t talk about the AFF at all and conceptualize the link to the AFF, you haven’t done an excellent job. Do something, some analysis. The NEG still needs to win why the AFF/links create uniqueness for the impact.

T

Not a big T expert, so the explanation is key. Honestly, provide a coherent view of what the topic would look like without the limit that you set on it versus what the AFF justifies when you are impacting the T debate. That could include a case list that they justify that explodes research burdens or specific ground loss. You do not have to win in round abuse, I’ll judge that for myself. Impact it out well and you should be good. Again, analyze the other team's evidence and make smart args against it.

Theory

Dropped theory arguments are so easy to vote on, it's lazy but I can’t resist so don’t drop them. Provide a reason why the abuse outweighs any other possible impact and make it a big deal. Just don’t blaze through it and expect to win even if it was dropped.

I am a technical judge over traditional. However, be persuasive. Do not assume I know what you know. Make definition, provide a framework, and no jargons pls.

Evidence needs to be clearly reliable. Clear impact are important. Overall, I am looking for logical reasoning with a cohesive flow. Organize and internalize your speech. Do not repeat exactly what was mentioned. That will not earn you extra points. Build upon your contentions, and forge strength on your arguments.

Debate is a team sport. So work and win together as a team!

Summary and Final Focus: Don't list everything. Intensify your defense, summarize your arguments, and finally, weighing is a must but make it clear!

I really dislike speaking more than your allocated time. No spreading pls.

Be respectful of one another.

If it is virtual, your cameras need to be on at all time unless otherwise instructed.

Best of luck!

PUBLIC FORUM: Tabula Rasa ; Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

POLICY DEBATE: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; I'm okay with running Ks, as long as they are well explained and topical

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

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

TFA STATE:

PUBLIC FORM: I'm a Tabula Rasa judge on the surface and a classic debate judge in my core. Progressive debate is okay with me. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. I expect each round to be educational. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues , and my own expertise / knowledge.

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

UIL CX STATE:

I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. Frameworks and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I expect each round to be educational. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues and my own expertise / knowledge.

PHILSOPHY:

SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely understand your PLAN by the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SOLVENCY! USE FIAT WISELY.

NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. ALL ARGUMENTS MUST LINK TO THE AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with AFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED.

BOTH: WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

I am a relatively new judge (have only done one tournament). For opening constructives, I am looking for points clearly made and well-developed. For subsequent rounds, in addition to looking for well-developed points, I am evaluating whether you are responding to/addressing the points the other side made.

One final note: if you are speaking too quickly for me to understand what you are saying, I can't evaluate your arguments. So it is in your interest to slow down and make sure your points are clear.

I generally judge tabla rasa, and will prefer whatever weighing mechanism you give me. If I have to intervene (i.e. you give me no weighing mechanism), I usually make normative assumptions about value of human life, suffering, and money (in that order). I don't prefer arguments about "ethics" with no clear ethical framework, and generally believe ethics include pragmatics unless otherwise warranted.

I look for quality arguments; clear sign-posting; consistent impacting through the round; and good, direct clash. I especially appreciate when debaters demonstrate the ability to break issues down into their component parts and explain why they win on each point, rather than making general claims. I'm happy to entertain language such as "topicality" but please don't use jargon such as "T". I don't pay much attention to speaking style, and I think generally focusing on style perpetuates judges' unconscious biases; just speak clearly. That said, please don't try to spread in PF.

I will reject any evidence you try to hand me in PF, and any evidence sharing you do during the round is a part of your prep time.

I keep time for all speeches and prep time, I'll raise my hands to indicate I'm not taking notes if you're over time. I'm happy to provide time signals upon request.

(I did PF in high school and parley in college.)

Hello!

I am a former PF debater myself and am very excited to sit on the other side of the table! In debates that I am judging I prefer to see the evidence being used to further your contentions as opposed to debating the merits of the sources themselves.

