I am in my 15th year as an educator, and my 2nd year as a speech coach and judge. I most value the quality of an argument, and assess which side presented the most convincing argument, overall. While I value a dynamic delivery, I find too much passion or animation distracting. Please, don’t shout. I have little use for theatrics masquerading as argument.

I am convinced best by a well-structured, well-researched, cited, and competently delivered speech.

I prefer a conversational rate of delivery, as I can’t note what I can’t understand.

I expect everyone to conduct themselves politely throughout the round, and that includes the avoidance of condescension in word, tone, or gesture.

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.

I have 35 years of public forum, policy, and LD debate experience as a participant in high school and college and coaching at the college and high school level. My judging paradigm leans towards a stringent emphasis on logical coherence, depth, and respectful communication. My approach encourages debaters to prioritize quality over quantity and engage effectively with their opponents' arguments. Generally, I am not a fan of debate theory arguments. I also believe debate is an oral activity, so no need to exchange evidence and cases before the round.

Key Principles:

1. Note-Based Judging:

• Objective Evaluation: My evaluations are based solely on the flow/notes taken during the round, ensuring impartiality.
• No Knowledge Injection: I refrain from interjecting my own knowledge or opinions into the debate, maintaining a neutral stance.

2. Engagement and Clash:

• Direct Engagement: Debaters must address and refute opponents' arguments directly.
• Effective Clash: Construct your rebuttals with a clear and direct clash, ensuring that counter-arguments are tailored to challenge the initial claims.

3. Well-Developed Arguments:

• Depth Over Width: I prioritize one to three deeply developed, logical, and well-warranted arguments over numerous superficial points.
• Valid Warrants: Your arguments should be underpinned by credible, well-explained warrants.
• Impactful Arguments: Clearly articulate the real-world implications of your arguments to demonstrate their significance.

4. Category-Relevance:

• Format-Appropriate Arguments: Ensure your arguments, including critical frameworks like Kritiks, align with the debate format (e.g., Policy, Public Forum). I am not a proponent of non-topical arguments.
• Maintaining Relevance: Steer clear of diversions and ensure that your arguments are pertinent to the topic and category of debate.

5. Humanistic and Respectful Communication:

• Respect: Maintain a respectful demeanor towards all participants, including opponents and judges.
• Clarity and Pace: Be mindful of your speaking speed to ensure your arguments are fully understood and noted.
• Avoid Excessive Jargon: Use accessible language to explain any technical terms or jargon.

Additional Notes:

A. Quality of Evidence:

• Credibility: Only utilize credible, verified sources and evidence in your arguments.
• Application: Apply your evidence accurately and ensure it directly supports your claims.

B. Strategic Argumentation:

• Consistency: Maintain consistent argumentation throughout the debate, avoiding contradictory claims.
• Strategic Choices: Make tactical decisions regarding which arguments to pursue further based on their strength and impact.

C. Constructive Criticisms and RFD (Reason For Decision):

• Feedback: My feedback will be constructive, aiming to highlight areas for improvement alongside positive aspects.
• RFD Transparency: My decisions will be accompanied by clear, coherent reasons rooted in the arguments presented during the debate.

D. Timing

• Requesting Evidence: Debate is an oral activity. I do not need to see the evidence or cases. We should be able to look up sources. If you request cards, the requestor will have this time deducted from prep unless tournament rules prohibit this. I see this often abused during rounds to gain more prep time, and I am not a fan of this practice.
• Roadmaps: If you provide these, they will be timed. I do not need them and will follow where you go.

Conclusion:

Debaters are encouraged to view the debate not merely as a competitive arena but as a platform for developing and refining skills pertinent to effective leadership and communication. Focusing on depth, clarity, and respectful interaction, my judging paradigm fosters a conducive environment for meaningful, impactful debates beyond mere point-scoring.

Reminder:

While it's pivotal to be strategic and competitive, remember that the skills you hone here – articulation, critical thinking, and respectful discourse – are the real victories, equipping you for constructive engagement beyond the debate floor.

I look forward to witnessing thought-provoking, well-argued, and respectfully conducted debates!

