I have experience in both LD and PF debate.

For Public Forum specifically, I enjoy clash and I prefer if you address every one of your opponents points. If a point isn't addressed and the opposing team points out that it was dropped, it will win. I don't love spreading, but I can flow fairly quickly. Be clear and concise with your arguments, and I always appreciate persuasive rhetoric. Tell me why I should vote for you and uphold your view. :)

hi all! my name is kyzz azucena (she/her) and i’m a current freshman at nebraska wesleyan university to study biochemistry & molecular biology with an intent to be on the pre-med track.

background: i debated for lincoln southwest high school in public forum debate from 2020-2024. i primarily debated on the local circuit but I have experience competing in the national circuit as well. during my time I was an alternative to nationals (2023), qualified to the national tournament (2024) and i placed third in the state (2024).

general: i believe the debate should be a kind and inclusive space to all debaters. i view debate as a game so be strategic on what arguments you go for and what you extend in later speeches. i am typically tech over truth - so i’ll evaluate any argument as long as you have strong warranting and links that you extend throughout the round. i will try to evaluate what I have based on the flow but also please convince me. I generally vote on an argument that has better warranting and weigh implication. i typically give an oral rfd unless the tournament specifically requires me to not disclose my decision. please feel free to ask any questions after round. the only way to get better is to ask for feedback to learn from your mistakes in round.

public forum: i don’t coach so assume i have very little topic knowledge. before all your speeches please give me a quick off time road map before you start your speeches - it allows me to organize my flow easier. make road maps quick and efficient!

evidence exchange: please set up a form of evidence exchange before the round starts! either speech drop or email chain - it makes the round so much more efficient when regarding evidence! i would love to be on the evidence exchange, for an email chain add kyzzazu05@gmail.com. when setting up any form of evidence exchange please do it before round - if you do it in the middle of the round i will get annoyed because you’re wasting time at that point. when it comes to the evidence debate i will only look at the evidence if you tell me to read it in a speech!!

cross: i will be listening in cross but i don’t flow during that time. i’m probably messing around on my computer during that time or feedback i think of during round. if you want anything to be evaluated from cross please bring it up in your speech, and then I’ll flow and evaluate it based off the articulation given in your speech.

rebuttal: i find that numbering your responses make it easier to follow down the flow. all first rebuttal needs to do is go down your opponents flow to respond to their case and weigh. in second rebuttal, i expect you to frontline your case and respond to your opponents case then weigh. all arguments not responded to in first rebuttal, i consider conceded even if you try to respond to these arguments in later speeches in round. please don't just dump a bunch of responses on me without clear warranting - you need to tell me what the evidence says and why i should prefer it.

summary: i understand that there are numerous ways of organizing this speech so I am fine with any approach as long as you keep a few things in mind. first defense isn't sticky - if you're extending any evidence tell me what it says and why I should prefer it. extend your warranting. gjve me specific reasons why I should prefer you over your opponents. for second summary, don’t bring up new responses or evidence. be strategic in summary so - please don't extend everything. pick and choose what to go for and collapse on to condense the round. i’d prefer you to go for fewer, clear warranted and explained arguments rather than a bunch of blippy unwarranted arguments. when extending impacts - you need to extend the link level too (please don’t just throw an impact on extinction to me and expect me to know how you got there). i would also love to see clear impact weighing implications in this speech.

final focus: condense the round clearly in this speech!! tell me what i’m voting for and basically write my ballot for me in this speech. basically explain where on the flow you're winning and why. i enjoy seeing nice impact weighing in this speech. at the end of the round, i want to do as little work as possible when writing my rfd. simply just tell me where I am voting and why I should prefer you over my opponents. typically by the end of second summary i know what team i’m voting for. but when it comes to close rounds it’s usually the final focus that sells it for me so clearly tell me why i should be voting for you on what specific arguments, extend your links, impacts and weigh!!

prep: each team has three minutes of prep. i expect each team to keep track of your own time, but i also will be keeping track on my side. i keep close attention to prep time (i do time it on my side) so please don’t steal prep. i will stop flowing if you go over 10 seconds of your speech times. i expect you to take prep to ready any evidence!!!!

speaks: i would say i’m pretty lenient and flexible when it comes to speaks. i generally average around a 28 to get higher speaks I’d like to see further development in arguments along with good warranting and weighing implications in round. if you run a “we should all get 30 speaks” off i most likely will give you it. if you are awfully rude though i will drop your speaks. just be kind to your opponents and you’ll be okay.

speed: i am fine with speed as long as long as your clear and I can understand you on the flow. please enunciate and be clear. i’ll yell speed or clear if I have difficulty following - i’m typically good with flowing speed as long as your clear! but just know i can only type/write so fast so consider that before hand. just so you know if your going a speed faster than 250 wpm and not being clear by brain does tend to shut off - bc it becomes hard to flow atp.

progressive pf:

theory: i would much rather judge a round based on substance than theory. but that doesn't mean I won't evaluate it - as long as it's debated well with good warranting and implications i will evaluate it to the best of my ability. i generally feel comfortable judging a theory round as long as it’s run well. feel free to ask me if you're thinking of running an off. but here's a few tips anyways:

• i believe theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad. please don’t run theory just for my ballot. only run it for real abuse in round and to recognize it, so we can make debate a safer place.
• i generally believe that disclosure theory is good and paraphrasing is bad. i will still listen to all the answers to these shells and evaluate the off to the best of my ability
• when running an off please send a doc even if you’re gonna be clear
• even if you don’t know the technical way to respond to the off - please do your best to answer the warranting given. it’s okay if you have to exempt the shell!!

framework: i feel comfortable voting off framework! just make sure to extend your framing in each speech. if your opponents don’t respond to your framing - i will vote off on the framing you give me in your constructive. i’ve noticed framework debates haven’t been as common in the pf circuit regularly but i love a good framework debate!!!

topicality: i would feel comfortable voting on topicality . i have a little experience running t - just with the pf time constrains it wouldn’t be my first choice. but do run topicality if you decide so - i’ll still evaluate it as long as the warranting is there and extending well.

k’s: i would say i can evaluate progressive arguments as long as their articulated well. the only progressive argument i’d feel uncomfortable voting on is k’s. i have very little experience running them/debating them. that being said that doesn’t mean i won’t evaluate it. i’ll do it to the best of my ability.

other events: i have very limited experience on the other events. just do what you do best! please just be clear and extend your warranting clearly. i’ll do my best to evaluate the round!!!

if you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after the round. if you have anything i can do to make the round more inclusive and a safe space you can also contact me through my email kyzzazu05@gmail.com! have fun and good luck!

"You know what they say about broken clocks: they’re wrong 86,398 times a day." - Jon Bois

/ɐdʒeɪ/ (he/him/his)

ravenwood '25, just wrapped up my third year of PFD on tennessee and national circuits (Ravenwood BM)

put me in the email chain, evidence doc, etc: ajay.balaje@gmail.com

TLDR flow judge, more traditional than most former debaters, bad at prog, DO NOT SPREAD OR I WILL CRY REAL TEARS: see Ashwin Balaje (crazy right??), Sophie McAtee (the M in Ravenwood BM) and Daniel Chen/Riya Mitra (taught me debate) for other examples of my style.THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM SCROLL DOWN IF YOU'RE SOMETHING ELSE

Discriminatory or oppressive discourses/examples have no place in the debate community (and really any community). intentionally harmful or bigoted rhetoric = intervention (stop round, drop offending debater, file incident report, etc.)

i will try my best to make rounds i judge comfortable and accessible for all debaters, email me if there's anything i can do to help. i do not care how you present yourself if i can flow your arguments.

progressive:

• I am unconfident about my ability to evaluate anything off-case (I'll try) and I am extremely unsure if these arguments should exist in an event intentionally constructed with a very low entry barrier. (However, this logically means I'm more partial to arguments that work to decrease said entry barrier, like spreading bad because ableism or disclosure good for small teams). If you have to, go for it, but walk me to the ballot - SUPER IN DEPTH explanations.

• tricks: watch this.

• if you are running prog against a team that doesn't have the resources to debate it to cheese a win - I'm intervening. L20

I won't flow:

• anything too late (new case impacts in rebuttal, contentions in rebuttal (don't disguise them as DAs), new anything in ff)

• anything 5 sec over your speech time (i'll time speeches and once i stop flowing i'll hold up my timer)

• spreading/off a doc (Once you get discernibly past 250wpm with me you're most likely cooked. I love 200wpm cases)

• uncut cards IF they're called for (i'll treat them as analytics. evidence ethics are my first priority.)

• cross (i do not want open crosses though!)

general debate:

• I'm not 100% tech>truth.debate is a game and everything must be responded to, but tabula rasa is not how any real person thinks. more outlandish arguments require less convincing responses. (but i WILL vote on them if you win them!)

• WARRANT!!! This is an event centered around one question: "why?" "because x leads to y which causes z" is a good answer. "because Wigglesworth 22 said so" is a bad answer. card tags aren't warrants. (also i flow like ONE card name every round max. if you're only extending author names, i'm not going to have any clue what's going on, and your RFD will make you sad)

• basic structure: you NEED to collapse by summary, weighing needs to be in summary at the latest (please make it comparative), defense isn't sticky, 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline everything that's gone for in the back half (which sometimes entails collapsing in rebuttal) (i was a mediocre 2nd speaker and still handled this standard it is NOT THAT HARD), i need clear signposting, if neither team has any offense at the end of the round I'll do some really weird and inconsistent intervention unless both teams agree to settle the round with a foot race of a mutually agreed upon distance (which you can do even with offense in final)

• i'll disclose if allowed. post-round if you want feedback, getting feedback is good (if my RFD/comments are ever less than 100 words, your judge is an imposter. shoot him.) but remember it's your job to adapt to your judge. (i.e. DO NOT SPREAD this is the third time i say this. if you spread and my rfd is missing arguments... guess what happened?)

• i LOVE a good nonsensical metaphor or simile. immediate speaks boost. i used these every tournament i debated, put everything in layman's terms! that's what this event is for, plus silly phrases make me happy = more speaks for you

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

non-PF judging:

• If it's a debate event, tell me whether you want me to just follow what I know in this paradigm or morph into a lay judge.

• If it's a speech event... uhh I did duo improv/impromptu/audition/broadcast/extemp in middle school... I'll do my best??

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

speaks -

• a BANG AVERAGE nat circuit debater is a 28.5 (as of feb 2024, yes i went and looked at numbers). this is where you start

• up your speaks for good strategic/collapsing choices, clear delivery, good/fun crosses, quick evidence exchanges, reading every author's name (except if it's like 5+), and having fun/being kind and respectful! when you clearly enjoy debating i enjoy judging :)

• drop your speaks for bad strategic/collapsing choices, missed content, monotone or inconsistent delivery, abusive or pointless cross practices, bad evidence ethics (or general ethics........), and making a round super tense/miserable

how to automatically boost speaks:

• physically turn around while reading a turn (360 please i still want to see you!)

• sports references (football (both kinds), basketball, hockey (ice), cricket, tennis, or marble racing) (the more specific the reference, the better the speaks bump. for example if you make a reasonable duop reath reference it's 2 auto-30s)

• drop case in back half, only go for turns (it's so much fun and such an underrated path to the ballot)

• SEND UR CASES PLAINTEXT!!! i'm not flowing off a doc but if i have to go back and check something it's so amazing. i did this every time i debated and i have a moral superiority complex abt it

unserious

• i am vegetarian. if we're in person and you know a good vegetarian food spot, please tell me

• if you have any questions about any of my laptop stickers PLEASE ask after round unless the tournament is running behind!

LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~

PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.

Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.

Hi y'all! My name is Josef, I'm a BC '25 PF debater.

I am most comfortable evaluating substance debate, speed is fine but send a speech doc. Don't be afraid to try something new!

Please make sure you signpost and extend! I flow on paper and vote off of the flow.

Tech > Truth

Truth is determined by the flow, and I prefer not to intervene or make your connections for you.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo.

I don't flow crossfire

I will not flow a new sentence after your time is up.

Don't be discriminatory or abusive

Put me on the email chain! josefmbell@icloud.com

Share the tabletote lol

Speaker points guide

25 and under - Hateful or abusive speech

26 - Lots of problems in delivery or speaking

27 - Average competitive performance

28 - Either strong speaking or content, no major problems and think you will break.

29 - Substantially better performance than average. Very few errors in speaking or logic, would not be surprised to see you in late break rounds.

30 - perfect speech

I believe in being the brand. I look for scholars who not only know their policy but are able to articulate it beyond the cards. An argument that isn't concise is no argument at all. I aim for my scholars to present themselves along with the materials they've prepared. I look for presentation and projection; if a scholar knows information but can't present it as if they wrote it, I deduct. I don't want you to memorize; I want you to enact the procedures of informing and persuading. Having worked in news and politics for over 3 years and being part of multiple political campaigns, I seek scholars who believe in the narrative they are pushing. A lack of confidence results in a lack of composure, and you can't win a debate if that's where you start.

