(All debate events)

Please speak very slowly and defend your side of the topic.

I don’t like when people spend most of their time reciting cards. Even if you talk like an auctioneer (don't do this!), the speeches are still too short for you to include more than ~2-3 pieces of research without bastardizing something. Invest as much time as possible in original analysis and framing even as you draw upon sources for reasoning and quotations.

Please don't overstate the scope of your arguments. Social science work never "proves" claims as sweeping as the ones you may want to make (even if you cite a randomized controlled trial that used $10m in funding from Bill and Melinda Gates). And neither do Immanuel Kant or xyz opinion columnist "prove" the topic true/false/good/bad.

Instead of proving, try to convince me. I choose whichever side persuades me that they are more thoughtful. To that end, I don’t flow and don't care about “dropped” arguments. Engage with the cruxes of your opponent’s position, but if there are too many claims and/or if some of them are silly, I won't reward you for covering them. I'm not going to pretend that I don't have priors and won't hesitate to give less weight to claims that (subjectively) strike me as ridiculous, irrelevant, or insufficiently justified. It's also your opponent's job to argue why your claims are ridiculous/irrelevant/insufficiently justified, but that doesn't mean I'll give equal default weight to any proposition you raise.

I did LD in high school and understand that cases (and styles) are partly determined in advance. There's only so much you can do to adapt to each judge, so just think of this as advice on the margin. I'll reward you for slowing down, making fewer arguments to spend more time explaining them, and prioritizing thoughtfulness/good faith over trickery.

I'll share results if the tournament lets me and am happy to talk about the round for ~5 minutes if we have time after.

Feel free to ask questions before we start, and I look forward to hearing you debate!

(My email is will.aarons@yale.edu. Add me to the email chain in case I need to look at your sources.)

Traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed or negated through strong, sound, and logical arguments.

Please enunciate clearly. While spreading can be advantageous in your rebuttals, please do not forsake the quality of your arguments for speed, especially during your construct.

I value respect so please be mannerly in your conduct toward judge and fellow opponent.

I have judged at local and national tournaments.

I'm a student at Northwestern, and I debated a bit in high school. I'm familiar most with public forum. I like lay style debating more.

**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: beth.albrecht@aquinas-sta.org

I'm a mix lay/tech judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I enjoy seeing how data is used in an argument. I am a statistics teacher as well so data that is used should come from accurate sources and should be as unbiased as possible.

We'll be sure to follow the clock and the NSDA Regs fully.

During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.

Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!

If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit! :)

i judge debate rounds like the new york times editorial board: i just wish i could vote for everyone!

2015-2019 circuit pf/extemp at theodore roosevelt in des moines, iowa

i go to depaul university now

put me on the chain: finnm.cool02@gmail.com

DEBATER MATH IS BAD MATH

tl;dr anything not discriminatory goes, please comparatively weigh, collapse strategically, and frontline!!!

first to steal some from other paradigms:

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. Sorry not sorry.

the most enjoyable part of debate is when debaters successfully mold a convincing narrative out of ridiculous concepts

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing domestic violence, sexual violence, or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

now, some thoughts of my own:

Ks encouraged, your speaks will reflect that if you run them well...

HOWEVER if you run an identity-based position and neither of you are a member of that community, don't

i'd prefer theory to be run in shell form but i won't penalize you if you're unfamiliar with formal technical structure, just explain why your opponents are being abusive/bad for debate and why that means i should vote for you

if strictly a substance debate, i evaluate the fw debate first and do impact calc under that

good and interesting fw debates will lead to high speaks, but also don’t throw a framework in just because (especially CBA, which is just a waste of time in constructive)

presume 1st speaking team if no offense, absent a presumption arg made in the round

if an argument is not addressed in the next speech, it is a dropped argument (this means yes, you do have to frontline in second rebuttal)

defense is sticky!!! if you drop terminal defense on an argument i won't vote for you on it, even if it never comes up again after first rebuttal

weigh comparatively ideally beginning in rebuttal, if your "weighing" is just yelling your impact and some buzzword like magnitude at each other, nobody's gonna be happy

for me to vote on any offense and frontlined defense that is in final focus, it must also be in summary

be strategic! you don't have to go for everything, and it's never a good idea to do so!