Paradigm update for TOC 2024:

Very short version: Traditional-leaning debate coach

Short version: I am a debate coach, with 10+ years experience judging PF – mostly in my local area (DC), less on the national circuit. I try to keep a good flow, though some of the speed on the national circuit gets excessive. My background is in economics. Not a fan of K’s.

Doing prefs? I would be a bad person to pref if you are running K’s, know yourself to be faster than average NatCirc speed, or generally tend to the more “progressive” debate end of the spectrum. I am a good person to pref if you have a more “traditional” style, stick to resolution, and have clear impacts.

Speed: I’ll be honest, I don’t like speed. PF was designed to be accessible to a lay audience. While I am fine with debate occurring at a faster than conversational pace, and can handle a moderate amount of speed, debaters on the National Circuit often far exceed this. Keep in mind that the fastest speed at which you can talk and I can reliably understand you is still probably higher than the optimal speed for me to get everything onto to the flow - if you want judges to vote off the flow, you need to speak at a speed optimized for someone writing, not just listening.

Email chain, Speech docs, and Evidence: I believe that PF Debate is a spoken activity, and that debaters should not rely on speech docs to compensate for speed or lack of clarity in their presentation. So don’t add me to the email chain or send me your speech doc. If you want me to flow something, make sure it comes across clearly in your verbal presentation. If a piece of evidence is in dispute, I will ask for it after the round – you can also tell me to call for a card.

K’s/Theory: I am not a good judge to run k’s in front of. I will do my best to follow along and keep an open mind, but I fundamentally expect to see a debate about the resolution, and am very sympathetic to topicality and preparedness arguments against straying too far from that.

Other matters: I really, really appreciate clear signposting, especially with numbers and letters, not just tags. This applies not only to the constructive, but (especially) in your rebuttals as well - make it as clear as possible where to flow your arguments, so I can spend less time searching for where something fits in, and more time writing/listening. I am, in many ways, a utilitarian at heart, and appreciate clearly quantified impacts, though I’m happy to vote on whatever framework was carried through the round. I’m not a fan of all the extremely-implausible link-chains that makes every debate end in human extinction, but I recognize the incentive gradients that get us there, and acknowledge structural aspects of PF (especially time) can make it difficult to fight. Crossfire is important, and I listen to cross (and I can't believe I have to say that), but don't flow it - so get key concessions from cross into a subsequent speech if you need it on the flow. I love off-time road maps. I am happy to provide feedback and disclose as long as the tournament permits it.

Background: I am a debate coach at BASIS Independent McLean with a background in PF, LD, and Extemp. I competed in LD and Extemp in high school (Downers Grove South, IL), a tiny bit of Parliamentary (APDA) in college (Georgetown University, DC), and have coached middle and high school PF, speech, and parli at BASIS DC (Washington, DC, 2012-2016) and BASIS Independent McLean (McLean, VA, 2016-present). I have a degree in economics and am an economics teacher by day. For the past several years, I have spent most tournaments in the tabroom rather than judging per se, but as a PF coach, you can usually expect that I will have a reasonable degree of background knowledge on the topic.

General: I am an 'old-school' former LDer so I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, LD is about value propositions not plans or statistics and that is what I will base my decisions on. In other words, LD should prioritize the WHY not necessarily the HOW.

Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to but please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it.

Roadmaps: I do allow off-time roadmaps - just be clear you are offering one before you start so I don't trigger my speech timer. Once that timer begins, I do not stop it. Similar to my comment about pacing, it's important that you are clear about where on the flow your comments/arguments/rebuttals are being directed. If I have to guess at what you are responding to, I may put in the wrong spot on my flow. This can lead to situations where arguments appear dropped or don't appear to truly rebut what it was flowed with. Providing clear signposts during your speech can save everyone a lot of headaches here.

End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your sentence quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your sentence, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.

Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.