Jacob.berkowitz@saschools.org

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

I am a new parent judge so please speak slowly, and make clear arguments. Definitely do not spread! I debated for years in college so I do understand the complexities of debate, and will be able to follow more complex arguments. That being said, you all know more about the topic than me, so please make it understandable to an ordinary person and make your impacts especially clear. I can't vote on an argument if I don't know how the resulting world impacts me. I don't enjoy extremely technical debates, so please don't get into the nitty-gritty of NSDA PF regulations, debate should be an art, not an argument about rules. Additionally, please make sure to weigh, as it is a massive factor when it comes to my decision making. Also make sure to time yourselves, I will be timing you but I don't enjoy having to enforce the timings. Lastly anyone who is rude, outright disrespectful, or racist will lose the round and speaks. Comical analogies to enhance your argument will gain you speaks. If you have any questions about this please feel free to ask in the beginning. I am looking forward to judging you all.

Hi everyone! I am a Director of Recruitment for an executive search firm. My background in college was Pre-Law and then Marketing. As a result, I’m very familiar with the format of debate and know how to evaluate most kinds of arguments.

General judging practices:

• I will flow during round and vote based on arguments that are extended through final focus.
• Please weigh your impacts clearly throughout the round, and especially in the final speeches.
• I will time speeches, but I encourage you to time yourself and your opponents as well.
• I appreciate brief off time roadmaps and clear sign posting throughout a speech. As a flow/tech judge, I will have a hard time evaluating arguments unless I have a clear idea of what they correlate with on the flow.
• If there is an email chain, please include me on it. email: keenakrafthaynes@gmail.com

Please ask if you have questions before a round, especially if something in my paradigm doesn’t make sense to you. Good luck!

Email:

traviswaynecochran@gmail.com

Affiliations - Present:

The Harker School

2023-2024 Updates:

1. Everyone should slow down. Debate would be better. Does this mean you might have to read less in the 1NC? YES! Does this mean that 2As might have to make less/better answers? YES! Does this mean you need to slow down on prewritten extensions and analytics? YES! I want to fully grasp EVERYTHING in the debate and not just get the gist of things. If you do not want to adapt to this, then you have prefs and strikes. I suggest you use them accordingly ...
2. Debaters that flow and give speeches from their flows, as opposed to their prewritten speech docs, are the gold standard.
3. Great debaters use the full spectrum of human emotion to persuade judges. Anger, sadness, humor, fear, hope, love, and all the other things we feel, connect us to the arguments we're making. If your debates only have one emotion (or none), then it will probably be pretty boring.

Top Level Stuffs:

1. Speech docs: I want to be included on any email chains; however, I will be flowing based on what I hear from year speech and not following along with the speech doc. I will use my flow to determine the decision, which can be different from speech docs, especially if you aren't clear and give me enough pen time. Also, I never was the best flow as a debater and I still am not as a judge!

2. All of you are smarter than me. I'll work hard to be a good judge, but I won't promise I will get everything that is happening in the round. Your job will be to explain very complex concepts to a very simple mind.

3. I'm an only-parent of two young children. Always a chance that something happens where I have to take a few minutes of judge prep. I'll work hard to minimize these instances, but cannot promise they will not happen.

4. The "ideal" number of off-case positions in a round for me when I am in the back of the room is anywhere from 0-5. You can absolutely read more, but I get angrier as the number of counterplans in the 1NC rises. I think 1-2 counterplans in a 1NC is reasonable. I prefer 1NCs without throwaway positions but still have a lot of block/2NR optionality. Basically, I am a fan of clash and vertical spread.

If you still think it's good to have me in the back of the room after you know this, then continue reading and see if you still feel that way when you're done.

Argument Feelings:

Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. I tend to default to reasonability. Slow down a tick on T or you will make me sad. I cannot keep up with you reading your 2NC/1NR blocks at full speed.

Counterplans: The more specific the better, but I’m game for whatever. Consult CPs are fine. Delay is fine. Conditioning is cool tooI. PICs are the bees knees. However, I am open to theory arguments that any of these should not be allowed. I do not like counterplans with a lot of planks that the negative can jettison at will. Such counterplans will leave me sympathetic to affirmative theory arguments.

Counterplan Theory: Sketchy counterplans should lose to theory. However, theory violations should be well developed and it is up to the affirmative to prove why I should reject the team and not the argument. It's no secret that I am not the quickest flow, so slow down for me on theory debates. I'm more favorable to limited forms of conditionality and/or no conditionality compared national trends.

Theory in General: I almost always think that education > fairness, but ... I think negatives are getting away with too much. People can run multiple contradictory counterplans/advocacies all they want in front of me and I will not automatically vote them down for it. However; I am sympathetic to well articulated theory arguments as to why it is a bad educational practice, as well as sympathetic to affirmatives that use negative shenanigans to justify affirmative shenanigans. Play dirty pool at your own risk in front of me…aff or neg. I do not like cheap shot theory. I try to not vote for cheap shot theory arguments, even if they are dropped. However, I will use cheap shot theory arguments as a way out of difficult rounds in which both teams were making my job painful. I try not to let cheap shots determine the outcome of rounds that are well debated on both sides. I reward good smart debate. No New AFFs is not a good arg in front of me. Pref Sheet Disclosure is not a good arg in front of me.

**** If you're reading this as an LD'er: I am a very bad judge for Tricks debate. Very bad ...

Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good uniqueness cards to 10 bad uniqueness cards. I prefer 1 or 2 good warrants to 10 bad uniqueness cards. Disads are great and are a fundamental part of policy and/or critical strategies. Yayy DAs!

Criticisms: The more specific the better. You probably know more about your specific criticism than I do. However, debate is not about who knows the most about a topic; it is about how much you can teach me within the time limits of the round. If I cannot explain your position back to you at the end of the debate, then I cannot vote for it. I believe that AFFs get perms, even critical AFFs. I believe that Ks can win based on winning 100% defense, so, yes ... you can kick the ALT and go for presumption in front of me. On framework, I default to a "middle of the road" approach where NEGs get ALTs & links to whatever, but AFF gets to weigh their 1AC as defenses of their ontology/epistemology/axiology. Only get "links to plan" or "ALT must be competitive policy option" is an uphill battle. Same goes for "you link, you lose" or "they can't weigh their AFF!" For me, those questions are best resolved on link level, alt level, and theory of power level.

Framework: Sure. You can go that route, but please slow down. I prefer substance to theory, meaning that I almost always believe education > fairness. I don't find the procedural fairness stuff that persuasive. Institutions good and training is a much better route with me in the back. TVAs are persuasive to me. So, will I vote on framework? If it is based on why you have a better educational model, then absolutely! If it is based on procedural fairness, then I might still vote on it, but it's an uphill battle. Most of the time I vote on procedural fairness it is a result of some AFF concessions, which is why it's important for me to have a good flow if this is your strategy. I almost always think the better approach is just to take them up on the case page or offer a counterplan.

Performance/Nontraditional/Critical AFFs: I’m cool with it. I don't find your argument persuasive that these AFFs shouldn't get perms. If I can't explain your AFF back to you then it will be really hard for me to vote for you. I have no problem voting NEG on presumption if I don't know what you do or if the NEG has a compelling argument that you do nothing. Honestly, I think that NEGs versus various critical approaches are in a better position with me in the back to go for case turns and solvency arguments. K v K is wonderful, too! This is just my heads up to the policy teams that want my ballot - case, DAs, & CPs are more strategic when I'm in the back than FW.

Case: I honestly think that a well developed case attack (offense and a heck of a lot of good defense) with a DA and/or critique are much more effective than a big off 1NC. Case debate is good and underrated. This is true for policy debaters and k debaters. This is true for policy AFFs and K AFFs.

I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.

My Idiosyncrasies:

One thing that everyone should know is that I naturally give a lot of nonverbal (sometimes verbal) feedback, even in the middle of rounds. If I think your argument is really smart then you will probably see me smiling and nodding. If I think your argument is not smart or just wrong, my face will look contorted and I will be shaking it in a different direction. If this happens…do not freak out. Use it to your advantage that you know which arguments I like and do not like. Other times, I look unhappy because I am in pain or very hungry (my health ain't the best), so this might throw you off ... sorry! Debate tournaments are hard on all of us. I'm not going to pretend like I'm a machine for longer than two hours while I judge your round.

I will also intervene in cross x if I think that a team is being particularly evasive on a point that needs to be clarified to conduct a good clean debate. I do not believe that the gold standard for judging is to avoid intervention at all costs. I believe intervention is almost always inevitable ... I'm just one of the few people who are willing to say that out loud. Interventions, like the type above, are very rare. I am fully willing and happy to led debaters take the lead and let me render a decision based on the round that happened without me saying a word until the RFD.

Additionally, I usually make fairly quick decisions. I don't scour through evidence and meticulously line up my flows all the way until the decision deadline. Sometimes I will do that if it is warranted to decide the round. However, for me, it doesn't usually require that. I believe that debate is a communication activity and I judge rounds based on what is communicated to me. I use my flows to confirm or deny my suspicions of why I think someone is winning/losing at the conclusion of the debate. Typically, I am making my mind up about who is winning the round and in which ways they might lose it after every speech. This usually creates a checklist of what each team would need to do to win/lose. While listening to 2NRs/2ARs, I go through my checklist & flows to see which ones get marked off. Sometimes this is an easy process. Sometimes it takes me a lot longer to check those boxes ...

I KNOW that you all work VERY HARD for each and every round. I take that very seriously. But, me deciding rounds quickly is not dismissive of you or your work. Instead, my "thoughtful snapshots" of rounds are meant to give some sort of fidelity to the round I witnessed instead of recreating it post hoc. Some people go to concerts and record songs to remember the experience later. I don't. That's not out of disrespect to the artists or their art, rather, it's my own version of honoring their efforts by trying to honor the moment. Some of y'all think that is some BS justification for me to do "less work" after a round, and that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, as well as where you place me on your strike sheets.

Finally, I am unabashedly human. I am open to the whims of fatigue, hunger, emotions and an overwhelming desire to do what I think is right, no matter how inconsistent and possibly misguided at the time. I try desperately to live my life in a way where I can look in a mirror and be okay with myself (not always successfully). I do the same thing when I am a judge (again, not always successfully). This is just a fair warning to any of you that will be inevitably upset if my decision seems to vary from this judging philosophy. I'm not a robot and sometimes my opinions about my role and this activity changes while judging a round. The truth is that y'all are good at what y'all do, and sometimes you make me change my mind about things. These are the facts of having me in the back of the room, and these facts, no matter how fact-y they might be, are facts that y'all have to deal with :-)

Debate is fun…at least it should be. If it's not, you're doing it wrong!

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

Hello! My name is Gabe Damiani, and I am a senior from Charlottesville High School in Charlottesville, VA. I have debated public forum for all three years of high school and debated World Schools at Nationals 2024. I am new to judging, but have a strong grasp of the concepts of debate, especially PF.

For public forum I hope to see:

- Clear and well presented arguments. The easier it is for me to follow the debate, the better I will be able to judge you.

- Evidence. This is pivotal to a strong case, you can't build a case without the use of relevant evidence.

- Strong clash from both sides. You can have the best individual arguments in the world, but if you don't clash with the other team's arguments (or don't engage with their clashes on your arguments), it's harder for me to vote for your side.

- Respect. This should go without saying, but debate hinges on respect from both sides! Use common sense and be a good person.

- Signposting. This can be as simple as saying "contention one, contention two, contention three" at the beginning of your each new argument, but the more you tell me what it is that you're about to say (even in rebuttal, summary, and final focus) the easier it will be to accurately flow everything you say. That being said I'm not the biggest fan of off-time roadmaps, you should be able to do this with the allotted time.

- Evolution. The debate should not be rigid or stale. Arguments, clash, and responses should all evolve throughout the round. This not only makes for better clash, but allows for teams to really engage with each other's arguments.

- Impacts. The more specific and concrete you are about why each of your arguments matter (and why they matter more than your opponent's impacts) the more I will prefer your side. Don't assume I know what impact you're getting at, say it directly.

- Reasonable speed. Public forum was designed to be easily understood by the public. Even though I have experience debating teams with speed, the value of a high speaking rate in public forum is not greater than the detriment it has to your clarity and poise. A bit of speed is fine, but anywhere near flowing isn't what I'm looking for. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.

If you have other questions about these preferences (or about anything else at all) feel free to ask me! Good luck!

Abram de Bruyn - abram.debruyn@saschools.org He/him/his

BA, Performance Studies | Victoria University, Australia

MA, Philosophy and Education | Teachers College, Columbia University

Experienced Ethics Bowl and Parliamentary Debate Coach. Judged Policy, never competed.

My approach to judging debate is to recognize each format as a distinct game variant and to honor the rules for scoring. I do not award my decision to the smartest or most knowledgeable person(s) in the room but the team with the winning argument(s). Sportsmanship counts for something, and in close decisions can be decisive. I enjoy and appreciate creative and philosophical arguments which shed new light or perspectives on a topic. However, these can also be a distraction for me if the claims being made are less than clear (or the possibilities for mis-interpretation too juicy). I will want to engage with the ideas instead of weighing the arguments. Always remember, contests can be won or lost by how clearly impacts are communicated in conclusion. Tell me how to vote and why, this is your ultimate challenge.

TL;DR: Speed is fine, tech> truth, send a speech doc, read cut cards, disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad.

Background

I currently coach a few teams and worked at a debate camp this past summer for a month so I like to think I am above the level of a washed second-year-out.

I debated public forum at Marist for 4 years (2019-2023). Competed in lots of rounds on the national circuit and went to TOC my junior and senior year.

