My name is Sarah. I am currently a debate public forum and was a parley debater when I was in middle school. I don't mind spreading but make sure you speak clearly and that everyone can understand. Please address and look at me when speaking, not your opponents or teammates. I like arguments that have strong evidence and logic; please make sure that you cite your sources.

First speaker- Look at me, make sure you speak clearly, have logical, evidence-backed points.

Second speaker- Refute every point that the other team makes, extend and continue your own points.

Third speaker- Weigh, extend your teams points.

For all- Do not POI or heckle aggressively. You do not need to accept all of you POIs, but you will get a higher speaker score if you take one or ask one. Please be respectful; I will dock points if I feel as though you do not treat you opponents in a respectful manner. Finally, have fun and do you best.

Don't give me an off-time roadmap if you're not doing something radical/unique in your speech. Don't be mean in cross. Former PF debater but will hold you to a lay standard––aka cool it with the jargon and make your extensions clean/obvious.

Here are a few things I like to see in the debate:

1. PLEASE don't speak too fast. If you do, don't expect me to get all your arguments

2. Overall, be kind and have fun

Good luck, and may the best team win!

I am a high school PF debater at the Nightingale-Bamford School, but I debated parliamentary for two years in middle school (also at Nightingale). I debated with Lucy Weld and Sarah Berggrun in middles school, and now I debate only with Lucy Weld but if you see either of them, please say hi for me! I consider myself on the harsher side of judging, so in order to avoid any feelings of unfairness, I have provided a list of things I expect from you. I will deduct speaker points for these things. I am typically a flow judge, or tech>truth. You should give me clear, logical, evidence backed arguments. I love a good clash, but make it have real rebuttals (don't just restate your arguments). Please flow, even when your last speech is done. I take this into account as well.

Please read the following requests:

• You may speak fast, but speak CLEAR. I am a very fast speaker so I understand, but make an effort to be understandable.
• USE ALL OF YOUR TIME. If you leave more than 15 seconds of your time unused, I will deduct speaker points. If you are running out of time restate your arguments, weigh, or expand on your case more. You should know your topics well enough to be able to talk about them nonstop for at least 5 minutes, so prove that to me. However, do not go over your time by more than 10 seconds. I will not listen to anything you say after that.
• No abusive heckling/POIs, but do ask at least one POI per round. This is a great opportunity, do not let it slip by. Heckles should be four words or less, don't need to be a full sentence.
• Use statistics and name your sources. I don't like it if you don't tell me where your evidence comes from.
• Please signpost and give me a clear roadmap at the beginning of your speech.
• WEIGH. Tell me why I should care that you are right. What is the impact?
• Make eye contact, speak up, be confident. Even if it is not real confidence, fake it 'till you make it. No "ums" or "uhs"; if you have to think of something do not use filler sounds, just stay quiet (it looks better than saying "uuuuuh" before everything).
• Please address me in your speech (i.e. "Judge, please vote for the...", "Judge, please consider..."). Look at me, not your teammates or opponents. I am your judge, and I do carry the fate of your round in my hands. Don't make a bad impression.
• Do not leave points standing. I automatically give those to the opposing side. You should always carry through your arguments as well. If you do not, I will drop it and I will not factor it into my decision.

Particular to 1st speakers: Frame if you can. Otherwise I will choose what to rule on. Name your contentions. Give clear impacts. Not only does this tell me why I should care, it also helps your finalist understand what they should say in their speech (in terms of weighing). Do not look at your notes, and do not mispronounce words/names. You should have practiced your speech enough that you know it well enough to not need to read off your paper, and you should know it well enough to be able to pronounce words/names used in this debate. I will dock points if you mispronounce words. If you are on opp, you should make time to begin rebutting (this should be about a minute).

Particular to 2nd speakers: I was and still am a second speaker, so I take this role very seriously. You must respond to ALL of their points. Rebuttals must be logical, and use evidence and morals. If you run out of time, respond to the most important contentions first. Extend your first speaker's arguments, and if you do not I will drop them. You should do this throughout the round. If you have to finish your speech in the second round, so be it. But that should not take longer than 1-2 minutes. Please begin weighing if possible.