I am an experienced public speaker and debater who appreciates good preparation and confident delivery. I do not believe in the practice of "spreading" - speaking as rapidly as possible so as to pack maximum words into minimum time. This is unfair to an audience - or judge - because it impedes their ability to follow the flow of the debate and accurately evaluate the strength of a debater's arguments. I always encourage debaters to consider that their goal is to persuade the audience, and that persuasion is undermined when the audience is unable to keep up with a torrent of words that obscure the validity of the arguments. I prefer that opposing debaters address each other, rather than me as a judge, although this is all right in a summation.

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.

I debated Policy and LD for 6 years in middle and high school, and coached Policy for a year in college. I have a few criteria which might be considered somewhat unorthodox in this league, so read below carefully.

-Be clear rather than fast. Speeding and spreading reflects an attitude of sophistry. If your tactic is to confuse or overwhelm your opponent, you will likely confuse or overwhelm me, and that will result in a loss.

-Be courteous. (This should go without saying.)

-You probably know more about the topic than I do. You're the teacher. Educate me.

-Avoid debate lingo. You can't use it in "real life" so using it as a crutch is not helpful to your actual communication skills (and building your communication skills is hopefully why you're here). I don't care what arguments you actually use--CPs, Kritiks, whatever, go ham--but explain it all in terms a layperson could understand.

-Reading a piece of evidence does not mean you win the point. The real work of debate is in your reasoning and analysis skills, not your ability to pull a perfectly tailored quote out of your box. Of course, perfectly tailored quotes never hurt, but you need to explain how they apply and why they matter.

-I typically give the W to the team that demonstrates a more thorough understanding of the issue. This is usually reflected in better rebuttals, but I'm not going to give a victory to a team that technically addresses every point but is scattered or contradictory in doing so.

Background:

My name is Kathleen Clark and I have taught high school English for a decade. I started coaching Speech and Public Forum coach this year; my own extra-curricular background is largely in theatre and student government. As an English teacher and general lover of language, my primary focus as a judge is clarity and efficiency of communication. These events emphasize how much our words matter; you should employ them well.

Speech:

For interpretive events, I am all about the nuance. I want to hear every syllable, watch each new idea cross your forehead, listen for the pause that precedes a revelation, witness the development of a fresh idea in your character's mind. Your presentation should cover a range of emotional notes, vary with regards to tempo and volume, and offer a clear, holistic perspective through the piece.

For oratorical events, I look for consistency and clarity. I weigh delivery and content equally; I genuinely believe that what you have to say is important, so the way you say it should be intentional, passionate, and direct.

Public Forum:

This event is defined by the lay judge, and that is my priority. You absolutely must communicate to me, in layman's terms, the merits of your case. I must understand each word you say and the data you present. I will flow your arguments, so it is your responsibility to undo your opposing team's case; if you do not address their contentions plainly, I will continue to consider them as valid. Be polite to each other!

Lincoln-Douglas

Lincoln-Douglas debate is a clash of values, in which the values represent means to an idealistic, just world. Aff's and Neg's criteria are the lenses through which I understand and measure those values. I do not subscribe to the formulaic "My value is [...] and my value criterion is [...]" but you must clearly state your value, criterion, and contentions — please don't let me depend on your opponent's Cross-X to discover them.

In an ideal round, the winning debater will do the better job of tightly upholding their criterion with succinctly argued contentions that enable me to understand why their value creates a better world. In other words, for me to award you the round, I appreciate a cohesive narrative that persuades me your case's worldview is the better of the two in the round (and, of course, that would include a capable attack on your opponent's narrative and counter-attacks on their rebuttals). Nothing surprising.

In a less-than-perfect round, the loss goes to the debater who fails to present a well-structured case and doesn't effectively undermine their opponent's case and attacks. By the way, I highly respect a Neg case that is FOR something rather than just AGAINST.

Be aware that I don't judge Policy, so I'm not experienced in speed/spreading. If I can't "understand" how you're saying your contentions, I'm unlikely to understand what they are; a fast-paced conversational style is fine, just don't go auctioneer on me. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly; the burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine.

Yes, I am knowledgeable of philosophical, historical, political, and socio/economic issues and hold opinions on them, but each round is tabula-rasa for me: you need not change my opinions to win — just demonstrate you're the better debater in the room. Presume as little as possible about your audience — I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round.