speed-wise I’m good for ~250wpm anything more and I’ll need a speech doc to avoid missing things (but if you feel excluded by your opponents going too fast, implicate that as in-round abuse for a path to the ballot)

evidence should have author last name and date

extensions have warrant and impact, actually explain the argument and why it matters rather than just “extend Whalen 14 moving on”

speaks are 27 and above unless you’re big heinous

plz plz plz ask me any questions you have before/after the round, this is an educational activity

ill disclose speaks if you ask me

auto-30s if you:

-win on anthro or baudrillard (this doesn’t mean I’ll hack, you have to actually win the arg)

-take no prep time & win

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

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

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

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

I want to see the best round that you’ve gotat your ability level.

Novice Teams:

• Don’t stress! I love to see young debaters trying their best.
• Stick to the basics- Present your case well. Flow effectively. Try to address all your opponents’ points. Practice speaking with enthusiasm and confidence.
• CLASH! Listen to what your opponents are saying. Adjust your arguments so you’re talking specificallyabout the way your opponent presented their case. The more you can respond to what was said in this specific round as opposed to parroting general counter-arguments you’ve prepared, the better a debater you will be!
• Only spread if you really can do it.
• Use each round to practice skills you’ve been working on recently. Especially if you’ve gotten consistent feedback from judges or coaches, use this round to apply that feedback and see if you can perform better than the last round.
• Be respectful.
• Have fun.

Varsity/Experienced Teams:

• Show me what you got.
• Pick your strat based on the team you’re up against.
• When picking which case you run: I have no preference between truthful verses creative.
• If you’ve got a crazy case to run that will crush the meta, do it! Just make sure you have enough evidence and are familiar enough with your argument that you can pivot deftly to tough questions in cross or intense scrutiny as you collapse.
• If it’s a topic that simply insists on the meta, use it. I don’t care if we’ve seen the arguments a million times during a tournament if they’re effective. Argue it well and, if you’re bored, do it with flare.
• If you can spread and that will make the debate better, do it. If spreading makes you unintelligible, don’t. Emphasis
• While I like to see an attempt to line-by-line every point that’s brought up in case, as the round continues, I prefer meaningful clash on issues that grow relevant in the round OVER an unending fight on the veracity of each and every sub-point.
• Therefore: collapse. (If your opponent leaves things in your speeches untouched, go ahead and extend them. In this case, I still think it’s nice if you highlight a key issue that emerges in the round for me to vote on. But I if you get to keep all your offense, go for a blowout.)
• I love sign-posting. Be clear about your story of the round. It saves me thinking time if you spell out for me who you think has solvency, uniqueness, more standing arguments, etc. But also explainwhy.
• K and Theory only if it’s super awesome. I hold a higher standard for K then regular adjudication.
• No disclosure theory. That’s my only hard pass.
• In general, I will try to judge the round on the terms YOU set.
• Finally, I learn from every round. I reiterate, show me what you got. YOU teach US how awesome and varied debate can be.

email: julienbenchek@uchicago.edu

ask a fun question before round and i'll know you read my paradigm :)

---

I like smart people and arguments. Be smart

I debated pf for four years. graduated 2023

notably, I do a college debate format now called APDA - there's no evidence in APDA, its just logic - this may affect my judging style

--- important general stuff --- read this section

do not attempt to spread. other speed is fine

I don't care about rhetoric... please

good logic will beat a random piece of evidence unless its a fact claim

Be more analytical than you think. This means explain every step in the chain of every argument you make and weigh it well.

depending on my mood, I will either:

- weight arguments that are analytically sound over those that are not

or maybe

- completely disregard arguments that are missing any single step in the link chain

* i'm not a truth person. basically, I won't intervene to ADD anything to either team. if an argument is conceded, I won't ADD defense to it even if its wrong in the real world. BUT this means I also won't ADD warranting, impacting, weighing, etc... If your argument is conceded but you don't explain why it matters, i'm not gonna look at it (i probably won't be insanely strict about this but i might so just do it)

** I don't think you can be TOO analytical but don't be repetitive or annoying. the whole point is for your arguments to be smart and solid, not to check boxes

