New to Parli; just make sure to weigh and extend your points

Flay for the purposes of judging, competed PF since 2020. I flow the whole round and will vote off the flow, but I value clear explanations and sound logic. Tech > truth, you need to support statements with logic (don't just say things without explaining why). Don't run Theory or K, if you do I am not used to judging it.

Things to remember:

• speak clearly, be confident to the best of your ability
• cross is for you: I don't vote off cross unless it is brought up in a speech
• weigh, weigh, weigh: if the round is messy I will be voting off the weighing
• establish your world and why it is better/worse than your opponent's
• don't bring up something completely new in FF please - however if your partner did absolutely no weighing in 1st summary I will allow it if you weigh in 1st FF bc your opponent has time to respond to it in 2nd FF (you cannot bring up completely new arguments in 2nd FF EVER, just interact with old ones)
• be respectful, don't worry too much, and have fun!

Btw I don't really believe in sticky defense (the idea that if your opponent didn't frontline an argument in first rebuttal, you don't have to mention in in 1st summary and can just bring it up in 1st FF -- the defense is sticky and is automatically extended bc they didn't respond to it). If they didn't frontline it you should just be mentioning important tags/the bare bones of the argument so we understand what you are going for/how the round will narrow. This makes the round cleaner and shouldn't take much of your time, you only need to really fully explain a rebuttal if the other side attacked it anyway.

Please lmk if you have any questions/tech issues!

if you reference a studio ghibli film I'll consider it when assigning speaks

For MS PF'ers: treat me like a lay judge

HS:

General Stuff:

I may ask you to treat me lay if I'm tired (I apologize) but in general, tech judge.

• make email chain pre-round and add me (elamalsakini@gmail.com)
• send case before speech; I don't need docs for other speeches but no spreading (stay within ~225 wpm)
• have cut cards
• you have three-ish minutes to find a card when asked before it's dropped and we move on
• anything you want evaluated in decision should be in speeches
• i'll evaluate Ks + T but be clear/treat it like an argument
• tech > truth (don't use that as an excuse to not warrant/implicate)
• pre-flow before round
• don't be a bad person + have fun

Speaks:

I average somewhere between 28 - 29, but I go higher often enough.

Hello. This is Stephen O'Brien, pronouns he/him.

For distributing docs, email: spobrien1@gmail.com

WSD

Good luck everyone! The winning team is the team with most points.

Style: 40% of the total score. Speakers should communicate clearly using effective rate, pitch, tone, hand gestures, facial expressions. The use of notes will not be penalized unless it hinders delivery. However, speakers should not read their speeches.

Content: 40%. Focus is on argumentation separate from style. Weak arguments are marked accordingly, even if the other team does not expose a weak argument. My personal beliefs or specialized knowledge will not influence the scoring.

Strategy: 20%. Whether or not the speaker understands the importance of the issues in the debate and the structure /timing of the speech. Debaters should identify the most substantive issues and allocate their time to covering issues based on their relative importance. Strategy may also consider answers to POI and choosing when/how to address them. Strategy is not content: a speaker show answers the critical issues with weak responses would get poor marks for content but good marks for strategy.

Scoring Constructive Speeches:

For Style/Content/Strategy/Overall

Exceptional 32/32/16/80

Extremely Good 30-31/30-31/14-15/74-79

Good 28-29/28-29/14/70-73

Satisfactory 27/27/13-14/67-69

Competent 26/26/13/65-66

Poor 25/25/12-13/61-64

Minimal Quality 24/24/12/60

Scoring Reply Speeches:

For Style/Content/Strategy/Overall

Exceptional 16/16/8/40

Extremely Good 15-16/15-16/8/37-39

Good 14-15/14-15/8/35-36

Satisfactory 13/13/7-8-14/33-34

Competent 13/13/7/32-33

Poor 12/12/6-7/31-32

Minimal Quality 12/12/6/30

VLD

I am a lay judge. Speaking quickly is ok, e.g. for the 1AC/1NC if the cards are distributed, but no spreading please. I care more about whether the debaters have a good grasp of the material they have acquired. The debate is intended to challenge debaters to address the complex ethical questions. That will be part of the assessment. Otherwise the rubric I follow will be scoring based upon the classical LD evaluation:

Burden of proof: Which debater proved the resolution more valid. Value Structure: Which debater established clear relationship between argumentation and value structure. Argumentation: Which debater presented better logical arguments with evidence, which debater performed cross well. Resolutionality: Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution. Clash: Which debater showed the better ability in attacking/defending their case. Delivery: Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear and professional manner.