Public Forum

Most everything said above for LD applies to PF, except that PF is not values-based and is defined primarily by the concept of the Lay Judge. You must assume I know only what the average person-on-the-street knows. Consequently, in addition to concise, well-structured arguments that form a cohesive narrative that supports your case and effectively counters your opponent's, you must also demonstrate your ability to educate me in the topic and why it's important to the Real World (me).

True For All Rounds

âž  Always be civil and respectful; respect is core to debate.
âž  The best Cross-X/-Fire is the one that's a conversation and advances debate.
âž  If you ask a question in Cross, I expect you're interested in an answer (don't interrupt or dismiss your opponent).
âž  It's best you time yourself, but do not abuse the speech times; when the clock hits zero, find a place for a period quickly.

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

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

Hi I am a parent judge:

I would like it if you didn't speak fast and spoke clearly

Also I don't like it when people talk over each other in cross

I wish both teams good luck in the debate

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.

My name is Matteo Gleason, and I debated for 6 years with the Boston Debate League (Policy), worked as a judge for the BDL and attended a couple of national tournaments.

I have judged policy for 5 years, and have seen almost every type of case thrown-whether at me, or while i'm judging. Run any case you would like, though I do have an extra level of respect for anyone who can run their policy, and not get bogged down by a barrage of off case.

What I will value most is a good impact calculation. I have my flow and can see which arguments are carried, and which arguments are dropped, so in the rebuttals if you can tell me why the impact of your side is greater than your opponent and you have the evidence and carry to back it up, you will almost certainly win the round.

General Rules:

1. Be respectful and nice! Any blatant ad hominem, or personal attacks will not reflect well on yourself, your team, or your speaks.
2. Be cordial, talk with me during prep time, be nice to your opponents, Debate is made great by the people we meet!
3. If there is a major gap I wont be impressed by one team running high theory to confuse and concern your opponent. Debate is about making everyone want to get to that high level, so if you discourage an opponent with high theory it discourages continued participation.

Things to note about me as a judge:

1. If you are spreading go for it! Just send me what you are reading so that I can reference it if need be.
2. Real world impact>theoretical potential
3. I will respect anyone who runs topicality against K's and delves into fairness and inclusion (if you do it right)

Congratulations on delving into the realm of critical thinking. I am a new judge and do not have past debate experience. I am looking for the following criteria in a debate:

1 - I prefer a conversational rate of speed in your delivery. A fast delivery makes it difficult for me to follow the arguments.

2 - I prefer arguments grounded in real-life impacts to be more persuasive.

3 - I write down key arguments in my notes.

4 - I prefer well prepared arguments that have investigated all aspects of the topic.

5 - I prefer arguments that are passionate but not emotional.

I did 4 years of policy in high school and one year in college. I also did Congress, HI, Duo, Oral Interp of Lit, and both Domestic and Foreign Extemp in high school. I have coached speech, policy, and LD for 3 years in Virginia.

In debate, I enjoy a fast clip, but cannot keep up with a super-fast round the way I once could. Think a 7 on a 1-10 scale. I love a good T debate. I will listen to kritiks, but prefer to keep things on a policy level.

• 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.

Hi, I am a parent judge and I am very new to public forum debate. I value you being respectful while still getting your points across. I will try to flow all your points so please be clear and organized when you speak. I would prefer it if you read slower so that I can understand all your points.

As a judge I look for three main parts in any argument round. First, I am judging clarity. How organized is your argument? Can it be followed and is there supporting evidence for your contentions? Second, I judge the depth of your argument. This is a factor of preparedness. How versed are you on this topic? Can you present a case and also continue to bring evidence to support your arguments. Third, I am judging you based on your ability to combat an argument. All points brought up by the opposing team must be addressed. Letting a contention stand without a rebuttal means a score for the other team. Often, I will assign a win for a team based on how many unaddressed arguments were left on the table. In my opinion, a debate is like a tennis tournament. The volley must go back and forth until someone can no longer return the ball.

On a secondary note, speaking style, related to volume, tone, emphasis, articulation, pitch, will factor into my decision as well. It is expected that contestants will give well presented arguments. Some of our best orators can sway an argument based on the performance of their voice as well as the strength of their argument.