I also am not interested in hostility between teams. I appreciate the passion that debate can instill in us, but I am looking for a debate that focuses on facts as opposed to the louder voices. I have no problem with intense debates, but I am not interested in histrionics or aggression.

Overall, I am looking for a debate where teams engage in intellectual conversations about topics that are relevant to the complex world we are living in today. If I walk away thinking about what you said after the round, I'll consider it a good debate.

Good luck and I am looking forward to judging your rounds!

• Don't spread! This is PF, not policy or LD, and therefore designed to be comprehensible to the lay judge. In other words, there is no room here for incomprehensibly spitting out words.
• I expect debaters to provide clear warrants and rebuttals. Complete the thought, finish your own arguments, and don't assume that I'll fill in the blanks for you. I also expect debaters to live in the world of reality re impacts - if you are claiming impacts in the billions, you should think carefully about that.
• All reasoning and no evidence is not a winning approach.
• I don't think you should bother with framework unless it is actually woven into your argument in a meaningful way.
• I expect you to use the crossfires to provide clash, not gather merely information. You are not obligated to trade questions back and forth nor should you necessarily accept an opponent's answer without follow-up.
• I'm looking for structure and strongly encourage sign posting.
• I've been coaching and judging for nearly a decade; don't worry - I know the rules.

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

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.

Debate:

• Do not spread if you can avoid it. I am Hard of Hearing, and while I use hearing aids enunciation is key to me understanding you, and your opponents deserve to hear all you have to say.
• Be polite to your opponents. I will dock points if you are disrespectful.
• Try to keep it out of the weeds if you can, I appreciate substantive points of clash unless technical points are necessary.
• Sign posting! Please! Ill be flowing.

MY BACKGROUND:

• I am a government major at George Mason. I have competed in parli, LD, PoFo, Impromptu, Extemp, and varying interps. I have judged all debates (LD, PoFo, Parli, Policy, Congress)
• I've worked in both chambers of Congress and the Whitehouse. I love government and know a lot about it! I care a lot about information accuracy, but care even more that opponents catch inaccuracies.
• I am the captain at the George Mason University Speech team. Hit me up if you want more info on our program!

If you have questions, feel free to email me! mizer@gmu.edu

• Parent Judge, your job is to convince ME why you have won, think as if you're presenting to a person who has no idea about the topic
• Don't speak too fast. Spreading or reading too fast will cost you, might not catch arguments on the flow
• Eye contacts and body languages are also important

Voting Issues

• Direct clashes between arguments
• Weighing the two arguments

I cannot stress this enough, but please speak slowly and make sure to reiterate your points.

Most of all, respect your opponents and have fun!

My judging experience is primarily in PF. In that event:

Substance: I am a flow judge, whose ballot is won by winning the clash in the room. Keys to winning that clash are (1) a well-constructed and supported case, (2) good signposting with rebuttal and frontlining, and (3) weighing impacts down to clear voting issues. When cases and rebuttals offer factual conflicts/competing cards, I want to know why your card is more reliable/should be used.

Style: I can handle any speed I have seen, so long as enunciation and sign-posting are clear. Effective gestures, eye-contact, and tonal variation are appreciated. Respect is crucial, and lack of it will impact my balloting. In all other respects, rhetoric is a flourish, but the flow will determine my ballot.

Mechanics: Im fine with offtime roadmaps and most other things that a debater requests. I do not do set amounts of prep (e.g., "can I have 30 seconds"), but rather run time. I will provide announcements of expired time every 30 seconds, or as a debater otherwise requests.

In General

Please be courteous and respectful. I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily aggressive styles of debating. You should win a debate through the strength of your arguments, not the force of your emotions.

I tend to be tech over truth, i.e. I judge you based on what you argue and how effectively you defend it rather than judging you based on my own knowledge and assumptions about how the world works. But like most people, I will be annoyed if you say things that I know to be factually wrong (even if I end up voting for you).

I was an LD debater in high school and did various forms of legislative debate in both high school and college; I am now a high school English teacher.