I expect there to be an email chain sent up for evidence exchange every round. My email is:

jescayg@nd.edu

General Paradigm

Outside of issues of ethics I don’t believe it is my role to tell you how to debate the round. However, it is your responsibility to tell me how you wish me to judge the round. Debate is an inherently comparative activity which means that it is your obligation as a debater to provide me with a frame of reference for how my decision should be made. Weighing is paramount. Unless both teams use the same form of weighing, you should probably be answering the meta question about why your type of weighing is preferable. For example, why does it matter that your impact is bigger if there one is more likely? You need to win offense to access your weighing, but I have never written “you weighed too much” as a reason for a losing ballot.

Big debates aren’t usually better debates. You only need to have one good path to the ballot to win the round. Condensing the round will almost always be to your benefit. Rebuttal is your chance to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. The back half is where you need to make strategic decisions about how to win the round. The speech times shrink, so your speeches should as well.

All offenses you plan on going for along with turns must be front-lined in second rebuttal. That being said, defense is not sticky. Given that summary must mirror final that doesn't make structural sense. If a team kicks out by extending a delink, it is typically safe to assume the remaining defense on the argument is conceded. Often, defensive concessions can be taken advantage of elsewhere on the flow. You all need to be taking time to think about the round as a whole and consider how arguments interact with each other at both a practical and technical level.

Yes, I can flow speed. Debate is competitive, so you don’t need to slow down for your opponent. What you do need to do is be clear. Poor clarity is not a reason for me to flow off the doc. If you are a team that is inexperienced with speed and hit a team that goes fast, the best solution is not to try spreading for the first time in a round. Take some time to think about their arguments and try to condense the debate. Quality will always overwhelm quality. Debating smarter usually bests debating faster.

Evidence

I strongly prefer full cut cards and no paraphrasing when introducing evidence. If you don't do this, you will probably lose the theory debate.

Call out bad evidence practices! If I am on a panel where theory is not an option you can still make general arguments about rejecting the argument that I will be partial to.

Compare evidence and author quality. Teams don’t do this enough and it can give a major lef up in the round.

If you want me to call for a card, you should tell me in speech. You also need to tell me why it matters.

I prefer author qualifications be included in the citation. This wasn't a belief I held as a debater but is something I have come into believing as a coach. I think author qualifications allow the debate to be more educational as it facilities better evidence comparison.

Verbal citations are a must and need to include author name and publication year. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

Progressive​​

Theory

If this is a Nat Circuit Tournament and a team is not disclosing or paraphrasing you should probably read theory :)

If you include author qualifications for ALL of your evidence and your opponent doesn't, I think this could be a situation where theory is justified and persuasive.

I default to compete interps and think rvis are largely regressive unless the shell is frivolous

If you disclose round reports may be beneficial, if not then I think they are a waste of time

Not a fan of trigger warnings unless an argument is actually graphic. My threshold for what it takes to be considered graphic has never been met thus far in debates I have either competed in or judged. Gabe Rusk’s paradigm has a long excerpt on why trigger warnings are likely bad that is worth a read and corroborates most of my admittedly less educated views.

Ks

Time constraints make Ks hard in PF, but I can’t say I don’t like a good K debate. Just make sure you understand the literature you read.

Win the K on the flow and you will be good, but don’t presume I have knowledge on the more unorthodox positions. Basically just extend and weight effectively and you are fine

If you hit a non-topical K and don’t read topicality I will be disappointed. I am not biased either way but think it makes for a good debate

If you are reading an argument that talks about changing the debate space, please don't have an opt-out form, it is counter-intuitive, and potentially terminal defense on your method if you are willing to not debate an argument that aims to change the space

Speaker Points

I’ll start at a 28.5 and adjust based on a mixture of style and strategy.

Have fun, you should never not enjoy a round.

I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.

I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity. Please respect each other and have a great debate.

VPF:

Put me on the chain! @gilrain-lennond25@stlukesct.org

TLDR: St. Luke's '25, I've debated primarily PF for 3 years. I'm a tech judge. Go as fast as you want if you're clear. I'll evaluate any argument (yes k's, yes theory). Defense isn't sticky. If your opponent asks for evidence you should provide it. Weighing is a good idea. Debate can get intense but you shouldn't be unkind to your opponents.

Bottom line is I'll vote for any argument you can win

If you have any questions about my paradigm feel free to ask me

COACH G - EMAIL : RYAN.GOSLING@saschools.org

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Citations after article introduction are preferred. How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? It won't How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? Empirical Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. How should debaters run on case arguments? Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. How should debaters run off case arguments? Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. How should Debaters run theory arguments? The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of method.

Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. What other preferences do you have, as a judge? Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

Please ask for my paradigm on-site. Thanks!

I am a parent judge. This is my first time judging nationals debate.
I would prefer participants to speak slowly rather than spreading.

Hi everyone! I am a current senior in high school who has been debating in Public Forum since 8th grade. As a result, I’m very familiar with the format and know how to evaluate most kinds of arguments.

General judging practices:

• I will flow during round and vote based on arguments that are extended through final focus.
• Please weigh your impacts clearly throughout the round, and especially in the final speeches.
• I will time speeches, but I encourage you to time yourself and your opponents as well.
• I appreciate brief off time roadmaps and clear sign posting throughout a speech. As a flow/tech judge, I will have a hard time evaluating arguments unless I have a clear idea of what they correlate with on the flow.
• While I can follow theory/k’s, I am not very familiar with them, so I would not recommend running them as there is a good chance I won’t evaluate them correctly.
• If there is an email chain, please include me on it. email: hile250@aa.edu

Please ask if you have questions before a round, especially if something in my paradigm doesn’t make sense to you. Good luck!

I debated 4th year PF debater at Marist School in Georgia.

Add me to your email chains

matthewhorne24@marist.com

maristpublicforum@gmail.com

If you spread, send a speech doc

Tech>truth

Time your own speeches, prep, and crossfires.

I pay attention to cross solely for speaker points, if something happens that I should know about, let me know in the speech.

Please weigh and collapse in your summaries. Narrowing down the debate is important in the back half of rounds

Email me if you have any questions about rfd.

I am relatively new to judging debate, and I did not compete in debate in middle school, high school, or college. I became involved when my daughter joined her school's debate team. But I am an experienced lawyer, and I have spent many years making, responding to, and evaluating arguments on a wide range of topics.

My approach to judging reflects my professional experience. I am most persuaded by logical, well-organized arguments. Claims should be organized, clear, cogent, and supported by evidence. Conclusions should flow rationally from the facts. Presentation matters, but I am more likely to be persuaded by a sound, well-supported argument delivered in a monotone than by a polished, eloquent argument that lacks support or is riddled with logical fallacies.

Please speak at a natural, conversational pace. Because I don't have significant experience with competitive debate, I don't have a great ear for spreading. And if I can't understand your arguments, I'm unlikely to assign them a high score. I would prefer to hear two or three coherent, well-supported claims than a dozen claims reeled off at a high rate of speed.

It's usually fairly easy to tell the difference between a debater who has spent a significant amount of time preparing for a tournament and one who is simply reading words from a page. This becomes especially obvious during cross-ex/crossfire. The ability to ask effective, probing questions that put your opponent on the defensive and to respond to such questions can overcome a lackluster constructive speech.

Finally, treat your opponents and teammates with civility and respect. Abusive or disrespectful conduct will not be tolerated.

Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:

Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org

Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)

Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)

I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!

I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.

Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:

1. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
2. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
3. I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
4. I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
5. Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
6. Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
7. I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
8. I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!

Hi! I'm Nava! I've debated PF for a little over three years now. What I love about PF is its appeal to basic elements of argument: evidence, presentation, and cohesiveness. I will be keeping a flow but please remember you are talking to a supposed layman.

-Since it is hard to judge a round without a clash, I expect to see the argument engagement and discussion of both warrants(reasoning) and impacts.

-If your opponent's point is weak or dropped, please point it out so I can mark it as such on my flow

-If there is an issue with decorum or respect during the round, please come talk to me at the end of the round.

-Although I will understand PF jargon, I also value that this is a layman's style so please try to keep ultra-fancy talk to a minimum.

-I'd rather not hear an off-time road map - your speech should make enough sense without one. Consider announcing what point you are at (ex: rebuttal to pro's contention 1) as you go.

Convince me that what you've said makes the most sense and matters most. Remember: you know your stuff and you know how to do this. Good luck!

Nadia Kobayashi | she/her | 886832kob@ames.k12.ia.us

I'm a senior at Ames, Iowa, and have been debating in Public Forum since my freshman year on both the local and TOC circuits. I competed in World Schools at NSDA Nats '24 as well.

TLDR: I’m a flow judge.

General

I can handle speed for the most part, just make sure you’re still understandable. If you're planning to spread, please send speech docs before your speech.

Tech > Truth

Signpost both before speeches (starting with rebuttal) and in the actual speech. I need to know where you are.

I will judge the flow first, and try as hard as possible not to intervene.

Collapse strategically in the back half.

Extensions must include warrants and include all parts of an argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

Please weigh comparatively using weighing mechanisms.

Theory/K’s

Not really familiar with either.

In general, open-source disclosure is good + paraphrasing is bad (I'll still base my vote on what happens in round, though).

If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email or talk to me! Getting and understanding feedback from rounds is seriously the main way I’ve learned debate!

hi!!! I did four years of LD at Lakeville, MN, mainly locals but occasionally circuit. I prefer tech trad stuff, but I'll do my best to evaluate anything besides tricks.

speed is fine, just put me on the chain: katherine.krogstad@gmail.com

questions are more than okay, but postrounding makes me sad :( pls don't do it

have fun, be accessible, and don't be mean. debate is always a game, but as my friend once put it, play in good faith.

I'll try to average a 28ish for speaks, but if you're rude in any way, you get 26 max.

minor things that annoy me: taking forever to set your timer for speeches, long roadmaps (seriously just say NC/AC if that's what it is), saying the opp dropped/conceded something when we all know they responded, lying in the 2a (ykwim)

1 - LARP/trad :)

2 - most theory. I don't like frivolous shells, but legitimate abuse justifies it. otherwise I default to DtA > DtD, and I'm still not sure how I feel abt disclosure.

≤3 - K/phil (pls explain well, I never ran these and don't know buzzwords)

strike me if you're running tricks. I don't like it and I will probably drop you :)

General Information:

I am a parent judge, and it is my first time judging debate. I am not completely solidified with all the discreet rules of Public Forum or the terminology, however I will vote for the more logical and impactful claims. Weigh your points. If you add logic to your claims to back up your evidence as well, it will improve your speaker points. Make sure to extend your points throughout the round to help me and your opponents flow better.

My name is Anjali Kumar and I am a current college freshman. I am from Des Moines, Iowa, and debated Public Forum for four years in high school. I'm good with speed, but if you spread I might miss something and that's on you. I am a flow judge, please signpost as it makes it much easier to figure out where to put things on the flow. Unless there's an argument that's inherently racist/sexist/homophobic, whoever wins the flow wins the round. Weighing is incredibly important, give me clear weighing mechanisms for your arguments! I can follow logic arguments and I believe not every argument needs to have numbers attached to it, as some impacts can't really be quantified. If there's conflicting evidence, tell me exactly why your evidence is better than your opponent's instead of just saying "my evidence is better". I don't really mind however you decide to call for cards, y'all can decide between showing laptop screens, the physical card, or an email chain.

Have fun and learn something! :)

Hello there, and thanks for checking my paradigm! Please read the section corresponding to your event in its entirety, as well as the "Other Remarks" section.
You can call me Ivy! Any pronouns are fine. Don't think too hard about it :)
I have competitive experience in Congress and World Schools. I've also dabbled in Public Forum, but have not competed in the event.
My experience in Speech and Debate focuses on Debate.
ERHS Debate 2021-2025
Minnesota

Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Email yijarlin@gmail.com!
Last updated: June 19, 2024

Middle School Debate

Welcome to debate! I'm so glad you're here. You should be very proud of yourself for competing today.
Feel free to take a moment to read my paradigm for the event you're doing. They are meant for high schoolers, though, so if there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask me about it before your round starts or through my email.

You'll do great today! Take a deep breath, and do your best. I'm here to support you in your debate journey, so if you have any questions about anything at all, please just ask! I'll be happy to help and answer.

-

Public Forum (PF)
I have no experience competing in PF, but I have the most experience judging this event. I am probably considered a "flay" judge, and my philosophies might be a bit unusual, but hopefully they are reasonable. Read on before you strike me :)

General Judging Philosophy
I look at what's on my flow to evaluate the round as long as the facts on both sides are plausible.
(To elaborate, if some fact seems untrue, but is, please make sure you explain the concepts and reasons behind it clearly and concisely so I understand why it's true! Otherwise, I may or may not factor it into my decision depending on the context. It's not enough to just drop a card and call it a day. The same principle is true when responding to an opponent's proposed facts. In PF jargon, I think I'm looking for good warranting here.)
Besides factuality, any impact flies with me as long as you warrant it properly.
(As a rule of thumb, more unlikely and/or significant impacts will likely require more/better warranting.)

Speed + PF Jargon
I am okay with moderate speed, but please do not "spread" at me. "Moderate speed" varies from debater to debater, but generally, I will try to give you a hand motion down if you're going too fast.
(Be more careful in other rounds, as this philosophy is almost certainly not shared by the vast majority of judges. Generally, speaking at a comprehensible speed is a responsibility that rests on your shoulders.)
I am okay with terms like "turn", "delink", etc., but as I have never competed, my PF jargon vocabulary may not include everything that is commonly used. That being said, don't worry too much about this one. If you're still worried I won't catch what you mean, feel free to treat the round as if I were a lay judge.

