Do not speak very fast as I will miss half of what you say.

It would be nice if you explained complex debater lingo to me.

Please time yourself and time your opponents.

Hello! My name is Mr. Abercrombie, and I am a high school science and TOK teacher. I have experience in assessing and giving feedback on presentations, so you can expect specific feedback after each round, however this is my first time judging for speech and debate. I can follow speech relatively quickly, but can only type so fast. If you notice yourself or your partner spreading, it may be a good idea to re-iterate key ideas if you have time to ensure I record these points and take them into consideration.

I'm a Myers Park parent and new judge. I work in education, so I have experience working with students in a variety of ways and bring that knowledge to this event.

Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I look forward to hearing from each speaker!

Lay judge

I haven't competed in this event in almost 10 years. But spreading is heavily discouraged. If I can't understand your argument, it doesn't matter.

I am a parent volunteer and this is my first time judging public forum debate

Please do not use debate jargon

Please keep your delivery slow and clear and summarize your arguments clearly and compare impacts

Provide topical argument only and be respectful during cross

Please paint a picture of what an affirmative world or a negative world looks like

Extend arguments fully and don't bring up new arguments/evidence after second summary

Good Luck!

I am parent judge, and I will judge you based on logic. Please do the following:

• Send case docs to winniehua@yahoo.com before your speeches so I can follow along as you read. I would also like to be added to the email chain.
• Read slowly and clearly. If I can't understand you, it won't turn out well.
• Please re-explain the reasoning behind your arguments when extending them.
• Let me know what the key voting issues are and how I should evaluate the round.

Good luck and have fun!

My email: ashutosh.komali@gmail.com, add me to any speech or card doc.

A bit about me, I am a freshman in college (Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.) and have competed in many events consistently over 4 years, mainly in Public Forum. Other events I did were Congressional Debate and World Schools Debate (best event) for Ardrey Kell High School/Carolina West District.

Please feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts.

TLDR; my paradigm is pretentiously long but i dont feel like deleting it. Just debate, you got this. If you truly aren’t sure what to do in the round, my paradigm does tell you what I look for but you are competent enough to figure it out. Ive barely gotten out of high school so im not going to be as formal as a typical judge but I will be professional and expect you to be as well (my crocs aren’t professional attire but complement them for brownie points lol)

^Most important^

Current Tournament: Policy and BQ Carolina West Districts

I honestly don't have any topic knowledge on either topics and I have no experience in policy at all. For policy treat me like a lay judge, I'll do my best judging on the flow, I can't really handle speed for an 8 minute straight speech and won't do any prog and I haven't even checked the policy topic.

I've competed, prepped, and gotten familiar with BQ at some point so I'll be ok judging this more than policy. I know what the topic is but haven't though about it so I'll just judge on the flow and what I can understand (BQ can get convoluted so I'll try my best).

————————————————————————————————————————————

General PF Stuff:

Tech>Truth in almost any circumstance as long as it's not offensive or absolutely absurd (impacting out to 1 trillion humans)

Prog Debate: I am a substance judge and will always prefer a very lay and trad round. I don't really care how you feel about this, but I hate progressive rounds, and though I won't drop you for it, I'm unlikely to prefer the team that reads it, especially if it is being spread. Reading theory against novices is lame. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read it on teams that are being absurdly exclusionary, but don’t read prog just for giggles.

For specifics on my thoughts on different forms of prog, just ask me.

Speaker Points: I won't go below 27.5, unless you are being excessively aggressive and/or rude or say anything offensive or discriminatory.

Speech docs: I hope this is obvious from what I just said, but don't try to spread, especially if you mess up your speaking a lot, but if you do spread, send speech doc.

I generally will not ask for a speech doc because I am fairly fine with flowing unless you spread very fast, which I considered being 250 or 260+ wpm.

Frameworks: I default cost-benefit analysis/utilitarianism, but you can have your own FW. Provide warranting for why this is the FW of the round tho, or else I will think it is very weak. Second case can always have a counter FW or just respond in rebuttal.

Mavericks: Everything the same except I'll give mav's 5 minutes of prep

Speech Analysis:

Case: Have clear warranting, it can be obscure or unique, but it should make sense. Case comprising of cut cards is recommended for your own usefulness, I am fine with anything paraphrased, but if a card is miscut or paraphrased incorrectly, I will drop it from my flow. Note: this can only happen if opponents call cards and address cards and I follow up with the card.

1st Rebuttal: Pre-emptive frontlines are nice, you should know what your job is, go top down on their case and respond to it to the best of your ability, addressing cross questions can help as well.

2nd Rebuttal: Make sure you frontline here, I won't evaluate it in second summary, feels abusive to me. Respond to their case obviously.

Don't read cards only, make analytical responses, these often have the best warranting throughout the round so they are useful, and when reading any carded response, make implications to why they clash with your opponents claims. Don't say something then not tell me why it it important.

Weighing is always welcome here.

1st Summary: Make sure you frontline your case well, only place for you to frontline. If you want me to evaluate something in my decision, you need to include it here. I advise you to collapse on your case, don't need to if opponents didn't do very well on responding. Make sure you weigh here.

2nd Summary: Again, no new frontlining that wasn't in rebuttal. Should address first summary. Nothing really different from first summary.