Public Forum

This is a debate event designed for a general audience. I am judging you not only on the flow of the debate, the coherence of your arguments, and the strength of your warrants and impacts, but also on how well you speak, how convincing you are as a speaker. I prefer that debaters not spread in PF, but if you have to spread to get through your speeches, please make sure you're slowing down and being clear when making key points. (I am okay at flowing debates but definitely not the best.)

That being said, I very much enjoy seeing a technically sound round of PF and I will almost always vote for the team that wins the flow.

Speech Events

I did OO and Extemp in high school. I have a good sense of what makes a strong DI, HI, Duo, OPP, Expos, OA, and Impromptu, events that were part of my local and state circuits back in the day. I am a lot less familiar with other events.

Policy Debate

I'm still relatively new to judging Policy. I have judged about a dozen rounds of CX at this point, but mostly JV/Novice and local league.

Progressive Debate: I'm open to whatever - K's, framework, theory, etc. You can argue anything. Just don't expect me to be an expert. Be sure to link, explain significance, convince me of your approach. Usually progressive debate involves some sort of paradigm shift in how we think about debate or the warrants and impacts of a debate.

Cards and Evidence: Please share your cards with me and your opponents at the beginning of the round and as necessary throughout the round. However, I do not tend to look closely at cards unless I am instructed to. The burden is on you as the debater to draw my attention to any weaknesses in or misreadings of your opponents' cards. You also need to explain the significance of a card (or series of cards) in the flow of the debate. Do not expect me to do this for you. In general, Policy is an event that allows debaters to get into the weeds of specific plans and policies, and I welcome this. Just be sure to clearly and consistently frame the significance of your warrants, cards, and impacts in the overall flow of the debate–how do they respond to your opponents' arguments, how does it defend your own, how does it win you the debate. I should never be left to wonder why you are making a particular argument or introducing a particular card.

Speed: I am okay with spreading in Policy because I know it is part of the event, but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to follow. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. I'll do my best to flow the debate and I make my decision based on what I was able to flow and understand.

Dropped Arguments: If your opponents drop an argument, you have to point it out and explain why this argument is significant. You do not automatically win the debate because they dropped an argument, all you automatically win is the dropped argument. You have to convince me why the argument wins you the debate.

Congress

In my view, a good Congress round combines some aspects of speech events and other debate events but is also uniquely its own thing–a form of legislative debate. Top-level competitors should demonstrate that they are well-researched and well-prepared but should never simply read a pre-prepared speech. If you have a pre-prepared speech you should perform it. But the best competitors adapt themselves to the flow of the debate in their chamber, incorporating and addressing the arguments of their peers, just like any other form of debate, which requires more extemporaneous speaking skills. A winning competitor in Congress is always competing for the top position even when they are not speaking: through their motions, questions, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, amendments, even the number of times your placard is raised, etc. A winning speech is one that significantly influences the overall flow of the debate in the chamber through clash and new arguments. Lastly, a truly competitive chamber requires you to find a way to stand out in a large crowd of equally excellent debaters and, just like any other speech or debate event, that means knowing what style of debate suits you best–some light humor, wit, oratorical flare, social intelligence (because, yes, a great Congress chamber is also a social body with its own particular dynamics). Whatever brings out your strengths and makes you unforgettable in a round.

My name is Kalyani Maguluri and I am a debate mom with a few tournaments experience. Please speak slowly and concisely and I would prefer you off-time road map to give me a better picture of your case. I will take notes on your case and judge you based on speaking and how you get your points across. I will keep time as well so make sure not to go over time, as this will lose you speaker points. In addition, crossfires should only be used for questions and answers not an addition to your case. Lastly, your summary and final focus is your last chance to convince me of your case so please give importance to these as well. Thank you for participating!

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

Please speak at a reasonable speed, not too fast to make comprehension difficult. Also, have cut cards ready when opponents ask for them. Please use a respectful tone in speech and body language.