Progressive Debate
I do not come from a background that emphasizes progressive debate.Evaluating this is a skill I am in the process of learning!
As of right now, I not able to factor this into my decisions, so please leave it out of your case.

Round Strategy
Generally, how you want to structure your case/rebuttal/summary/final focus is up to you. Whatever you think can win you the round will probably be fine with me, as long as it's organized clearly. Generally, the following preferences will tip the scales in your favor, but will not necessarily win you a round.
I really appreciate "offtime roadmaps" and good signposting.
I really appreciate a good framework or mechanism under which I should weigh. If I am given a framework, this is probably the lens I will evaluate my flow and its impacts under, especially if it gets close.
I like good weighing, and even meta-weighing if the time is right.
I like a narrative and big-picture discussions, but don't feel obligated to include one.

World Schools (WSD)
I have a middling level of experience in judging WSD, and have competed as a 1st speaker and 3rd speaker. I may forget to keep time, so please make sure you are keeping track of protected time, etc. :)

First Speakers
I am looking for a well-structured case with good warranting and supportive examples. Please do your absolute best to make your subpoints/examples/etc. clear so I don't miss anything!
I would love to hear a very clear round set-up, ideally by both sides. What this looks like will likely differ somewhat from motion to motion, but generally I want to hear a clear theme and framework at the top of case and woven throughout your substantives.
OPP Speakers: If you have time, some refutation of the first PROP speech is always welcome as long as you aren't sacrificing the clarity of your own content to do so.

Second Speakers
I am looking for a lot of well-structured refutation and any substantive content remaining. Please be clear what you are refuting, and try to organize your responses clearly as well so everything makes it onto my flow! I would especially appreciate a "roadmap" at the beginning of your speech telling me how it's going to be structured.

Third Speakers
I am looking for well-structured refutation, weighing, and a "Worlds comparison". Once again, please give me a roadmap and be clear what subpoint/example/etc you are referencing!
I would love to hear a lot of framework and theme references here. Give me a big-picture breakdown of why I should vote for your side/prioritize your impacts/etc.!

Reply
To be frank, I am not sure how to factor the reply speeches into my flow, so I generally give these speeches less weight. That being said, I do value a well-structured and clear summary of the most important points of the round. I am slightly more inclined to vote for a team that gives a great reply, especially if the other team doesn't.

Points/POIs
I won't keep close track of points. I do, however, value strategic use of concise points to disrupt your opponent's speech/set up your own/etc. Feel free to ask questions or make comments, as I have no preference.

Congress

While I do have plenty of competitive experience in Congress, please keep in mind that I have little experience judging the event. Patience is a virtue when it comes to this :)

Presiding Officers
I value accuracy in both selecting speakers and dealing with motions above all else. Don't sacrifice accuracy for efficiency or speed!
However, keep in mind that truly stand-out POs will be able to balance both.
I typically start with the PO around 5th-6th, and move them up or down depending on the above criteria.

Speakers
I value good argumentation, speech structure, and general clarity above all else.
Of course, delivery is an important part of Congress, but if you can speak clearly and fluently, that's good enough for me.However, if you can pack a rhetorical punch, that might make or break the difference between the top speakers on my ballot.
Generally, I like to hear a lot of interaction with other speakers' arguments, whether that be strengthening your own side or refuting the other. If you can add your own unique insight on the round when picking apart the clash of the debate, that's even better.

Questions
Don't expect me to keep track of questions.
However, if you can link your line of questioning in with your argumentation, I'll take note of that!

Other Events
I generally have no experience in any other events. Treat me as a parent judge that knows nothing about your event.
Exceptions are listed below.

Big Questions (BQ)
I have some very limited competitive experience in BQ. I will likely treat it as some sort of mixture of PF and WSD, so if you feel like reading those paradigms would help you, feel free to do so, although I have somewhat summarized the most important points below.
I am not sure if frameworks are run in BQ, but I would really appreciate one if they are.
I generally like to hear good warranting and logic to support your evidence. Just dropping a card is not sufficient to prove your point!

Storytelling
Storytelling is the only Speech event I have interacted with. Give me clean character pops and/or fun voices and I'll be a happy camper!

Other Remarks
Have fun! Try out something new! Take risks! Remember that debate is supposed to be fun.

Respect
Please be respectful to your fellow debaters. This includes the small things like respecting pronouns/pronouncing names correctly/not speaking over others in cross/etc. I shouldn't have to say this, but don't be hateful or use bigoted language, and don't attack your fellow debaters personally.

-

Sensitive Topics + Trigger Warnings
Please do not discuss sensitive topics in graphic detail. This is a good rule of thumb for all of the rounds you compete in, but it is a hard rule for any round I am in. I may or may not drop you depending on the situation, but you will almost certainly be unhappy with your speaker points/speech score. If I discover in the round that your team has subjected another team to graphic content, I will still apply the above philosophy.
I find that the discomfort and/or trauma of your fellow debaters and judges is not a justifiable price to pay when it comes to gaining a competitive edge. Debate should be a safe space for everyone.
I do understand that there are stories dealing with these heavy topics that need to be shared and heard. However, being in a situation in which I, or your fellow debaters, are unprepared to participate in these conversations will rarely be productive. Debate is also, in my opinion, not a great format to treat these issues with the nuance and care that they deserve, given the time limits and brief nature of each speech.
Err on the side of caution when it comes to what issues you may or may not speak on at length. Respect the people in the round with you. Respect their comfort and safety.
My personal list of topics to be avoided primarily includes suicide, self-harm, sexual assault/gender-based violence, abortion, and gun violence.
If you choose to discuss a sensitive topic in the form of, say, a statistic, please give a "content warning" or "trigger warning" at the top of your speech. Clearly state that you are giving such a warning, and I doubt it will be counted against your time. I will personally not count it against your time. Make sure it is clear how you will reference the topic, i.e. "As a content warning, I will reference a statistic on gun violence."
This gives your fellow debaters and judges ample time to decide if they are in the right headspace to deal with such a discussion and what actions they must take, if any, to ensure their own safety.
I will never count it against you if you wish to exit the room or refuse to engage with a discussion of sensitive topics to protect yourself. I value your health and safety as a debater above all.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

I am a new judge for debate. Please speak slowly and clearly. Avoid using debate jargon and be sure to state your impacts clearly. Throughout the debate I will be taking notes.

I am a parent judge with experience in judging public forum and extemp debate. As a parent, I understand all of the hard work that debaters put into the development of their cases and look forward to seeing you all perform.

I appreciate a well organized argument with clear contentions, solid references, and a discussion of impacts. Although there is a lot of material to cover, please speak at a reasonable pace so that I can follow your points. No spreading.

Please be kind and respectful to your partner, your opponents, and the judges. Good luck!

Hi! I'm Leigh I’ve been debating for all years of high school,. I just Graduated, and i’ll be doing debate in college at the university of alabama, starting fall 2024 .

The things I Vote On:

EVIDENCE! - this is Very important! please have full cards and citations, if it sounds fake i will ask to see the card!

Weighing- tell me WHY you win! If weighing is not brought up in summary i will not flow, it through in final focus.

Impacts!!! - why your points either hurt or benefit your reasoning and case.

Speaker points:

Off time road map please! Tell me where you are going.

Project your voice, if i can’t hear you, I can’t flow you. Any rude, homophobic, racist or sexist comments will not be tolerated.

Extra Information:

Speed- im good with speed, if spreading, send me a speech doc. ldmacon109@gmail.com

try to convince ME, not your opponent, you will not change your opponent's mind, you can only change mine. Be confident, if you’re confident you sound more convincing.

Be nice!You got this!Have fun! Debate is fun!

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

ALSO-if you are second rebuttal speaker, I expect frontlining.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

I’ve been involved in Speech for two years; events such as Informative, Original Oratory, and Extemp. I’ve only been involved in Public Forum for one year. When it comes to judging rounds, I look for strong speakers that have a passion for what they are presenting.

I debated public forum for 3 years but was always a pretty traditional debater - I will vote off of the flow, but you should not spread or run theory.

Do put me on the email chain (sophiemmcatee@gmail.com), but I'll only read evidence if there is disagreement over what the evidence actually says, and even then you should tell me to read the evidence if you really want me to

More elaboration:
- do not spread!!! I cannot flow spreading (even if you send a speech doc. I am really bad at flowing off of a speech doc.), which means I probably will miss things & not evaluate them in the round, which is definitely bad for you
- I said this above but for the sake of emphasis do not run theory.
- please extend arguments in summary and final focus if you want me to vote on them
- COLLAPSE & WEIGH PLEASE!!! - it makes the round so much easier to evaluate.
- no new responses in final (or summary for that matter)
- I don't care if you give an offtime roadmap or not, DO SIGNPOST
- on a tech vs. truth spectrum I probably fall closer to the truth end than most former debaters. I will vote for a ridiculous argument if you win it (and weigh it!), but your opponents may have an easier time persuading me not to than you might like
- be nice to your opponents!

For middle school nationals:
- I have no clue what debate norms are for middle-schoolers. If you had no idea what some of the points above were disregard them and do your best! (If you knew what all of the above were I am sorry for assuming that might not be the case!)
- I do know this topic fairly well, I will really try hard not to intervene & I know honest mistakes happen but it will make me unhappy if you say untrue things

As a judge, I would like to tell you my experience I have been debating for 4 years and have experience in all events of debate and know a lot of what to look for in a speech. Regarding debate, I am comfortable with speed as long as I can still understand what you are saying. As an impact judge, I will be looking for the why in your arguments. If I can't understand why it matters then I most likely won't vote for you. To be as fair as possible I will be entering every round with a clear mind and no personal input into the arguments made. They can be as weird or outlandish as possible as long as there is a clear impact and if your opponent doesn't contest it I will consider it in the round as true and a reason to vote on. I look forward to the rounds. Good luck!

How to contact me: mcmurryl927@gmail.com

I am a parent judge of a 9th and 11th grader at American Heritage school in Palm Beach Florida. I have never competed as a student, however I've judged debate since 2019 when my first child started middle school.. I judge pretty much every month for our school in Palm beach County and I enjoy contributing to this amazing after school program. I am able to judge speech as well as congress, PF and LD.

I am observant and tend to be impartial based on evidence presented. I listen carefully and try to refrain from imposing my own perspectives, beliefs and philosophy. Note taking is a tool I use readily when judging congress, PF and LD. Oratory speeches can be determined as I go and usually placement ranking determined easily during sessions. Debate skill is highly valued by way of a student's creativity vs truthful arguments. However, truthful arguments, if they outweigh should be supported by referenced materials, statistics , quotes etc. to provide credibility and hard substantial relevance. The evidence and counters are used as tools to cure positions of opposing sides.

Open to Policy making legislative model, weighing advantages vs disadvantages. Hypothesis testing of any social science model where a negative position can put the affirmative position to the test.

Political topics, environmental problems or concerns, Economic shifts with strained relationships with the US, Free trade policies, Human Rights, Terrorism, etc. are some heavy and controversial topics I welcome..

Evaluating solvency arguments of Counterproductivity, Insufficiency and Impracticality are some types of arguments I have been challenged by and many times enjoyed the discourse students provide in their arguments.

Points are generally awarded on skill, but conduct, rudeness, offensive commentary, prejudicial statements and lack of respect will generally impose point deductions. Allowing consideration for opposing teams to complete thoughts is generally considered in awarding points.

I like the topic pro/con laid out for me in simple, easy-to-follow terms, minus the debate-format-specific jargon as much as possible. Then I like the sides' outline of their cases and their attendant arguments concise and easy-to-follow. I do not like overly combative teams who interrupt and needlessly complicate proceedings. I frown on obscure or irrelevant evidence that gums up the flow of the round by creating controversy. I like crossfire rebuttals and final summaries to be on-point and delivered with a minimum of hyperbole. I do not give style points unless a speaker's style makes it easy for me to follow the reasoning. The final speakers for both sides should argue why their team won the round.

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

Greetings, debaters. I’m here to offer my perspective on how I’ll be judging this debate. I’ve seen many years pass, and I’ve learned that wisdom often comes from understanding the basics and appreciating the nuances. So, let me tell you how I’ll approach this.

1. Respect and Decorum

First and foremost, I value respect. I expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and decorum. Debate is about exchanging ideas, not hurling insults. Show respect to your opponents, the judges, and the audience. A civil tongue and a composed demeanor go a long way in my book. Please do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

2. Clarity and Eloquence

Speak clearly and eloquently. Remember, a well-articulated point is much more convincing than a muddled one. You can go fast if you would like, just don't mumble and I'm fine with it. If I say "clear" that means I want you to slow up a bit so that I can understand you. Don't just go fast to go fast.

3. Structure and Organization

A well-structured argument is essential. Signpost your arguments clearly so I can follow along. Write my ballot for me.

4. Evidence and Reasoning

I value solid evidence and sound reasoning. Bring forth facts, statistics, and credible sources to back up your claims. Make sure your reasoning is logical and coherent. Don’t just throw facts at me—explain how they support your argument.