NO NEW RESPONSES, I get annoyed by this. This should be obvious, but no new arguments, I won't evaluate them.

If new arguments are made in summary and you respond to them just to be on the safe side then that's fine but I generally won't encourage it as I drop new args(unless its frontlining in first summary) and a time suck.

1st Final Focus: I agree that this is some disadvantage since you don't get the last word, but this is a big reason you should pre-emptively respond to their 2nd FF. Again extend things you want me to evaluate. Weigh.

2nd FF: Take advantage of this, you have the last word in the round. Don't do anything unfair, but if the round went very clash(AKA went to backlining and beyond), new analysis of the arguments are welcome here, this goes for first FF too. Weigh.

Your Final Focus should practically write the RFD for me, even if you are losing hard, don't give up and make a convincing final statement as to why you should win.

WEIGHING: To me, weighing and impact calc is very important, as even if you concede to all of your opponents links, you can still win off of weighing impacts with a clear link into them with your arguments. Magnitude is often the default in rounds, but differentiate your weighing from your opponents by using other weighing mechanisms too. Meta-weighing is often not included in many rounds I watch but it is a great tool, helps me in my decision and is always welcome.

Although it is convenient for the debaters, I don't believe in sticky defense, just don't do it. Extend.

I may call for cards once the round is over for me to clear up any suspicious evidence or cards that are challenged during the round.

Finally and probably most important, please make an implication of any argument that you extend in the back half of the round that has clash on both sides(hopefully a lot of them exist) because without implications I can't easily tell who wins an argument if they don't interact with the other side

I am a parent judge relatively new to speech and debate this year, though I have now judged several tournaments.

Please limit spreading. I will be less able to effectively judge you on your merits and arguments if I am unable to track what you are saying. Speed and volume are not substitutes for well articulated arguments!

Depending on the event, I will likely take lots of notes and often be heads down. I will be engaged whether making direct eye contact or not. Be explicit regarding what supports your case and/or what detracts from your opponent.

By your closing, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent’s. In keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

While I will keep time for appropriate events, I expect you to be responsible for your time.

I will not reveal my decision or give feedback after the round (except in higher rounds with multiple judges), but I will make every effort to leave notes in Tabroom for the round and each individual.

Good luck and enjoy!

Please talk slowly so that I can judge appropriately.

Please keep up the time limit

Please stick to the contentions and rebuttals.

I will be happy to leave comments

Dear Debaters,

As a judge, my primary goal is to foster a fair, constructive, and intellectually stimulating debate environment. Here is my paradigm to provide you with insight into my expectations and criteria for evaluating your performances:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I appreciate clear and well-organized presentations. Don't speak too fast. More importantly, ensure that your arguments are structured logically, making it easy to follow your line of reasoning.

2. Content and Substance:

   • Substance is key. Research your main points well. I like supported assertions. Depth of analysis and a comprehensive understanding of the topic will be crucial in my evaluation.

3. Engagement and Responsiveness:

   • Actively engage with your opponents' arguments. This is where most debates are won or lost. Be alert. Address counterarguments effectively, and be responsive to questions during crossfire. Demonstrating adaptability and responsiveness will positively impact your overall assessment.

4. Delivery and Style:

   • A compelling delivery enhances the impact of your arguments. Stand or sit up straight. Maintain a clear and audible voice, use hand gestures to emphasize your points, and make good eye contact with the judge and opponents.

5. Professionalism:

   • Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate. This includes respecting time limits, avoiding distractions, and presenting your arguments with a focus on substance rather than theatrics. Civil, respectful discourse is key for me.

6. Collaborative Teamwork:

   • For team debates, I value collaborative teamwork. 1-1=0... 1+1=2. Teams work best. Each team member should actively contribute, and an effective division of responsibilities can enhance the overall coherence of your arguments.

7. Critical Thinking:

   • Showcase your critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the topic. Quality over quantity is important, and thoughtful, well-supported points will be rewarded.

8. Respectful Environment:

   • Foster a respectful and inclusive debate environment. Disagreement is expected, but it should be expressed with courtesy and professionalism. Create an atmosphere that encourages intellectual exchange.

Remember, my goal is to provide constructive feedback that will help you grow as debaters. Regardless of the outcome, each debate is an opportunity for improvement. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate.

Best regards,

Sarah Patten

Hi debaters. Please do not spread. It’s important that I clearly understand your points so that I can flow them. I’m open to any argument provided it’s well-structured, supported and relevant.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge very new to debate.

Please speak clearly and slowly. If I can’t track what you're saying, I won’t be able to effectively judge you. Make sure you are organized in your speeches. Be respectful and professional, especially during cross.

I will try to take a lot of notes. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's.

Do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.

I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!

I am relatively new to judging high school debate so will take my time to really think about the scoring and it would be most helpful if you can speak clearly and concisely.

I will take a lot of notes and arguments that cause me to think about the topic in a unique or new way will stand out to me as long as they are credible and well-supported. Any cockiness or rudeness to your opponent will detract from the merits of your argument so please be kind and speak respectfully. I have appreciation for the debater that can take a deep breath and proceed calmly when the debate is getting heated.

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com

Tech over truth

go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.

You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal

Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary

Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus

Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other stuff

Have cut cards ready if something is called

Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.

Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.

Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.

If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.

Be confident, respectful and have fun.