Particular to 3rd speakers: No new arguments (you should definitely point these out), and finish refuting if your rebuttalist doesn't. Extend all of your contentions AND rebuttals, please. WEIGH. Make sure you directly compare your case to theirs. Tell me why your side matters, why it is better, why I should care morally. Timeframe, magnitude, poverty, and cost are all examples of something you could use to weigh, but there are many more (you can say "We outweigh on magnitude because..."). You should use evidence here as well.

Be respectful, and have fun! Debate is one of my favorite things, and I really enjoy it (even though I get grumpy; I promise I don't hate you I'm just tired). Please let me know if you think my judging is unfair, or if you disagree with what I am saying. I appreciate the feedback! Good luck!

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

I did high school pf and middle school parli.

Have fun and don't be a jerk

logic>evidence. I buy logical warrants rather than "this will happen because my evidence says so." Evidence, especially when I'm judging ms parli where you can't call cards, is less important to me. The most important thing is that you have a logical link chain that I can buy into and that makes sense.

Please weigh: take the other team at their best and explain why you are still winning. If there is no comparison between arguments in the debate and both teams have some offense, it becomes infinitely harder to make a good decision, so please make it easy for me!

No theory unless the other team is being actively offensive. I don't really care if the other team didn't disclose.

here's my email for post rounding: brynn.martin24@trinityschoolnyc.org

UC Lab 16

Michigan 20

1. Debaters have a debilitating tendency to fail to see the forest for the trees. Most debates can be resolved by 1 central issue, define that issue and tell me why you are winning on that question.

2. I am tabula rasa- I have a read a drilling aff, a Moby Dick aff, an Asian Identity aff, an encryption aff, went for Baudrillard ALOT, etc. In other words, do what you want!

3. The best way to win a K in front of me is to spend a lot ton of time on the link debate and give each link an impact and/or turns case args. Pull lines from the 1AC, go into their internal links or the structuring logic of the aff- don't just read your generic heg links to the K blocks.

4. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reason you think I should vote for you.

5. Nuance is always strategic and appreciated.

6. Im not the best for techy T and theory debates but I can most def handle it.

7. CrossX is a speech and it is super important.

8. After some personal experiences I have come to believe that death good arguments pose a serious real life threat to the mental health of high school debaters. If you read these arguments and the other team makes the argument that death good is detrimental to the community, I am very likely to vote on the argument. However, that does not mean that you shouldn't read arguments like fear of death bad in front of me.

I listen carefully and try not to bring my own opinions on a topic to judging. The way you present your arguments should be structured and clear–for example, enumerating contentions and directly addressing the other side in rebuttal. I look for arguments are about the most direct and significant points related to your side,, the largest or most vulnerable groups, or have the most significant and relevant impacts. It would be better if you could respond/rebut your opponents' arguments. When both sides reach similar levels in argumentation, I expect you to compare and weigh your arguments for me.

Hi! I'm Lucy Weld. I debated parliamentary for 2 years, and as a high school student I currently debate PF.

I don't mind fast speakers, as long as you are clear. I am a big stickler for time, please don't leave more than a minute unused!

Also no abusive heckling/POIs.

Because I am a debater, consider me a flow judge. I am generally tech>truth. I value clear, logical arguments that are backed by sources/statistics. I also really appreciate signposting and roadmaps. Best is when you have a clear picture and rebuttals are taken down by logic and data.

First speakers: Number your contentions, the more organized it is, the better. Giving clear impacts in the first speech is very helpful not only for the judge but also for your third speaker when they have to weigh.

Second speakers: Try to be as organized and methodical as you can when refuting, extend your first speaker's arguments, because second speeches are when a lot of arguments get dropped, and it is hard for me as a judge if the argument then is brought back up in the third speech if it was ignored in the second speech. Extending arguments all the way through the debate is super important! Second speakers can also start weighing if possible.

Third speakers: No new arguments, make sure to finish refuting if your second speaker didn't get to everything, extend your first speaker's arguments, and make sure to weigh. Note - when weighing, make sure it is directly comparative

Be respectful, I take that into consideration when giving speaker points. Good luck and have fun!

she/her

I prefer arguments and rebuttals that are backed up with evidence, but I don't mind a logic-based refutation or some debate math as long as it makes sense.