I will time your speeches and prep time along with you. After 5 seconds over the given speech time, I will be obliged to cut you off - so watch the time please!

I'll do my best to be fair and impartial. Respect, courtesy and tolerance are all being observed. Tone, energy and conduct matter, but be passionate!

For speaker scores, I was provided with the following guidelines:

29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker

29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent

28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes

28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)

27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired

27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow

27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate or cost your team the round

26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament

Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (MUST come to tab)

I look forward to watching the debates and may the best debater win.

(she/her pronouns)

I am a flay judge with experience in both parliamentary and pf. I have been debating for around 7 years, but generally prefer truth over tech. I am good with speed, but please do not go extremely fast. You should be clear and cohesive regardless of the tempo which you go at-- it will only impact you negatively if I am unable to flow your arguments and evidence.

Some things that I prioritize in round:

weighing: time frame and scope are my "top two", but weigh as you wish. Just make sure that you clearly articulate how your side wins on impacts.

collapsing: this is super helpful to practice in-round and makes your arguments much clearer. Many times it is better to collapse on one/two arguments rather than trying to tackle every clash. The path to the ballot is much clearer for me if teams spell out the argument(s) which they win on and provide a brief overview of the round in summary/ff if absolutely necessary.

Debate should be fun, and with that please do not get personal in-round! The topics being discussed should remain autonomous from the speakers themselves. If you verbally attack your opponent, I will deduct speaks.

On the same note, debate serves to provide a welcoming space for all. Please do not say/do anything that is even in the slightest bit offensive or derogatory. Again, I will deduct speaks and call this behavior out if I witness it.

I know this sounds pretty long and intimidating, but in all I think that debate should be a fun activity, and I will do anything in my power to make it as enjoyable as possible :)

Heyy! I debate for Hunter in NYC! I'm tech > truth with experience in PF and LD. I'm very flexible and will adapt to your style.

3 easy things you can do to get good speaks + the ballot.

1. Be strategic and be kind -- try to make the round accessible and don't be shady in cross / spew unnecessary remarks/comments about your opponents or the arguments they are making. Good strategy = 30s, making the round a good environment boosts your speaks significantly.
2. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. I can't emphasize this enough but the first place I look to is weighing. It needs to be comparative (i.e. we o/w because of this... the other team doesn't have access to this weighing mech bc xyz). This should start EARLY in the round :). Really compelled by prereqs/shortcircuits and turns case args, just implicate them to the other side :).
3. Befunny!make silly metaphors (i.e. West Asia is on fire and the US is the fire extinguisher, OR The US is playing a game of chess... we're in check and its time to castle!). I'll probably laugh and clown on you but I think they are silly and will boost speaks if they aren't common/cringy!

Args you can read in front of me (1 = very familiar, 5/S = my brain will be imploding and u will have to deal with an incoherent RFD):

1 - Policy (Substance), Framing

2 - DAs, T, Theory (Disclosure, Paraphrasing, Round Reports)

3 - CP, K (i know security, cap, and set col. I've read some Asian Melancholy but anything complicated is more of a 4/5)

4 - Tricks (I'm never voting on these but you can read silly ones to boost speaks)

5 - Friv. Theory, POMO, High Theory, Phil (friv theory, esp stuff abt clothing and unpredictable violations is educational and gets irritating. For POMO and high theory, i am not the right judge and your complicated jargon will turn into a mess of words <3)

No theory defaults -- just read paradigm issues and I'll evaluate the debate.

Hello everyone, I am an experienced High School PF varsity debater. I lean tech, but I will definitely not evaluate blatantly wrong arguments at their full weight/probability. I am comfortable with spreading, but I would prefer if you shared a speech doc (even if you don't plan on spreading, speech docs allow me to create more accurate flows). A few other things:

• Remember to frontline: if you don't respond to a rebuttal in the next speech, it goes clean conceded and it's difficult to recover from that.
• Remember to weigh: at the end of the round you should tell me who's winning by weighing. Also, it's important for your weighing to interact with the opponents --> e.g. if you use 2 weighing mechanisms and they use 2 different ones, do metaweighing to compare the mechanisms.
• Feel free to ask me questions and if you're starting an email chain please include me. My email is calderweiss@hunterschools.orog