I’m a PF Debate parent and lay judge. Trained as a lawyer, I’m well-versed is the art of argumentation and appreciate arguments that are clearly presented in a measured speaking cadence. I only judge you on what I can hear and understand, so a turbo-charged speaking pace or “spreading” won’t play to your advantage. Be respectful to each other in cross, but spirited sparring is part of the fun, so I appreciate debaters who challenge weaknesses in their opponents’ case through pointed questions and strong counterpoints. I love creative and unusual arguments that are presented convincingly, but over-reliance on Debate jargon and rules-based technicalities is unlikely to be the best strategy when I'm judging your round. Looking forward to hearing some great arguments!

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a graduate student at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if you must bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I hate off-time road maps!! I prefer you tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in college cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in Wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post their case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

I am a policy debate coach by background. I have been debating, coaching, and judging for over 30 years. I am comfortable with any arguments teams would like to present. When judging, I look to the work that debaters have done to reach a decision. In public forum, there are many ideas and norms that I see through the lens of my experience in policy debate and I'm fine with them (theory, topicality, CPS, kritiks, etc). I am most interested in voting for well-warranted, explained arguments. I also give higher speaker points to teams that build developed warrants into speeches. I am also most interested in understanding how teams view arguments clashing in the round. Explaining your thinking around this will also contribute to higher speaker points and wins.

Hi! My name is Carson Roemer and I'm currently a junior at the George Washington University studying Business Analytics.

I don't have much experience judging public forum, but I understand the general framework of the event. I am not a traditional flow judge but I will be writing down extensive notes that will help me make my decision.

I am comfortable with understanding fast speech, but please do not try to spread.

Please try to make arguments as clear as possible and be nice/respectful to each other!

Hello! My name is Sirisha Sanagala and I will be judging you. I am representing the Riverside High School debate team as a judge. In order to win the debate, you have to prove that you won according to your framework. I also ask that you keep a track of your own prep time and speaking time. I will allow speakers to finish their sentences if they go over time.

I go with few simple rules:

1. Respect your opponent
2. Don't speed up too much, that makes it difficult for me to understand what you are trying to convey
3. I give more importance to rebuttal than the prepared speech, primarily because that brings out your true understanding of the topic
4. Clear framework is very important, it makes it easy for me and I think for the opportunity as well

I am a parent judge but have experience in judging. I expect the debaters to be courteous of each other. I look for clear, organized arguments. Presentation should be in a civil and courteous manner, backed by validated data that is current and unbiased.

I do keep time for the speeches and adhere to time. I expect all of the team members to participate in grand cross fire.

Don't spread and speak clearly.

Mostly a flow judge who appreciates, in cross, civility, clear questions, and direct answers to said questions—experienced in Worlds, PF, LD and Congress. Speak clearly; don't play stupid evidence games. I'm not into K's or attempting to win a round on things not topical to the round. Sometimes in PF I won't flow all the way through focusing more on who wins the offense of the round.=

Congress specific: Advance arguments, challenge one another and know procedure. I will vote up great POs, great congressional-style speakers, and those who are functioning in debate mode (not just speech mode).

My definition of a good debate is where logic plays a central role. The facts , figures and evidences are all supporting the main actor the logic of the argument.

A good debate also is not how forceful you put your point across with style , but how well you frame your argument with content.

Better use of time for cross checking the opponents cards is to keep it quick within prep time, debate cannot be held hostage in the process of cross checking cards.

Offline road map are also okay if its quick , but not necessary.

Please be educated about anything that is included as part of the debate. If you are talking about non profit orgs , i assume you know the basics of non profits, if you lack understanding it shows in the argument.

Congratulations on making it to Nationals.
I realize that competitors have been working on this topic all year, but I am hearing it for the first time. Please keep that in mind as you run through your debate round. I have a thorough paradigm in the NSDA guidebook and recommend looking at it.
That being said, I find spreading very difficult and I will not be able to follow and flow. If I cannot flow it, the argument might not be considered in the ballot.