Hello! My name is Dinesh Krishnan 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 look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

Hello debaters!

I am Ms. Liu. Welcome and here are some things I would appreciate to see in rounds:

-Speak clearly and loudly

-DO NOT spread during your speeches. I will not flow anything I cannot catch.

-Please provide an off-time roadmap for me to follow

-Tell me what arguments get dropped and why they matter (I may not pick it up on my own)

-Going overtime is fine, as long as you are just finishing your current sentence

-Back and forth in crossfire is nice, but please do not stay on a single question the whole time

See you soon and have Fun!

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!

Greetings Debaters! My name is Mrs. Aniscia (ah-nee-see-ah) Mosholder (moss-holder) and I will be judging you. I am still learning the technicals of PF judging, so I may not be able to answer your technical questions. I am representing the Riverside High School debate team as a judge and coach. In order to win the debate, you have to prove that you won according to your framework. I will also evaluate your use of credible sources, as well as your skills in the execution and delivery of your case. 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.

Hello! My name is Rathna Nandakumar 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.

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

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

I am a new judge; this is my first time. I like to dissect and analyse arguments. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions between arguments.

I am a first time LD coach, but I have been coaching PF for about 3 years.

I am a Language Arts teacher by trade, and AP Lang was my favorite content to teach. For the last 4 years, I have been a Gifted Ed Resource Teacher.

One REALLY important thing to know about me is that I have a partial hearing loss in one ear, so enunciation and pacing are going to be important.

Credible sources, clear premises, articulation, excellent argumentation, and respectful behaviors are things I will be looking for.

I am a Debate coach for the past two years. I will manage the flow but I caution you, be clear, concise, and connect those points. You are influencing my decision with how much I see you connect your research to your constructs and how your information is used in your responses to your competitors. Running through your flow or blocking without care or awareness that your judge will write slower than you speak, your argument might be lost to on me or any judge for that fact.

Preferences:

Clearly state first construct etc and when you respond in summaries, point out your opponent's construct using the same labeling system.

Crossfires are used heavily when there is a near tie so make those questions count but show me you sportsmanship by not over talking each other to see who is louder.

I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.

I spent 33+ years as a Federal Government employee providing leadership and support to teams and groups all over the world. I briefed senior leaders across the Intelligence Community, Congressional members, and leaders of industry. I believe in facts and examples to make ones case not assumptions. Don't expect me to make an assumption for you or to read a card or information - present your case, present your information, and provide the factual basis for your findings and assertions. If you do this better than your opponent, you will win your debate. If you use acronyms or slang, please spell it out as I may not understand what it is you are referencing. Presume I don't and you'll do better. Time keeping is key to ensuring you have the appropriate time to make your argument, please be mindful of your time. Do not rush your speaking, keep a conversational tempo that is neither too fast nor too slow and pay attention to your inflection points and keep them on the important data. It is okay to be nervous, if you need a moment to gather your thoughts or catch up to them - take a moment, I do not deduct for nerves. I score low to high with the lower score the better outcome.

Bullying is not to be rewarded and sportsmanship is key.

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.

Maintain debate decorum at all times. Focus on weighing and impacts of your case. Please speak clearly and try to keep in mind the timings of all speeches. Asking strategic questions key. All your impacts and claims should be backed by evidence (try not to paraphrase). If you speak faster than a normal pace, and I can't understand your argument I won't vote for it.

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

Experience: I have coached PF and LD for 3 years.

Delivery: Quality is better than quantity. This is not a race. Judges need to be able to hear you and understand everything you are saying.

Note taking: Argument is primarily judged, however, I do a mix of flow, arguments, and technical thoughts/recommendations.

Persuasion: Those who properly and appropriately use their research and cards will receive higher scores. Your notes must back up your main points.

Conduct: Please be respectful. Do not attack the other team. Do not talk while the other team is giving their speeches.