5. Persuasiveness

A debate is, at its core, about persuasion. Convince me of your position. Use rhetorical devices effectively, but don’t rely on them alone. Your arguments should appeal to both logic and emotion. Show me why your position matters and why I should care.

6. Rebuttal and Refutation

Address your opponent’s points directly. Show me that you’re listening to them and engaging with their arguments. A strong rebuttal is not just about dismissing the other side but about demonstrating why your perspective holds up under scrutiny. Extend your points, make them clear to be throughout the round and make sure they are emphasized so that I know what you are honing in on when I write my ballot.

7. K's

I like K's as I believe that they are fun ways to expand the resolution and make the round more interesting. Be clear, explain your points fully and don't leave any room for confusion.

If you read this, say "let's go Yankees" for + .5 speaker points.

Hi all! My name is Loc Nguyen (he/him/his) and I am an incoming junior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in Computer Science & Math.

--

Experience:

Competing

2018-2022: Public Forum Debate at Lincoln Southwest High School

2023-Present: NFA-LD (and some NDT/CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln [Nuclear Posture]

Coaching

2022: Lab Instructor at NDF

2022-Present: Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School

--

IMPORTANT:

The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusion of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and an anonymous opt-out with a backup case or contention. I am okay with most arguments, but be mindful of your opponents.

--

General:

Top-Shelf: I view debate as a game and my job is to evaluate who wins the game. I am normally tech over truth, however, I'm pretty stupid most of the time so judge instruction is key. I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implication. I have noticed that a lot of my judging has been influenced by my experiences in policy debate, so take that as you will. Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision.

--

Evidence Exchanges:

Ideally everyone should be doing some form of evidence exchanges, but I will leave that discretion up to debaters. I would prefer it that you send speech docs before you speak and, at a minimum, send all pieces of evidence you plan on introducing in your speech. I personally prefer SpeechDrop over email chains. If we have to do an email chain, the subject of the email should have the following format, or something close to it: "Tournament Name - Round # Flight A/B - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)" Please add BOTH nlocdebate@gmail.com and lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.

--

PF:

Rebuttal: Number your responses, they're pretty helpful. Second rebuttals should frontline arguments they want to collapse on, and interact with first rebuttal responses.

Summary/Final Focus: Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments over mass card dumping). Defense isn't sticky; you have to extend it in first summary and I'll flow the responses through, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about; extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Please weigh and weigh comparatively. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary.

Cross: I don’t flow or really listen to cross. I’m usually browsing the internet or shutting my brain off. If you want to bring something from cross, mention it in your speech.

Prep: You must take prep time if you are reading or calling for evidence.

Speed: Generally I will be fine with whatever as long as I can understand you and flow. However, I can only understand so much. I won’t be flowing off of the speech doc barring tech issues. Enunciate and be clear. I’ll just stop flowing if you keep going too fast and you might not be very happy.

"Progressive" PF:

1) Theory: Perhaps my views will change as I continue to judge more debates or once PF reaches more clear-cut norms for the event. I believe theory has its place in debate. My general thoughts are that disclosure is good as well as open-sourcing and paraphrasing is bad. I think more importantly is putting the debate into context. Keep in mind the participation of teams that you're also debating, as well as their knowledge and/or access to coaches or resources.

2) K's: I have limited experience listening to and judging K’s as well as debating them in college. I'll be willing to listen to them in PF, however, time constraints in PF would probably limit you from engaging in good K debate. Err on the side of over-explanation if you are pursuing this route; I probably don't know your literature. Some kind of material action in the alt is probably good, but I'll leave K articulations and the debate up to you.

--

LD:

Pref Sheet

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 2

Phil - 4

Tricks - Strike

I occasionally judge high school LD, but I don't coach LD. Don’t expect me to always be up to date on circuit norms since I don't judge the event frequently. Defer (mostly) to my PF paradigm if you want to get more of a sense of how I’ll probably evaluate the round, but I’ll be receptive to whatever. In high school I was exposed to a lot more traditional LD from my teammates, but my competition experience in NFA leans policy. Take that as you will. That being said, I’m willing to listen to anything as long as it’s well warranted and implicated and explained well enough for me to vote on it. If I don’t understand it well enough to vote on it, I won’t.

--

If you have any further questions ask me before the round starts, find me around the tournament, or email me at nlocdebate@gmail.com before and after tournaments, and I would be happy to answer them.

If there's a chain I'd love to be on it: tobypenner01@gmail.com

Hi debaters! First of all, good luck! You've done all the hard work, now it's time to show it :) I primarily compete in Congress and PF so my judging is likely skewed towards those events.

PF:

Theory

TL;DR: Most of the time you should have a topical debate

I understand and appreciate the historic importantance and impact that theory has had on debate and the community surrounding it. However, in the vast majority of theory rounds today it's being used as a tool to win a ballot and not to meaningfully try to create social change. I don't appreciate this, especially when it's used as a tool to bludgeon a team clearly only prepared for a topical, substantative debate.

Tech vs.Truth

TL;DR:Tech = Truth. Be reasonable.

I feel pretty moderate here. I don't want to hear arguments that are clearly entirely unfounded in truth even to a casual observer. Please warrant. At the same time, I'm not going to flow something you entirely drop just because I believe it to be true.

I'm fine with speed if your words are still clear. However, this isn't LD or Policy and I don't think you need to fit 1,200 words into a 4-minute constructive to win the debate.

Please clearly extend, collapse, and weigh.

Most of all have fun!

Email: alex_reavey-cantwe25@collegiate-va.org

I am a rising senior who has been debating for 2 years in PF debate. Huge shoutout to my debate coach Mrs. Castelo

Specifically for MS Nats: I have debated this topic and researched a lot so I have pretty good topic knowledge. Familiar with terms like TTIP, ISDS etc.

Important notes:

-Tech>truth

-I vote off the flow

-I am cool with speed unless you are incoherent

-I understand jargon

-I'll evaluate Ks and theory but I am not the best judge for these

-Tricks are for kids

-I expect quality and ethical evidence that is NOT misconstrued, I love good evidence comparison it's the way to my ballot

-Weigh, Weigh, Weigh

-Ev exchange should not take forever - add me to email chains

-Please interact with each other's cases - I love clash

-Don't be mean or do any isms

St. Andrew's 25' - pranavreddy25@gosaints.org, add me on an email chain

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Done PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• PLEASE WEIGH- be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and really enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• IMPACT CALCULUS- this goes with the previous point. Please make sure to tell me why your argument should be preferred. Probability, timeframe, and scope are really important, especially in public forum debate. My flow will have a clear winner for one who wins on case for these three items(Unless losing on Tech).
• SIGNPOST- Make it easier on me and your opponents to have an educational debate. There is no reason why I should be confused when you are moving to new contentions.
• Send Cards before the case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long. Please know your evidence and where it is so we can have a faster round. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just pref towards that team on evidence questions. Please do not send paraphrased evidence, especially for constructive speeches. Cut cards show your credibility that you are using evidence with significant authority, so please give speeches with actual case construction.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds. Be creative, but don't be extra or quirky. Arguments that make no sense or just try to confuse are not a strategy, it is an impediment to debate. Please make sure that you maintain good debate etiquette that makes the debate educational but also fun.
• Keep off-time roadmaps to the simple order of argumentation- No need for off-time roadmaps to be over 10 seconds. I just need to know how you are going to approach the round.
• If you are going to be spreading and going fast, you should slow it down the further you go in the round and isolate clear offense that I can vote on. After the constructive and rebuttals, there is no real reason to go fast, you are just trying to crystalize the round. I would pref if you got slower or even stopped spreading after the first constructive, but do what you must.
• Cross-X is Not Binding- If an opponent says one thing you like in cross-x, use it to build your argumentation rather than just say over and over again that they concede. You need to give me a layer of analysis on how they concede or how their case shows they concede. A single answer or question in cross-x will not win you the round.
• DEBATE, DON'T BE MEAN - I will cap speaker points at 28 if you are being condescending or making personal attacks on the opponents.

Prog Run Down

• Theory- I am fine with theory, but this is Middle School Public Forum, I don't believe that I will see it as much. Please stick to things that you at least 90% know how it works. You shouldn't be running anything you don't know how to, but especially Theories and K's.
• Kritkis- I am fine with Ks, and understand them as much as theory. If run well, I enjoy these debates very much.PLEASE ONLY RUN K's IF YOU HAVE READ THE LITERATURE OR ANOTHER OF THE SORT. I don't want one to be running a CAP K without actually being able to explain how capitalism is bad in their own words and analyzing it with specific examples.

Miscellaneous

• If you don't know how to debate theory -https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html- pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27."National level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments".
• Please stand up to speak, unless it is truly uncomfortable.
• If it is an outbound and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or post.

I am a flows judge with a heavy emphasis on impacts. That means I will weigh dropped arguments against you, but I can be swayed to vote for you if your impacts clearly outweigh your opponents. That being said, it is your job to tell me your impacts. I should not have to figure it out for you.

LD: Value/criterion debate is a huge part of LD, but winning the V/C debate doesn't mean you'll win the round, it means I'll judge based on who upholds that value better. The winner will be the better debater (no dropped arguments) with stronger impacts according to the value and criterion.

PF: Public Forum is simple. The Pro is advocating for the resolution and the Con is (usually) advocating for the status quo (no change). I expect you to analyze the impacts of both sides, and tell me which side is better. Impact calculus is your job, I should not have to find your impacts.

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

Pronouns:

He/him/his or judge works*

General:

Refined arguments over mass card dumping. (clear link)

Numbers only matter if they are significant, so don’t throw them around.

You must extend/fully restate arguments in the summary, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round.

IMPACT!! At the end of the round, I want to see clear voting points that have been pulled through consistently.

If you choose to run progressive arguments (i.e. Theory, K’s), please do so in a way that is inclusive and accessible to all. I will listen if everything is clearly explained and articulated throughout the debate at an appropriate time.*

Evidence Exchanges:

Use SpeechDrop. If we're doing an email chain, teams should start it as soon as they get into the round. Please add kai.sasaki2006@gmail.com to the email chain.

*I am here to make sure everyone has a fun, safe and exciting experience with debate. Any hateful or blatantly racist, transphobic/homophobic, sexist, etc. arguments will not be weighed in the round.

*I am not keen on teams running progressive arguments (i.e. Theory, K's) as a tactic to confuse their opponents; I don't see it as making debate inclusive and accessible to all.

Good luck!

I am an incoming Sophomore at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a Public Forum coach for Lincoln Southwest HS.

--> NFA LD w/UNL.

--> '23 grad from Lincoln Southwest High School, NE.

--> 4 years in HS Public Forum.

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

Important:

**I would like for a speech drop / email chain to be started before round for evidence exchanges; please add me to the email chain: lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com and/or schadlserena@gmail.com.

**I flow on paper so keep that in mind when you're speaking - I may not get everything down so it is important to emphasize important arguments multiple times!

**If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a trigger warning at the top of your case as well as a backup case if someone in the round opts out.

**You must use prep time in order to read evidence from another team! More NSDA Rules are found here, any violations will reduce speaks and will be notified to the tournament.

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

TLDR - lots of yapping in this paradigm, but here's the gist

How I Evaluate Rounds:

**I am more tech over truth. I will evaluate based off of if you extend your evidence/warrants cleanly throughout speeches. I do not bring my outside knowledge into the round and it is up to you to tell me if I should gut check or call for their evidence. The easiest way to win my ballot is if you clearly warrant, extend, and explain your arguments as well as have sufficient frontlines and blocks against your opponent's arguments. I am not a big fan of blippy argumentation/card dumping - I think good debaters only have to provide a few great arguments on a contention rather than having 7-10 poorly warranted ones.

**47% AFF (31/66) and 53% NEG (35/66)

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

Public Forum:

**Theory can be okay in PF, but only run it if you are aware that your teammates a) know what disclosure/paraphrasing is and b) have no contact info on the wiki/other ways they'd like you to contact them before round. I do not think you should be running theory shells against JV or against schools that are unaware of disclosure/paraphrasing norms. I am more willing to vote for disclosure/paraphrasing if both teams are well aware of these norms and know what theory is. (I do think disclosure is good, but you have to prove that to me in-round).

**K's generally don't go well in PF and are run very poorly most times, I think running a framework or framing about things like structural violence, etc. is more applicable to the event. Please be topical and relate it to the resolution!

**I think some individuals gets confused over what is considered a counter-plan and what is not in this event. A reminder that counterplans are directly stating that they should do something OTHER than the resolution. [Ex. if the resolution asked if the US should increase trade relations with the EU, a counterplan would be that they should instead increase trade relations with China]

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

Round Preferences:

*Sign-posting & road maps are a must! I need to know where you are on the flow so that I can write it down.

*Speed: I can handle you spreading as long as you a) have a speech doc and b) your opponents are okay with it. I will dock speaks if you are unclear or if you opponents have to tell you to slow down/be clear multiple times throughout the round.

*Impacts: Please try not to use the 900 mil. poverty card unless you can substantially prove to me that it will happen, I think the card is overused and rarely links to the arguments being made. Extinction impacts I will vote on but it usually needs a framing mech for me to want to vote for it - likewise if you want me to prefer high probability impacts.

Cross-X: Cross does not impact my overall decision, I am honestly not paying attention during this time as I am writing feedback; but it should be a time to find holes in your opponent's arguments. Refrain from asking surface level questions like "what is your impact" and try to go deeper into your questioning. Also, any statements like "that's a new argument" or "you conceded this" should not be talked about in cross - cross-x is not a speech! Lastly, if something important happened in cross, it needs to be brought up in the next speech.