--- unimportant specific stuff

scope weighing is the only weighing that doesn't need a lot of explanation. if you say timeframe or reversibility or especially probability, you need to take actual time to explain it (i probably will be strict about this - if you just say we outweigh on probability i'm fr not gonna write it down). I also don't believe in strength of link weighing... this is literally just how judges evaluate rounds you don't need to say it explicitly

all progressive stuff is fine except performances cause that's not debate now is it... notes:

- i will prob intervene here more than in normal debates. prob won't be super techy about dropping blips and so on

- logical debate only - you can read ev if its in the arg already but i'm not gonna give it preference

- if your opponents are actually inexperienced in this, I will be receptive to a "this isn't fair, I don't understand" claim if done well

- all the analytical stuff from above applies extra here. make smart arguments

- i have no biases. feel free to make any argument even if you think some judges would think its politically incorrect. just don't be blatantly anything-ist or attack your opponents personally. you can be mean to their arguments just not them (i.e you can say "this argument is stupid")

- notably, i know pfers feel cool when they say "a is the interpretation..." but i'd prefer if you read theory formatted just like any other case argument

- none of this affects my decision but i only actually believe paraphrasing theory; evidence standards exist? if you read something else that's normal i'll evaluate, if you read something else that's mad weird you may have to actually convince me

sticky defense is not a thing

you gotta frontline in second rebuttal

no new stuff in final focus. preferably no new weighing in first final focus. definitely none in second; if first final has new weighing point it out and i will evaluate the old weighing first, BUT you are also allowed to weigh your old weighing against their new weighing a little if you want to (i.e. "this weighing is new but here's why our summary weighing beats it anyway")

speaks are based off of how smart and strategic you are in the round. if you win easily but your arguments are all under-warranted and silly, you will get something mid

might intervene really hard on bad evidence, might not

i have no like "ethical" or "moral" interest in pf debate

dont pretend to be professional. if you act angry/serious in cross or if you refer to me as "judge", this will be annoying to me. chill out, im 19

oh yeah send me any evidence but don't send me a speech doc, i'm not flowing off of that. that's weird

---

ask me any questions about anything at all

I have been judging for a few years now, and I have met some wonderful competitors. I will always be as fair and unbiased as possible. I ask that you speak at a normal rate rather than spreading. I intend to judge based on the flow, with a particular emphasis on the impacts.

I don't like speed reading. I like attacking and delinking arguments.

I have been judging for 2 years and I enjoy the events. Here are key points that i look for that make a great PF debate.

1. Pace of delivery is important. If I'm unable to understand what is being said, it makes it hard for me to judge the point.
2. Evidence is more powerful when it comes for a reputable source.
3. Off time roadmaps shouldn't be necessary. If organization of the argument exists, I will be able to clearly follow your argument.
4. Please be respectful during cross-fires.
5. A convincing final focus that summarizes why your argument won by clearly summarizing how you countered your opponents argument will be the deciding factor in many debates. Convince me you should win, without telling me I "should" vote for you.
6. Have fun and enjoy the competition.

They/Them. You can refer to me as Bailey or Baikey.

NCFL specific: Speak loud and clear!!!!!! If you know you will want to see evidence set up an email chain before the debate starts. Also actually use it and be nice! Also clash evidence with each other!!!!

I debated at Lansing High school for four years. I am at my second semester debating for KCKCC. In high school I only did lay debate, but in college I do IPDA, Parli, and LD (all still pretty chill formats).

Speed: I am very new to speed as I had never really done it in high school. I can keep up for the most part but I will clear you if needed. Do not go super sonic though, I apologize for my lack of experience in this aspect. I really value my flow so being able to know what's happening in the debate for me is awesome. I also do expect y'all to be sign posting, I see no reason with y'all having cards to not be sign posting. It also just makes your speech sound cleaner for me.

Ks: I am very new to Ks unfortunately but I really love them! When running them I do think that the framework debate is rather important. Feel free to run them though! For K affs I do not mind them but I'm not a big fan unless there is a good reason. On top of that I feel like the framework is super important and would like that to be touched upon. If you are running a new K in front of me just be able to explain it well. You should be able to tell if I am confused.

T: make it make sense, I think going for T is a a good strat. I like it though

CP: Run them if you like!

Das: Run them, I like them lot. I think they are really important for impact weighing

#1 thing is don't be mean . I will comment on it and it will change my view on you if you are being for real evil.