Personal info

Nathan Stolzenfeld (they/them)

GMU '26 (started as college novice)

Email chain (yes please): stolzdebate@gmail.com

Important stuff if you are reading this 5 minutes before a round

I know absolutely nothing about the HS topic, so be careful with acronyms please. I am an international security major so I would like to think im more than a layperson in that realm, but I try to stay as far away from economic policy as possible.

I also think debate is ultimately a performance whether you are reading a heg aff or a K aff, so how you handle yourself influences me (probably). The best debates I have watched combine the tech of policy debate with ethos a debate amongst friends. My decision comes down to tech, but my speaks come down to who was the most persuasive or best speaker. This means don’t default to card-dumping, no clash, or reading straight down on blocks, I will cry.

I am incredibly expressive, you will know what works. I will vote on anything, yes, anything. If you explain your position/advocacy well enough then I am more than happy to cast a silly little ballot. My ballot comes down to who has the clearest link and the biggest impact at the end of the round, as well as framing as to what "the biggest impact" means. That allows anything from postmodernism to meme args. Heck, if you win LSPEC ill give you and your partner a 30 and 29.9.

Other quick things:

• Send your analytics or risk me not flowing them! Also verbatim word docs preferred.

• For local HS tournaments: I am fine with speed. Go crazy.
• Don't call me judge, please. Nathan is fine.

• Don’t be racist, transphobic, or otherwise terminally offensive, I will end the debate, without question, and vote you down.

• Keep your own time AND your opponent's time. I think time is fake, but your opponent may disagree with that. If it is called out I will take some speaks away for egregious stuff. Time allocation is an important skill in all three of the styles of debate, don't crash it's integrity.

• I am a just a silly person who loves being told what to do. Abuse that. Judge instruction. ????

The good stuff

DAs: They are pretty cool. You can win on a straight up DA with me in the back. Hit me with a good link, a large impact, and a reasonable internal link chain and I will vote for it as long as you defend it. Weigh it against the impact of the plan, do good work on case, and you got yourself a neg ballot.

CPs: The states are probably competitive. Delay CPs are not. Anything else I can be convinced either way. I weirdly find myself with a really high bar for counterplan solvency, idk why. Internal net benefits are my beloved and they can outweigh if you do enough work. The squo is always an option even with a CP in the 2NR. For the aff: explain what your perm does. Perm do both is not a perm, explain what PDB looks like, pls. To go for a perm in a 2AR you need to explain what the advocacy does. Sure, it is a test of competition, and you can frame it that way, but if you do not then I need to know *exactly* what voting on the permutation does to prevent the NB.

Any K: K debate is fun. Am I the best judge for clash? No. Will I try to understand as much as possible and enjoy the round? Really bad for 2nd ls that try too much defense on framework, but absolutely adore in depth debate on offense. If you are comfortable putting a narrative spin on anything, even better. I think initial reading of FW is robotic debate where people just read the same stuff over and over. Thus, the K has a great opportunity to show why their specific advocacy/mech/assumptions clash with (and win) against the other team's FW. Same thing as CP flow but like SUPER important: what is the perm??????? If its in the 2NR/2AR, whether its KvK, KvPolicy, or PolicyvKritik, I need to know how the two worlds mesh together enough for the ballot. This is where most narrative stuff should go down for me. I am not voting on who out debated someone else, I am voting for what happens when I cast the ballot as if this was a real world decision.

Topicality: I’ll vote on it but I default to competing interpretations. After attending the CEDA topic meeting I have a love-hate relationship with arguing about specific words. Neg must defend all interps read. Also make sure your interpretation is good, I hold T evidence to a very high degree of truth and will look at it whether an ev indict was made or not.

Theory: 4+ condo is probably bad, I love me a good fiat argument, and i'll vote on any reasonable theory.

The other stuffs

Conduct: Please don’t be mean. If you are a dick in CX or through analytics it will heavily affect your speaks. If you are not giving a speech, or if your partner is deep in prep, at least look like you are doing something. In the words of my teammate Noah Reed: “If your partner is prepping the 2NR and you are sitting there pen flipping it looks silly. And unless that 2NR is god's gift to debate, you will lose speaker points for it.” If I yawn during your speech, you are chill, I'm just sleepy, these tournaments start way too early.