Rebuttal: Frontlining (responding to arguments made on your case in first rebuttal) in second rebuttal is a MUST! I think it is hard to gain any offense on the flow if arguments go un-responded. First rebuttal should be only attacking your opponent's case- don't restate your own case because it wastes your time (unless it's a cross application).

Summary: This is the most important speech in the round so this should be a time when you are telling me why you should win! I personally did a line by line summary, but giving me voters is also a great option as well. The most important aspect though is that you are weighing and telling me why your warranting and impacts are better than your opponent's.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary, so please match their voters if they gave any. Line by line is not preferable but at least tell me why you're winning. The final focus is intended to focus the round and give overarching claims and important points that give me a comparison between the AFF and NEG worlds.

**be strategic, find ways to collapse your arguments - try not to go for the whole buffet - pick one or two contentions (if you're running more than 2)

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

LD/Policy:

I am not as familiar with this event in the high school context but I do understand basic policy arguments in terms of NFA LD standards. I have also competed in NDT-CEDA so I am familiar with those policy norms. Lots of the way that I will evaluate the round fall under what I have written in the PF section above, but I will also try to adapt to your style.

General:

--I think sending a doc before each speech if you have new cards you're reading (analytics not needed) is a MUST for varsity debaters.

--A lot of times this event tends to be too heavy on card-dumping and misses a lot of the good weighing interactions. If you can do some sort of framework weighing, impact weighing, etc. - it'll be much easier to win my ballot.

--Tricks are a no-go for me.

K's, Theory, Topicality:

--K's are much more applicable to these events than PF, you just need to substantially prove to me that the alt can solve back for whatever bad thing the AFF is doing. Also, if you have some obscure topic lit. with a bunch of big words - please, please, please explain it so I understand.

--Theory is okay with me, just explain to me why this model of debate you're bringing up should be upheld and why it matters. Frivolous theory is not going to go well and I might just not vote on it if it's nonsensical. Also, you should not be running theory just because you know it'll be an easy win and your opponents won't respond well to it -- theory should only be run if there are true abuses.

--Topicality should be very clear as to why the opponent is not relating to the topic --- I also don't want you to run T arguments that are abusive (I think definition arguments such as the abbreviation of USFG could mean United States Faceters Guild is not going to get you anywhere and doesn't show any reason for me to downvote the team)

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

Speaker Points:

--For open pool: 26 (needs work, many crucial mistakes), 27-28 (quite a few mistakes but attempted frontlines/clash), 29 (good argumentation, good clash interaction, few mistakes), 30 (very clear, minimal changes I would make to the speech). Anything below a 26 means something seriously offensive/abusive happened in round. Also being condescending towards your opponents or not abiding by NSDA rules will drop your speaks by 0.5-1pts.

--For middle school / novice pool: 27 (needs work, no clash in round), 28 (quite a few mistakes, minimal clash, but good arguments), 29 (good argumentation, a few mistakes here an there), 30 (very clear, minimal mistakes, clashed well with opponent's arguments). I will not give anything below a 27 unless something very offensive was said in the round. Being condescending towards your opponents will drop speaks by 0.5-1 pts. I am less likely to penalize with lower speaks for not abiding by NSDA rules, but I will warn you for next time.

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

Other Things to Keep in Mind:

**NSDA allows paraphrasing in-round (PF), but if an opponent asks for the cut card and cites w/ author quals, you are obligated to give it to them! If there is no carded evidence, I will treat it as analytical. I will also drop speaks by 0.5pts.

*Please don't hesitate to ask me questions before or after the round (via email: schadlserena@gmail.com or IRL)! I am open to discussion of how I evaluated. I completely understand some frustration when judges don't vote in a way that you favor and am open to any discussions about any issues you have with my decision (of course, I will not change my ballot after I submit it).

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

About Me:

--NFA LD Nationals Double-Octofinalist ('24)

--Occasionally compete in NDT Debate

--Competed at NSDA Nationals in World Schools ('22 & '23)

--Nebraska State Quarterfinalist in PF ('22 & '23)

--Competed 4 years in HS Public Forum on National & NE Circuit ('19-'23)

I am a four time NSDA tournament competitor with experience in Congress, Public Forum, World Schools, Int Extemp, US Extemp. I am a Colorado state champion in Public Forum

Evidence is a necessity, if you are going to make a claim, it needs to be supported by evidence. I will drop your point if your opponent calls you out for making a claim with no evidence to back it.

I am a traditional PF judge, I want you to show me why your side weighs heavier than your opponents. Show me why voting for your side will have the best impact on the world.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

I'm a lay parent judge. Please speak slowly, loudly, and clearly (Absolutely NO spreading). I am new to debate so please explain acronyms or certain debate terms to me, and don't assume I know things. I GREATLY value weighing, and you should be able to explain to me why you win or outweigh your opponents' impacts. This will help me decide who wins the debate. Please give a clear, concise final focus that dictates how you think I should vote.

I would prefer arguments that are logically consistent and are presented in an organized manner. I will have a hard time following unclear, inconsistent arguments. Claims should be organized, clear, and supported by good evidence.

Please be kind and respectful to ensure a pleasant debate!

I've been judging and coaching most events in Speech and Debate in middle and high school for over 30 years. I do my best to be a careful listener and appreciator and to stay attentive to the challenges of telling a clear and effective story which is somewhat different for each format.

Honesty, passion & respect for the event and for all humans connected with this activity are assumed.

I flow but an overly rapid delivery means I need to fill what is lost to smeared inaudibility; that then enhances the risk that I'll lose nuance around which close rounds can sometimes pivot. K's--if delivered at a reasonable rate of speed and that don't confuse blips for articulated reasoning--can be interesting, maybe even persuasive. However, acknowledging that there is a status quo topic for which everyone has prepped is going to require a potent core objection(s) if it is to be set aside. Not a casual ask.

The usual debate verities matter: clarity, reasoning that provides context and thoughtful impacts, as well as weighing relative merits of two cases fashion a road to a ballot that rewards the hard work. Claiming drops that are better characterized as inadequate responses will elevate this judge's eyebrows.

A luminous presentation comes from a rich understanding of the topic. It's exalting & admirable when debaters enter a zone where they are completely engrossed.

Congress: know of what you speak; flow well; avoid rehash & don't repeat other speaker's arguments unless you have a way to extend and develop understanding; understand rebuttals; speak out of a location of conviction and tell us why affirming or negating the bill matters.

As for Speech events persuasive & clean balance of speech technique with a deep feeling for emotion and a sense of the speaker's connection with the emotional truth of the piece is always a hoped-for result.

hi, i'm andy, i coach for lanier :)

he/him/his

background:

congress & some extemp | 6 years

general:

• you're the debater

• you do the debating and let me do the judging

• if you don't say it (clearly), i don't flow it

• speed - 5/10

• norms - if it ends in ism, it probably isn't appropriate

• if it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t exist

congress:

• i mained this event, so i know it very well - it's a badly structured event

• main caveat: if it’s a “debate event”, then it should be judged as an actual debate (even tho it’s not)

warranting is #1 - anything that goes unwarranted is dropped

defense/offense role - anything your side says, you uphold because you operate as one faction

• if your side doesn’t respond to something, absent your defense, i assume it’s conceded

• this affects your argumentation negatively if you don’t respond, but read the same warrants that have already gone conceded

• vice versa for offense, i will assume that your side is dropping the offense if you do not tell me what offense has been read and why it still applies

• absolutely no counterplans, it removes the point of debating the legislation

speaking - the easy part

• everyone can yap

• not everyone can make yapping not sound like yapping

• you should not look down at your pad for anything other than sources and names

• if there is a lack of eye contact, i will be very sad and drop you

• if you’re funny, then use it to your advantage

• if you’re not, then don’t try to be

• rhetoric is awesome

• stylistically, i don’t care what you go for, but play to your strengths

cx - please don’t be overly aggressive

• it is ok to assert yourself, but don’t be rude or aggressive

• you should not be using this time to make an argument

• if you use the words, “how does your argument still stand?”, i will stop listening

• if you use the words, "where's the expert that says that?", i will also stop listening

• if you shout, i’m tuning you out

weighing - this is my absolute favorite thing

• weigh comparatively - compare option x and y, but make the comparison using some kind of standard

• magnitude, scope, timeframe, pre-req, etc.

• but on top of these standards, compare within them

• i.e. 100 million dollars > 10 million dollars (magnitude)

• without weighing, i have to intervene and weigh myself

• but this is ultimately your job, so if you don’t weigh, i will drop your speech score

framing - this is my second favorite thing

• frame using stakeholder analysis/important questions in the debate

• part of framing is backtracking: “so far in this debate…”

• just remind me of what’s happened so far cuz the rounds are long

• establish a stakeholder - which group/entity is most important

• what is the goal of the legislation?

• which side accomplishes the goal of the legislation for the stakeholder best?

• always start from the status quo

• what is changing from the status quo?

• and if historical precedent applies, what is different from past policy?

• the AFF has a burden to prove the change is unique, the goal is met, and the stakeholder wins

• the NEG has a burden to prove either the change is non-unique, the goal is not met, or the stakeholder loses

• whoever proves this to me, wins the debate

individual - ultimately tho, this is an individual event (IE, haha not debate)

• i rank individuals by interaction with the round

• your speech should uniquely build upon your side’s foundation

• if it contributes nothing, you are definitely getting the 9

• the person that is most aware of everything above will earn the 1

• if it’s really close, i’ll use speaking to differentiate

pf:

emphasis on the lay part in flay

• i will evaluate prog to the best of my ability, but no promises

• err on the side of assuming i have no idea what you’re reading or how to evaluate it

if i am capable of understanding it, i will vote on it except:

• if a school is not allowed to disclose, even if non-verifiable, i will not vote for disclosure theory

general things:

• tech > truth - unless it's blatantly abusive (i.e. the Holocaust isn't real)

• i won’t flow cross unless you bring it up in speeches

• all new arguments before 2nd summary

• defense is not sticky

• love weighing, esp metaweighing, but only if warranted

• extend warranting, not just card names into summary/final focus

• if you could signpost/give me a roadmap before speeches, it would help a lot :)

• i default to cost-benefit analysis

• absent offense, i presume for loser of the flip, unless warranted

• base 28 spks

if you debate well and write my ballot for me, then it’ll be an easy win

• if you don’t, then i have to intervene (ex: if there’s 0 offense in final focus)

don’t make me be that judge that has to intervene.

any other debate event:

treat me like a pf judge, read through my congress stuff if that helps

interp (except extemp):

no idea what i'm doing

good luck and have fun :D

Please addwilliamhsjostrom@gmail.com to the email chain

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020) - I led the country in TOC bids my senior year

I just graduated from the University of Georgia and I will be attending law school next year

***NATS POLICY UPDATE ***

I did pf for 4 years and have now coached it for 4 years. That being said pretty much any speed you want to go is good with me - spreading is fine with me - I'd probably say if you want to be extra safe go at a pace of 7 or 8/10 if 10 is your fastest spreading just because I haven't judged a ton recently.

I am very familiar with policy and the types of arguments made so don't change your normal strategy just because of me as the judge. I will vote for anything (case, counterplans, disads, k’s, t, etc ... whatever are all fine). If it is won on the flow as long as you don't do something really messed up or offensive etc... youll win the argument.

All the general stuff in my PF paradigm below also applies

PF Paradigm:

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go.

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

Steven Szwejkowski - steven.szwejkowski@SASchools.org

High school - Renaissance Charter School

BA, Philosophy | Queens College

Although I have not formally competed in a debate league, I did recreationally partake in stimulating discourses in the Philosophy Club at Queens College while I was a student. We had many engaging debates, in which we explored highly theoretical and practical topics, ranging from consciousness to politics. Furthermore, my focus when I was an undergraduate and as of now is twofold: socioeconomic concerns and rational frameworks. To fully understand and extend the material in these topics requires an elevated level of researching, writing, and defending your conclusions, all of which are integral in debate.

As a side not, feel free to be as theoretical as each resolution/topic allows.

The following are two criterions by which I use to assess each debater and round:

Speeches: Must display clear articulation, confidence, poise, and appropriate speed. (Do not spread!)

Cases: 1) Must have clear and relevant contentions. 2) I favor quality rebuttals and the team that does a better job at attacking the opposition's arguments to which they may respond weakly. 3) I will take into account the team who asks better (leading) questions during the cross-examination rounds. 4) Lastly, the team that contains the most uncontested statements, i.e., dropped contentions, by their opposition usually wins under my judgement.

Background

• I enjoy hearing diverse points of view and stories.
• I'm no expert, but I'm open-minded and curious to learn.

Judging Style

• I appreciate your passion and genuine belief in your arguments.
• Keep it simple; help me understand complex topics without jargon.
• I'll do my best to provide constructive feedback to help you grow.

Fairness and Respect

• I value respectful exchanges; there is no need for aggressive tactics.
• I’ll consider both sides fairly, regardless of personal beliefs.
• Creativity and unique approaches are welcome!

Time Management

• Stick to the given time limits, please.
• Be mindful of pacing—not too fast, not too slow.

Final Thoughts

• Speech and debate are about more than just winning; it's about sharing ideas and learning from one another.
• Good luck and have fun!