Run whatever you like at the end of the day and try your best!

bailey.debate18@gmail.com

catherinechaffee@yahoo.com

Background:

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

Speech:

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

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

Public Forum:

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

Lansing '22

KU '26

please add me on the email chain: ryan.f.corrigan@gmail.com

pronouns: he/him

good judge for = policy v. policy, policy v. k

ok judge for = k-aff v. t-usfg, k-aff v. k

(I’ll do what I can to follow along but I just have the least experience with k-aff rounds so my comments and understanding of the round will not be as good as other judges. This isn’t to say to not read k-affs in front of me, but I may need a little more explanation than some judges.)

Debate the arguments that you want to debate. The best rounds come from both sides understanding their content and doing what they enjoy/have spent the most time prepping out.

I am pretty well versed on the lit people have been reading this year, but it is probably good to make sure it is clear and understandable for everyone in the round.

When I debated I did DCI and primarily ran policy affs, politics DAs, and more traditional Ks (cap, set col, anthro) if you care, but don't let that dissuade you from running what you want. As a coach/judge I am learning more about different types of arguments than what I typically ran, so you do not have to worry too much about judge adaptation as I will do what I can to follow along. If you have any specific questions though feel free to clarify before the round, but I will likely tell you to read what you are comfortable with.

Maybe this is a hot take, but I do think that not sending your pre-written analytics is kind of silly. I get the strategic advantage, but if you are scared of the other team having your analytics on a doc then they probably are not good and you are trying to capitalize off of them dropping it rather than just winning it upfront. I see it similarly to the Wiki in the sense that disclosing what you read is important to make it accessible for good debates.

Overall, you do you and I will try my best to keep up.

tech > truth, but truth influences the burden of proving an argument as false

depth > breadth

in depth off case > more silly off case arguments

specific links > vague links

speed is good just make sure it is clear and understandable

Impact calc and judge instruction are super important. Make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments the way you want me to rather than assuming I am perfectly understanding your argument and evaluating it like you are in your head.

Overall, be a good person and keep the space inclusive for everyone.

..and yes, I am Jack Corrigan's older brother

I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Hi! I am Ryan, I am a college student and coach my alma mater's S+D team. I did Speech in HS for 3 years and had success on the local level (qualled for States/NCFLS).

I highly prefer email chains, just send here- rynocu24@gmail.com.

TLDR; I can judge trad/prog rounds, but don't be too pushy with prog. I am fine with speed, but don't do so without checking w opponents. Tech over truth, but don't abuse that to the highest limits!

DISCLAIMER- I am hard of hearing, so I will need you to speak loud and clear. This is just to let you know in advance if you wonder why I ask you to repeat something. I am fine with speed, just PLEASE send me your case in advance. Also, if I cannot hear/understand you, I will say a verbal/nonverbal clear (either comes down as to what you prefer).

Accommodation Note: PLEASE disclose to your opponents about anything, whether you are more of a prog/trad debater, if you spread, etc. It makes things easier, especially if you go against someone who has a disability. Debate is an educational activity, and should be accessible for everyone :)

For all events- Make me laugh!!! I love it when students crack jokes during speeches, even for debate.

• I notice that some students feel a bit limited in their creative aspects-- go wild. I love seeing students going beyond the limits of speech and debate.
• Feel free to ask me stuff about continuing speech and debate outside of HS!! I've been involved in nonprofit work regarding this activity, in addition to judging, assisting with research, etc. I would rather assist you than to remain silent and not say anything about resources/materials!

PF and LD:

Consider me as a prog/lay judge. I love hearing debates that are more of so on the tech/prog side but note that I started coaching/learning debate, in general, less than 2 years ago. I still love traditional debate just as much, also because it's the most familiar I am with when I was on the team and now. However, I am fine with whatever you run (obviously not something that's just blatantly wrong or ignorant, as well as tricks).

I am fine with speed (as mentioned before), but let your opponents know before round. It makes me frown like this :( when varsity debaters spread/run progressive args without checking in with those beforehand or novices

Tech > Truth, but please for the love of god, don't abuse that. There are limits I will look at where there's absurd arguments (similar to what I said before about tricks)

Weigh weigh weigh. It helps me to see your arguments and to know WHY I should be voting for you.