Speed: If you spread fast, please be as clear as possible. I will yell clear a maximum of two times, and give a thumbs up or something if you have fixed yourself. I will stop flowing if you get unclear the third time, and that’s on you to notice. I will follow what I hear from that point.

Tech vs truth: I will vote on what occurred in the debate and what I have flowed. However, I am human and have flaws, so will always have a lower threshold to counter false stuff. If someone stands up and flat out lies, and has evidence to back it up, and it goes unanswered, I will assume the falsity is true on tech. This is NOT true for death good and similar harm scenarios.

Cross ex: I do not agree with closed cross-ex tbh. If your partner has a good question, or has a good answer to a question asked, they by all means should be able to articulate. HOWEVER, there is a risky situation that I will be vigilant to: interruptions. If you decide to indulge my open cross-ex idea, make sure you are respectful to your partner and communicate well.

Have fun! I am really talkative, and appreciate a lighter feeling debate. I highly appreciate jokes when they are well-timed, swearing is okay, and you do not need a super professional manner unless that's just your personality. Otherwise, be yourself (unless you are racist or something) and don’t be shy in lightening the mood. Also please just call me Nathan, I'm not old enough for a prefix and I'm not wise enough to be called “judge.” I will give +.1 speaker point for a dad joke that makes me laugh, +.2 speaker points if I send the dad joke to the GMU debate group chat and Amira reacts with the saw emoji before ballots are due. People on twitter may call me cringe for this, idc.

:D

LD and PF

LD: Everything from policy applies. I didn't do LD in high school, I've judged 4 rounds of LD in my life, I can handle any argument as long as you can explain it to me, I can also do spreading but for online tournaments please be considerate of your tech. You can treat this as one person policy debate with values within it. I am not good for tricks debates, or death good debates, and disclosure violations will not get my ballot. In short: I am more than a lay judge and less than someone who does this for a living, because I don't. I debate policy in college.

PF: CREATE AN EMAIL CHAIN AND ADD ME TO IT. I guess this isn't a must in PF so I can entice with speaker boosts if the doc is sent out before a speech. You don't even need to take prep as long as you are just sending me the doc. Everything from policy applies. As in my LD note, I can handle any argument as long as you can explain it, that includes disclosure theory, but the bar is high. I think that clash and comparison is much more important in PF than the other two debate formats due to the time constraints. You should obviously be doing impact analysis and weighing throughout the summaries and final focus, but I have found myself more convinced by which team has link and impact turns on the other contentions AND explains them well. An example from the single use plastic topic: pro reads an environment advantage - the con can read an economy contention that says "if the economy declines, we have less money to solve climate change in other ways." My decision ultimately comes down to who has the best developed link (or solvency) and the largest (well explained) impact. DO JUDGE INSTRUCTION. PLEASE.

Me when there is no impact calc in a debate:

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.

Hello! My name is Jalyn. I was a PF debater for most of my high school years, and became a judge for PF once I graduated. This is my second year judging. I'm still familiar with the structure and expectations for debate as a judge and as a previous competitor. In terms of speaking style, I prefer for you to not speak too fast to the point it's incomprehensible for me or your opponents. Speak clearly and always be respectful. I judge based on a wide variety of things within your arguments. I do evaluate crossfire alongside all areas of the round when judging.Establishing your framework is not necessary. Again I'm evaluating your arguments, analytical skills, evidence, structure, logic, and rhetoric. Finally, be kind, and follow the rules. Best of luck!

I used to be a debater in college years, started to be judge six year ago after my children began debating.

As a judge, I would only monitor time, also expect debater monitor their own time, wouldn't involve or say much unless have to step in for delay, well over time limit and bad behavior. I am not against fast speaker, but good speaker/debater never speak too fast, I pay attention to true evidence or facts and logic conclusion, manner is important too.

Hello!

My name is Vladimir Zrajevsky and I will be judging you. I am representing the Riverside High School debate team as a judge.

To win the debate, you have to prove that you won according to your framework. I also ask that you keep track of your own prep time and speaking time. I will allow speakers to finish their sentences if they go over time.

Thank you and good luck!