Quick Summary - I am a 3rd year college debater in NPDA, I can understand just about any argument that is warranted properly, lack of disclosure when asked will result in a loss unless the other team drops the argument that disclosure is bad, and most importantly have fun and learn something.

Background - WSP. I'm Pat, I competed in PF for most of my highschool debate career. I qualified to multiple post season tournaments in that and did well in policy when I debated it. I am now a debater for William Jewell College and have improved greatly since leaving highschool, breaking at many tournaments, being a tournament champion, and finishing 6th at NPTE nationals.

Style - I evaluate the flow. I really like the K on both sides. I am not as versed in the theory debate as any other aspect of the game. Tech>Truth until its harmful to the educational outcomes of the activity (sky is always green) (genocide good) type things

Spreading - If you cannot keep up with speed make it known as soon as pairings drop to your opponents, otherwise im just evaluating the flow on speed good v speed bad. When spreading I expect a speech doc with full cards in policy, pf, or LD.

Paraphrasing - If you paraphrase your ev will not be worth as much as a full card until i can see the whole card

Contact - Email: Pterry4c03@gmail.com for any further clarification

I have been a competitive PF debater for 3 years. I am okay with any speed, but I prefer a conversational one, especially during summary and final focus.If you are extremely rude, racist, homophobic, etc during the debate, I am not going to vote for you.

Constructive - this should be well rehearsed.

Rebuttal - all frontlining or rebuttals should be well explained. I do not want to make the links for you. Also, signposting is incredibly important to me, especially during rebuttals.

Summary - This is the most important speech to me in the round. Make sure to clarify the most important arguments within the round and weigh (explain why your impacts are more important than your opponents). Do not extend all the arguments, just the most important ones.

Final Focus - this should crystallize all arguments and explain to me why you won the debate. I don't want to see any new arguments made in the round.

Cross-examination - I do not consider this very important within a debate. However, I do find this aspect of the debate important in order to understand how well you understand the topic. Basically, you won't win based on cross-examination, but you will have higher speaker points if you do well.

I am a flow judge, but I also expect these contentions, rebuttals, and impacts to be realistic and have probability. I’m not going to vote for a contention if I believe that it won’t actually occur. so tech = truth basically.

if you have an email chain, include me :D. you can also email me if you have any questions about my paradigm!

sanjanavadlapatla.07@gmail.com

jack.valentino@saschools.org for the chain.

I competed in LD, PF, and Extemp for Chaminade High School (NY) until I graduated in 2018. In college, I studied congressional politics and law while keeping up with current events. I'm now a coach at Success Academy Harlem East.

Medium speed is okay, but it needs to be understandable. Taglines need to be read slowly!

I give speaker points for confidence, articulation, and poise. As such, I'm looking for a well orated and well "weighed" round from the winner, not a line-by-line or technical win.That being said, I'm anti-intervention -- if they drop an argument completely in multiple speeches but you don't bring it up and tell my why that's important then I won't intervene and count it as offense for you. Similarly, if they tell me the sky is red and you say nothing and they extend it... the sky is red.

Engaging with the resolution at hand is CRUCIAL to me. Not receptive to Theory or K's -- engage with the resolution itself. Non-topical contentions need to be clearly articulated as to why I should vote on them. Clarifying/debating definitions of words in the resolution is part of debate, but rewriting the resolution is not.

PF specific: Open cross-examination needs to be agreed to by both teams for it to exist outside of grand cross.

Speak slowly/clearly, connect cases back to the topic ESPECIALLY CLEARLY, and feel free to be appropriately witty or humorous :) This is a public speaking activity, not a spreading activity.

Professional Experience: For over a decade, I have studied criminal justice and earned two undergraduate degrees in criminal justice, criminology, with a minor focus in dispute resolution. I earned a Master's degree in Human Rights Law from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City. I have more than 5 years of professional experience in legal research, legal and argumentative writing, and debate in criminal courtrooms in Kings County. (i.e. arraignments, trials, and hearings). Since September, 2023, I have been a coach for middle school debaters and have been a judge in public forum debate in numerous debate tournaments including Tournaments of Champions, Harvard Invitational and NSDA Nationals.

Debate Strategy: It is critical that the argument structure flow smoothly and follow a framework that is clearly topical. If a team drops their argument in multiple speeches and the opposing team fails to notice, emphasize it and explain why it is important, I will not intervene and consider it an offense against you because it is critical for debaters to flow and discredit their opponent's arguments. Card dumping should be avoided. You should be able to explain your own theories with cards as evidentiary support for your theories, as opposed to having an argument that was solely cut from cards. Lastly, I will provide extensive written feedback ( detailed verbal feedback when possible). *As per NSDA rules and regulations, I will not disclose RFDs after rounds.

Technical Preferences: Keep track of your own prep time. Standing or sitting during rounds is up to the discretion of the speaker. Medium speed is acceptable, but voice projection must be good and articulation needs to be clear (avoid spreading). Conceding time is only a good strategy when the argument is strong; otherwise, it can be extremely harmful for your argument. It is important for debaters to demonstrate good time management. However, if a question is asked during the CF and GCF rounds, I will allow scholars to finish their sentence should the timer interrupt. I award speakers points for confidence and sportsmanship and steer the weight of the ballot based on the argument that contained an overall cohesiveness and strongest delivery. I will add one additional speaker point if an inference from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is cited and used in your argument. Be cool, calm, and respectful throughout the rounds. However, I always appreciate humor and wit.

If you are doing an email chain, you may add me : Prisilla.Villalobos@saschools.org

Remember to have fun and learn from your mistakes. Best of luck!

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

Lanawall.snd@gmail.com

I am currently a varsity PF debater for Sequoyah High School and mentor for middle school team Dean Rusk. I am a rising Junior and have done debate for 3 years (one year in middle school). I have participated in national tournaments such as Harvard and have attended many more. While I have never judged officially, I have experience with the middle school team I mentor and also from watching/judging other practice high school rounds within my team.

SPEAKING

In round I prefer a respectful tone and kindness between competitors. Of course general back and forth is fine as that is what debate is about, but I would like it if competitors restrained from talking over each other and being disrespectful.

Stuttering and slipping on words will not win or loose you the round, and it’s important to realize this. Try to clear your mind and speak however you feel comfortable. If you mess up, move past it as mistakes happen constantly(even with varsity). Though I understand the slip ups, do try and project your voice to me and enunciate your words and sentences.

TECHNICALITIES

In round one tend to be a tech over truth judge, but it can depend on the evidence. If something is so very obviously wrong such as, the sky is red, while yes it is incorrect, I need the competitors to prove this by either strong logic or cards. You cannot just say “nuh uh” as much as it would be fun. I will be flowing the round so do keep that in mind.

I believe that as debaters competing, you should know rules, but just to reiterate a very commonly missed one, make sure not to bring up new evidence in second summary and beyond as it can give this team an unfair advantage. While I will not make you loose just because you do this, I will not take any new evidence or arguments into consideration for my final ballot unless it has to do with official rules/abuse in round.

OTHER

You can keep your own time but I will keep you in check. I can do time signals if you would prefer but they are not needed. For going over time, try not to but I will allow you to finish your sentence (as long as it’s not a 3 minute long run on sentence to which I will just stop flowing).

Off-time roadmaps... I love them. I think it is underestimated how much they can help a judge in round. The structures make the round easier to follow. If you don't give one or forget though, don't worry as it wont impact any decisions, they just help me a bit :)

Remember, this is debate, so while it is important and should be taken seriously, it is also a time to enjoy and have fun. If you don’t fully have passion in what your argument is, it can show, so try to have fun and enjoy the round!

For a bit more fun and speaker point advantages:

I believe in round, it shows great skill to connect things going on in round to something that may not be seen as related to the topic. This is not me saying to go off topic, but if you can manage to somewhere fit in one of your speeches a movie, song, or show reference, that will help me get a better idea of your skills as a speaker

(And if it’s a K-pop reference that’s even better-)

If you have any further questions you can ask me before round or can email me by the email I have at the top of the paradigm, and again, have fun :)

♡ ∩_∩

(„• ֊ •„)♡

|￣U U￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣|

|____Good Luck ^o^____ |

￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣

hey, i'm harrison (he/him), and i debated for 3 years at Walt Whitman High School in PF.

*THIS WAS MADE WITH HIGH SCHOOL PF IN MIND; IF ANYTHING DOESN’T MAKE SENSE OR ISN’T TYPICAL MIDDLE SCHOOL PROCEDURE, ASK ME BEFORE ROUND*

add me to the chain: hjwalley2006@gmail.com

i prefer a google doc w/ rhetoric and cards, but you can also send a PDF. if any of this isn't accessible for you, it's 100% fine if you don't send. maybe disclose on the wiki if you're not able to send evidence during round

*seeing as there's no place on OpenCaseList to disclose for middle school, middle schoolers do NOT have to disclose*

**NATS NOTE: i'm apparently not allowed to disclose, but don't let that stop you from asking for feedback after the round; i'm not gonna talk much about general speaking skills or anything, but i'm always happy to talk strategy**

ask me about anything confusing in the paradigm if you have questions

TLDR:

this is probably the most standard tech paradigm you'll ever read; literally debate like you're doing any other tech round and it'll be good

tech>truth, run whatever you want as long as it's not exclusionary

defense isn't sticky

PLEASE STRIKE ME IF YOU DON'T READ CUT CARDS

i guess you can do new weighing in 1st final; definitely nothing new in 2nd (i’d much prefer solid weighing in first summary)

extend at least uniqueness, link, and impact

comparative weighing please

prob not the best person for prog; i can maybe evaluate theory, but k's are probably a no-go (april 2024 update: i can evaluate really well implicated, fairly stock k’s, but if you get screwed bc i was never a prog debater, please don’t blame me)

let me know if i can make your experience better; if both teams agree that my paradigm sucks, you can ask me to change it for the round

General Debate Stuff:

i think that judge intervention is really bad for debate. don't make me intervene; do comparative weighing, extend your args, leave defense on your opponent's case. you, your speaks, and i will all be happier if you do that

if it's not on the flow, i'm not voting on it

collapse - it makes the round really messy when someone goes for 4 blippy arguments

signpost - please help me know where i should flow...

Evidence:

i won't call for cards unless someone explicitly tells me to

if you send cards, i might look because i'm interested, but i won't intervene on bad evidence. the other team has to explicitly tell me that it's fabricated to the point i can't evaluate it, or just run an IVI or do an ev challenge

if you take like 2+ minutes to pull up a card, i'll probably tank your speaks and will take it as an analytic

Speeches:

constructive:

i'm probably not the best judge for speed. if i can't understand you, i'll say "clear" three times before i just stop flowing. not gonna flow off of a doc, so just make sure that you're actually speaking in a way that i can understand

2nd constructive can respond to 1st if they want. just make sure to at least say, "onto their case" or something to just let me know (but like probably just don’t; i don’t see many scenarios where it’s actually strategic)

rebuttal:

if you're able to, send any cards (or a speech doc) you're reading for rebuttal before your speech

i think it's smart to weigh in rebuttal, but not necessary obviously

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline

strategic collapses in 2nd will result in a happy judge and happy speaks

summary:

extend

if the other team does a really bad extension, call it out and tell me why i can't vote for them (if there's no extension at all, i won't vote on it)

at least give me uniqueness, link, and impact; internal links and warrants are nice, but at least have that

definitely weigh (i'm of the opinion that probability weighing is usually bad and just new defense, but i guess it's a weighing mechanism, so utilize it)

final:

needs to mirror summary

extend, again

if your opponents are using different weighing mechanisms than you, it's probably strategic to tell me which mechanism to prefer (metaweigh, anyone?)

if your partner didn't weigh in 1st summary, 1st final can do new weighing (no new prereqs or link-ins; that's just abusive)

no new implications or args from 2nd final; i won't flow them

cross:

i'll listen, definitely won't flow it

if there's something important, bring it up in the next speech

Prog:

theory:

i guess i understand theory. if you have to know, i think paraphrasing is really bad, disclosure is probably good. i default text over spirit, RVI's, and Competing Interps (reasonability for TW theory). all of that can change if you just... give me warrants for why it should

read the shell the speech directly after the abuse happened. out-of-round abuses need to be in constructive

also, i want shell>substance layering at the very least in summary and final; if you're reading a shell in constructive, it's probably smart to do it in rebuttal

extend the shell every speech after it's read

don't read friv on novices; that's just dumb

april 2024 update:

middle schoolers can read theory that’s fine (still steer clear of friv)

it’s been a while since i’ve even thought about theory, but i’ll catch up on it before the tournament

k's:

i don't know too much about non-T k's, but i kinda get the gist of topical stuff. if you HAVE to read a k, just implicate it well and tell me why you win off of it

april 2024 update:

it's been a while since i've thought about k's too... if you have to read one, just don't spread it 300 wpm or more

tricks:

no, except for roko's. i like roko's (don't read tricks please)

i like what other people have said about tricks - if someone reads tricks on you, saying “tricks are for kids” is adequate and terminal defense

framework:

sure. framework should be extended in every speech after it's read. 2nd constructive should respond to framework in 1st

speaks:

speaks will probably be good

i'll start at 28.5, and go up or down from there depending on strategy

not gonna dock speaks bc of the way you dress, how you talk (unless you're spreading and you're incoherent), etc

L25 if you do something exclusionary

few ways to up your speaks:

a. read a funny impact turn

b. be nice

c. disclose on the wiki (ask me before round if you don't know how - i won't dock your speaks if you don't disclose) +0.5 speaks if you do

d. do smart prereq stuff

e. actually engage in substantive clash in a cool and strategic way

other stuff:

i'll disclose if i'm allowed to; ask me privately to disclose speaks if you want

postround if you want, but be nice about it

be funny if you want, but there's a line between being funny and being a jerk

Hi. I am a lay judge for pf (all other events, treat me as a VERY lay judge) , don't spread, run prog, or run silly args. Still a truth > tech judge except that I can flow and vote based off that.