Let me know where you are at during the round via signposting!!! This way I know where you are, and I don't have to worry about that. I want to at least hear your tags so I'm not lost where I am at.

Be concise with your refutations. I want you to focus on the points that you know your opponent will likely carry over/collapse towards the end of the round. I do not want to hear you say the same thing when your opponents contentions/turns/anything go unheard and now you’ve left it for them to bring those up

Same thing with off time roadmaps, that'll help me a lot, but don't go on and on, just summarize.

I do flow most of the debate, including cross-ex, just keep that in mind. I've been flowing either on computer or paper, which I’ve had a love/hate relationship with both.

Congress:

I have realized that my preference for Congressional Debate may be different than others, so I wanted to list down some stuff I like to see in a chamber/round:

• Be clear and precise in your speech. Quality will outweigh quantity in my eyes. Even if you have 1-2 points in your speech, you have enough time to state your data, analysis, and more within each of them.
• Parliamentary procedure is key! I want to know that your performance is on point not just through your speeches, but your delivery of motions before/during/after.
• I have seen more walking in speeches the last year or so. I like it, but don't be too excessive.
• Clash clash clash.

Presiding Officer- I commend students who have taken on this role. It is not an easy feat, and can be screwed over during rounds. I will always start my PO within the Top 3-4 rankings of the chamber.

• However, you are going to have to be consistent with your recency/overall charts. Take control of the round and stand your ground if needed.
• If you are doing an online tournament, I would highly recommend using index cards when giving time signals. There are references you can find on YouTube where previous PO's at nat circuit tournaments have used them.

Speech:

There's really nothing I have specific in terms of preferences for Speech, since it is typically obvious with the rules under each event.

• But, I will say that I am not a huge fan of excessive walking (as said before with Congress). I did Oratory, so I have seen and judged numerous speeches where this happens.
• In interp events, I really like technical use of the room/binder/piece. It can be hard sometimes, but note that this is a strong factor I take into account when judging.

If there are any specific questions you have before or after a round, just lmk. Any form of discrimination during rounds will result in an automatic drop. Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable space where you are able to delve into the world of argumentation and research.

I appreciate clean and respectful debates. Please try not to speak too fast, I am trying to evaluate your statements and arguments and remember I do not know your topic as well as you do. During cross and definitely grand cross do not excessively and purposefully waste time by stating the same thing over and over, asking the same basic question over and over, or by providing excessive details and examples simply to run out the clock. It is very obvious when teams do this. I am trying to evaluate who knows the topic the best, who conveys their point the best and who makes the best good faith criticisms of the other team's point of view. Wasting time is not valuable to the debate. I do not like when teams get too aggressive. I understand needing to be firm and direct but make sure you seem composed and in control.

I am a teacher and lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. I appreciate good signposting, clear comparative weighing and minimal jargon. I'm looking forward to an exciting weekend of debate.

I am a speech AND debate coach for Milton Academy. I am an experienced PF judge who values the key principles of PF. I have been judging PF since 2011, and I debated in 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, don't just state a weighing mechanism and assume that puts it on the flow, do not give me a super lengthy off time road map, that sort of thing. Add me on email chains: lindsay_donovan@milton.edu

I vote primarily on comprehensive analysis, on well-supported AND well-reasoned, "real-world" links, which are the logic building blocks to your impact (no matter how large or larger in scope they may be than your opponents). I do not like source wars, or taking long periods of time to call for evidence or look at evidence, especially out of prep time. If your only strategy is to call into question the validity of evidence, you will most likely not earn my vote. I will primarily vote on the flow, but I think persuasion is the crux of debate and can make flow better... and can stick out more to me than just an extended tag on the flow.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them"

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Theory/K/what have you: If Theory or K is fair, understandable, and well reasoned I can follow it. But in general I find most theory debates unfair in nature, most people just use it as a tactic to win and have no heart in it for the sake of smart argumentation. Notably I will not vote for Disclosure theory. It is a norm, not a rule :)

Pet Peeves:

• Tech > Truth (If you are saying something blatantly not true or distorting/mis-paraphrasing your opponent's evidence I will mark you down).
• Nuclear war impacts, unclear warranting or no warranting only evidence.
• Overly aggressive/rude tactics. Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. I tend to vote for more calm, collected, and cordial teams.
• "Collapsing" feels like a fancy way to say dropping all your points.... I don't like it. Why bring up points in the first place so easily to discard? Run a 1 contention case then... Never concede anything!
• Also - I hate Solvency (it is a Policy concept, and PF does not have the burden of proving/disproving solvency as a voting issue unless the resolution SPECIFICALLY calls for it.) This means, do not ask how they "solve for" whatever point or that I should downvote teams who cannot completely solve issues.