I understand basic stuff like basic weighing terms (magnitude, probability, scope, timeframe), but definitely not K's, theory, trix, framework, etc. My daughter did debate from her freshmen year to senior year, and now is in college. My son is currently debating as well.

I value clarity over speed. However, please don't spread, even if you are very clear. I can't understand it that well, and can't flow that fast. I also WILL NOT accept speech docs.

Don't run 20 contentions. Focus on a good amount. (Quality > Quantity!)

An argument/contention is claim, warrant, impact. No impact, no warrant, no claim -> no argument.

Be nice. Not doing so might impact speak point if that's in the tournament I'm judging.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!
Or else, what am I going to vote based off of?

If I'm interested, I might ask for cards after the debate is over. If you miscut it or powertag it, I might drop you.

No matter how good this paradigm is at english, my first language is not english. Please don't use too superflouous words (get what I did there)? I understand stuff like card, contention, block, but not turn, nonunique, delink, or stuff like that.

P. S. This was made by his son because his previous one was 28 words. In round, his english will not be this great, and he definitely won't make puns. Don't expect your RFD or comments to be this great either. Use the following example to see his paradigm expressed by him alone.

His previous paradigm was:
The following is what I will consider more valuable in the debate: clarity over speed, quality over quantity, argument = claim with warrant, attitude=nice to others

Most important thing: do NOT be mean, hateful, or discriminatory towards others. You don't have to like your opponents, but you do have to respect them. If you don't, you can easily guess what will happen. Remember, Debate is supposed to be fun so don't stress too much! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask after the round (email is jmmelon31@gmail.com). My memory isn't that great, so sooner (within ~2 days) rather than later is appreciated.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before round! If you think there is something general missing that would help future competiters, please let me know and I'll do my best to include it.

Little bit about me: I competed for LSW on the Nebraska circuit in PF for 3 years and Congress for 1. However, I would say I am decently familiar with both events. Additionally, I have also competed in World Schools and Extemp Debate.

PF:

Constructive should be case, Rebuttal should be refutation, Summary and Final Focus crystallization and impact weighing. Take your time to explain what your impacts are, as well as clearly explain the warrants behind your arguments. To put it bluntly, if you cannot access your impacts then they don't matter and I won't vote for them. For rebuttal, having 2 well explained attacks is better than having 7 blippy ones, as well-explained and thoughtful arguments (even if there are less of them) make for better debate and are easier to vote for.

Evidence wise, you should be able to produce cards if the opponent or I ask for them, as that is an NSDA rule. I generally will give you the benefit of the doubt evidence wise, but if a card doesn't pass the gut vibe check then I may ask for it. If you are caught falsifying or miscutting/misclipping evidence, that is grounds for an autodrop and 25 speaks.

Important note for me: I DO NOT like speed. I have issues with my hands that make it hard to flow at a quick pace, and going fast in general makes debate less accessable. Focus on developing good argumentation rather than trying to go fast, since the former will make or break you and the latter won't. I'd rather judge one or two strong contentions than 3 or 4 weak ones. If nothing else, this is the one time you can go slow in PF without being penalized. If you want to go fast/spread fine, but it A) shows poor judge adaptability (this mainly affects speaker points, I won't drop you on this alone) and B) there is no way I'm going to catch all of your warrants and arguments, so "my opponent didn't respond to this" will not be a good enough answer. Likewise, if you chose to go fast and there's an argument I don't vote on because it wasn't on my flow, that is on you.

I will start at a base speaks of 28, moving it based on how the round progresses. Unless you commit a droppable offense (falsifying evidence, misgendering opponents, being racist, etc.), I generally won't go below a 26.5.

Congress:

I'll outline the three big things I look for below:

Debate:

This is the most important part, as despite all the funny jokes (I made them as well), Congress is fundamentally a debate event. As such, your speech (unless author/sponsor) should contain some refutation of other speakers. If its early in the round (1N, 2A/N) it doesn't need to be (and honestly shouldn't be) your entire speech, but you should try to include it. I am more than fine with you introducing new arguments later in round, as it beats rehash, but you should find a way to include refutation as well.

As this is a debate event, you need to have some type of evidence in your speeches. In general, like in PF, I will prefer 1 fully fleshed out argument (plus refutation) as opposed to 2-3 less developed ones. If you are caught falsifying evidence, that is an automatic last and a score of one on that speech. Congress is a lot looser than every other debate event when it comes to evidence, don't abuse it.

If you have to choose between having good arguments or good presentation (ideally you should have both), choose good argumentation, as that is most important.

Presentation:

There is a very fine line between passion and aggression, as the former will help you and latter will hurt you. Throughout speeches and questioning, maintain decorum and be respectful to your opponents. Your presentation should match the tone of your speech, so if you are talking about a serious topic your intro/speech should not have puns or jokes. Now, if your speech isn't dealing with heavy content matter then those touches are fine, just know when they are appropriate.

Unless it's late in the round, there should be some sort of intro before you go into your point. Unless you are a sponsor or first neg, you shouldn't have time for a long conclusion. If you have to choose between concluding or staying in time, stay in time, as your speech should be clear enough that I know what you are talking about.

Speed is an absolute no-no in congress for me. When presenting evidence, it should have date, author full name, and publication/qualifications. Your points should be organized clearly enough to distinguish between them.

Representation:

This is easily the most underutilized part of congress. You should be representing your constituents, so almost every speech should tie back to your constituents in some way (even if it relies on nation-wide evidence). Not too much to say on this, as it is a basic but key element.

Other stuff:

Don't abuse parliamentary procedure or waste time with it, especially in regards to recesses. In general, if you want to talk with other members of the chamber, call for a 1-2 minute in-house recess. Questioning is usually not the place for new information, as if it is important then bring it up in your speech. Amendments are part of the legislative process, so introducing them is great!...so long as it's relevant to the debate. Don't amend a bill for the sake of amending it and getting another speech, amend a bill to address points made in round. In general, I will default to the parli or Nebraska (my home state) norms, so please ask if you have any specific questions.

LD/CX/etc:

I will do my best to avoid judging these events, but should it happen treat me as flow-lay, see paradigms above (especially PF).

Again, treat those around you with respect and have fun! Best of luck comrades!

Hi friends, my name is Phoenix (they/them) and I am a high school speech/debate competitor, captain, and judge. I have competed in Original Oratory at nationals and states, Public Forum at states, impromptu, and world schools. Today I am judging Public Forum which is one of my main events.

Paradigms for PF:

Simply be respectful to your opponents. I do not enjoy watching people talk over each other as it does not get the debate anywhere. I also do not particularly enjoy definitions or card debates as they often render the true cause of the debate moot. Have a fun time!

Friends, it has been a few (several) years--so dumb it down for me! xoxo

General Notes:

-Include me in email chains: olivia@thewhiteleyfamily.com

-Clarity over speed

-Overviews, Impact Calc, and Line by Line or else

Argument-Specific Notes:

-Kritical Affirmatives/Framework: A well-run framework argument is compelling to me. I am willing to vote for a limits/fairness argument. For kritikal affirmatives, the alt debate matters to me. Win it.

-Topicality: If fleshed out, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Fairness is also legitimate. I lean truth over tech in these debates--but tech still matters.

-CPs: If enough work is done on the theory debate, Process CPs, Advantage CPs, and PICs can be legitimate. Work means engaging with the other side's arguments; repeating your shell in the rebuttals is not enough.

-DAs: DA and case is a strat. Generics are fine. Politics is my jam.

-Ks: Contextual link work and a clear, direct explanation of how your alt works may get you the ballot. Explain your jargon. I'm not down for "we're a K so as long as we win the general thesis of the argument, it doesn't matter if we drop stuff." Dropping stuff matters. If you make that argument, you will probably lose.

I debated in Houston Tx. in high school and college. I was a policy debater. I have coached and taught debate for 30 years now; Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas. I have coached and taught at Langham Creek HS in Houston, Tx., Hanover HS and Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH., Wayland HS in Grand Rapids, MI. and now finally at Auburn HS, in Auburn Alabama.

Emory 2020:

I haven’t judged many circuit level rounds this year, I coach one circuit debater and don’t get to see many high level plan debates. This means that in your first speech you should start slow for the first 5 seconds and speed up as you wish from there

Pref chain:

- Plan debate, policy, LARP: 1

- Traditional debate: 1

- Theory: 3

- K debate: 4

- Tricks: 5

- Performance: 5

I am a very flow judge!!! Tech should be true, otherwise you’re lying… So Truth > Tech.

I cannot stress this enough!!! NO TRICKS, NO SPIKES, NO FRIV THEORY!!! IT IS BAD DEBATE AND ITS GOING TO MAKE ME VERY UNHAPPY!!!

Add me to the email chain: donna.yeager@gmail.com

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THEN ASK!!! If you aren’t sure you can run something or have a question about my paradigm defaults then asking is the best way to be safe.

I am ok with good spreading, I flow from your speech and will refer to the doc if I missed something or am confused, but clear taglines and authors are important.

I default to the following:

- Neg wins on presumption unless otherwise argued

- Consequentialism for impact calc

Give an off-time road map!!! Every new off case argument will be flowed on a separate sheet of paper!!!

Things I liked in a round:

- Well-developed plans

- Fully linked out DA’s

- Good CP’s

- Proper decorum

- Good FW debate (Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke)

Things I don’t like:

- Performative debate

- High theory K’s

- Spikes, Tricks

- Disclosure theory

- Friv theory

- Bad T/theory shells

- Incoherent spreading

- Speaking for others

- Ptx DA’s

- After round disrespect

- PICs

Disclosure:

I don’t disclose for double-flighted rounds, not that hard of a rule, if there is extra time, I might be able to give an RFD. I don’t disclose speaks.

Speaks:

30: I expect you to win the tournament or be in finals (rarely given)

29.5: Finals or high break rounds, I enjoyed this debate and learned something

29: Good debate, should break, close round with one of the above ^

28.5: Good job, room to improve, well executed arg on my do not like list.

28: You weren’t as clear as you could’ve been, the weighing wasn’t the best

27.5: Same as 28 but worse

27: Worse than 27.5 😊

26.5: You made some serious errors, ran something I don’t like or was hard to judge, you spoke awful

26: Worse than 26.5

25.5-25: You shouldn’t go above 3-3, you made a critical mistake and deserve to lose, you were racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or ableist

My Public Forum judging philosophy will be the same as my asst. coach, Mr. Will Haynes. So thank you Will!

Flow/Speed: I am a typical flow judge. In rebuttals and summaries, please make it clear what argument you're responding to. All turns must be addressed in the following speech, so if you are the second speaker, and your opponent makes a case turn in their rebuttal, you must address this in your rebuttal or else it is dropped. Frontlining can be done in either the rebuttal or summary. I can flow 8/10 on speed. Do not spread. The summary and final focus must be consistent.

Evidence: If an opponent asks for a card, you get one minute to produce it. After one minute, I strike the card from my flow. I will call for cards at the end of the round if I am unclear on the intentions of the author or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut. I will not call for evidence due to washes or lack of weighing.

Crossfire: I do not flow new arguments in crossfire, nor does it have any effect in how I judge the round unless someone is rude, in which case I will deduct speaker points.

Framework: I default to utilitarianism unless another empirically justified framework is offered at the top of the constructive. I enjoy a good framework debate, so do not hesitate to propose a deontological value.

Offense: Under util, I only weigh quantifiable and empirically justified impacts as offense. If you do not quantify, there is no objective way for me to compare impacts at the end of the debate.

Fiat: If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

Theory: I believe theory is the best way to correct abuse in a debate round. It is much easier for me to flow theory if it is run in the standard format (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters), but I am fine with paragraph theory as long as it is clear and well justified.

Kritiks: I very rarely vote for them, so just keep that in mind before you take that risk.

Speaker Point Scale: These are the criteria I use for determining speaker points. Everyone starts out with a 26. Do these things well to get up to 30.

Come to the round prepared and on time.

Remain calm during crossfire and speeches. Aggression and agitation are not compelling.

Give speeches with a minimal number of "ums" and "likes"

Have a clear organizational structure for your speeches. Signpost and don't jump all over the place on the flow.

Weigh arguments in your rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses. Don't just read a block.

As a first-time judge, I prioritize clarity, organization, and a coherent flow in your presentations. Please articulate your arguments clearly and avoid speaking too rapidly (no spreading), as it can impede my understanding. I appreciate well-organized arguments that unfold naturally, so please ensure your points are clarified. Back your arguments with evidence and insightful analysis.

Focus on the substance of the arguments, refrain from personal attacks, and treat each other with respect throughout the debate.

I will try my very best to offer constructive feedback. Enjoy the tournament and best of luck to everyone!