Spreading and Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread I do not flow. I do not believe that PFers should spread AT ALL, even for a “flow” judge. If you cannot speak well and argue well, then you are not competing in this event at your best ability.

Don't be malicious please! It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwards. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue (or if you ask me to! Always ask your judge to stop a round if you feel unsafe).

Preface

Speech and Debate are educational activities. My goal as a judge is to pick the debater(s) who best argues their case or the speaker(s) who best meet the criteria of a given event. But I also am seeking a round that is educational. Abusive arguments and rhetoric have no place in debate. Treat each other with kindness. We are all here to learn and expand our knowledge and experience. Racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments should not be made. Everyone is welcome in the debate community, do not marginalize and silence folks with your argumentation.

Also, since speech and debate are educational activities, feel free to ask me questions after the round. I'm here to help educate as well. As long as we have time before the next round has to start (and I've got enough time to submit my ballot before Zach Prax comes looking for me), then I'm always happy to answer questions.

Background

Director of Debate at Wayzata High School (MN) since Sept. 2020, I've been coaching and judging locally and nationally since 2013. I also coach speech at Wayzata and at the University of Minnesota.

I am a licensed, practicing attorney. I work as a criminal prosecutor for a local county in Minnesota and I have a MA in Strategic Intelligence and Analysis with a concentration in International Relations and Diplomacy.

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.Please, please, please make your voters clear.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. I like a solid framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not who said it.

-Off-time roadmaps are often a waste of time. If all you are doing is telling me that the Neg Rebuttal is "our case their case" then you don't need to tell me that. If you are going to go FW, then some cross-application, then your case, then their case, then back to FW, then that is something you should tell me. More importantly SIGN POST, SIGN POST, SIGN POST.

-SPEED. This is Public Forum, not Policy. If you spread, you're probably going to lose. I flow on my computer so that I can get as much on my flow as possible, but if you're too fast and unclear, it's not on my flow. If it's not on my flow, it's not evaluated in the round.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Shouting over each other on CX. Keep it civil. Don't monopolize the time.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. If you aren't participating, then I assume it's because you do not have anything more to add to the debate and/or that you aren't actively involved in the debate and I likely will adjust speaks accordingly.

-K cases. I do not like them in public forum, especially if they are not topical. However, a K that is topical and actually engages with the topic and is generally within the topic meta is something I *may* vote off of. But it must be topical, otherwise I will not vote off the argument.

-Loud, annoying, alarms at the end of speeches. Especially the rooster crow. Please no rooster crow.

-Speaking of timers, if you're going to critique your opponents for going over time, you should probably make sure that you aren't going over time yourself. Also, you don't need to turn your timer to show me that your opponent is over time. I'm aware of their time, it just comes across as rude.

General

-I'm generally a flow judge, but I don't always flow card authors/names. My focus on the flow is getting what the evidence claims and what the warrant is, rather than who the source was. Referring back to your "Smith" card isn't enough, but giving a quick paraphrasing of the previously cited card, along with the author/source is much more beneficial and effective. Similarly, "Harvard" is a collegiate institution, not an author. Harvard doesn't write anything. Harvard doesn't publish anything. They may have a publishing company or a magazine that publishes, but Harvard does not, and last time I checked, John Harvard has been dead since 1638, so I doubt he has anything pertinent to support your argumentation.

-I'm an expressive person. I'll make a face if I believe you misstated something. I'll nod if I think you're making a good point. I'll shake my head if I think you're making a poor point. This doesn't mean that I'm voting for you or against you. It just means I liked or didn't like that particular statement.

-I like CX, so I tend to allow you to go over time a bit on CX, particularly if team A asks team B a question right before time in order to prevent them from answering. I'll let them answer the question.

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than complain later!

Lincoln Douglas

I'm a PF coach, however I judge LD frequently and I often assist LD students throughout the season.

- I find that it is best to treat me as a "flay" judge... I will flow, but I'm lay. I am very familiar with most of the traditional value/criterion/standards. If you have some new LD tech that is popular on the circuit or something, then I'm probably not the judge for you to run that, unless you are going to fully explain it out because I probably don't know it.

- Speed kills. I do not want to have to strain myself trying to flow your speech. I do not want you to email me your case in order for me to be able to follow it. As noted above in the PF section, if I do not get it on my flow, it probably does not end up impacting the round. I am not afraid to say speed or clear, but by the time I realize I have to say it, it's probably too late for you.

- K debate. I really have no interest in judging a K.

Congress

- I really want some speech variety from y'all. Often, when I'm judging a congress round, I'm serving as a parliamentarian so I'm with you for several sessions. As a result, I should be able to get to see you do a variety of different speeches. I actually have a spreadsheet I use to track everyone's speeches throughout the round, what number speech they gave on each bill, which side they argue for, how often they speak, etc. After the round is over and I'm preparing my ballot, I will consult that to see whether you gave a variety of speech types. Were you consistently in the first group of speakers? Did you give mid-round speeches where you bring clash and direct refutation? Did you mainly give crystallization speeches? Or, did you do a mix of it all? You should be striving to be in the last category. Congress is not about proving you can give the best prepared speech or that you can crystallize every bill. It's about showing how well-rounded you are.

- Speaking of prepared speeches. My opinion is that you should only come in with a fully prepared speech if you are planning to give the authorship/sponsorship or the very first negative speech. After that, your speeches should be no more than 50% canned and the rest should be extemporaneous. This is a debate event. It is not a speech event. Prepared speeches in the mid and late stages of debate are a disservice to yourself and your fellow congresspersons.

- PREP. I have judged a lot of congress over the years. I've judged prelims, elims, and finals at NSDA, NCFL, and the TOC. I am frankly COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY TIRED of y'all having to take a 10+ minute break in between every piece of legislation to either A) prep speeches; B) establish perfect balance between aff and neg; or, C) do research on the bill. A and C really frustrate me. I know y'all are busy. I know that sometimes legislation comes out only a few days before the tournament. And I know that sometimes there are a lot of pieces of legislation to research. But y'all should be spending time to prepare your arguments and have research so that all you're doing mid-round is finding evidence to refute or extend something that happened in the round. And the way tournaments are structured these days, it is rare for a round to have so many people in the chamber that not everyone can speak on a bill.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com. Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science.

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

Ks

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Please speak clearly. If I cannot keep up, I cannot give you credit.

I'm a newer judge for debate, however, I'm familiar with the structure and some jargon. I'm fine with speed as long as you enunciate and your opponent and I are can understand you. As a competitor, it's your burden to prove why I should vote for you as well as why you're more correct. That being said, explain fully what you're talking about (don't assume that I know what you're talking about). I prefer that opponents fully extend arguments and impacts because that is what I'll be voting on at the end of the day. Overall, be polite (such as not being rude during questioning or disruptive during speeches) and explain uniquely why you should win.

I’m a parent judge since 2020, with no debating experience of my own. I'm looking forward to seeing you debate.

The clarity of your arguments will be the most important thing. Make sure that I can understand the structure you're following. The terms of art that you use in discussing debate among yourselves are probably less familiar to me, so plain language at a reasonable speed is best. I’m not likely to vote on something that doesn’t make any sense to me.

Impacts are what matter, and not the amount of arguments. Make sure everything you want me to vote for is extended, and important moments in crossfire are explained in speeches.

I will try to keep track of time including prep, but please make sure to do so as well.

Please keep in mind that in a virtual debate, true crosstalk in a crossfire usually means that I can't hear either speaker, so do your best to allow your opponent to finish before responding.

Have fun, try to come out of the round smiling.

I am a technical judge over traditional. However, be persuasive. Do not assume I know what you know. Make definition, provide a framework, and no jargons pls.

Evidence needs to be clearly reliable. Clear impact are important. Overall, I am looking for logical reasoning with a cohesive flow. Organize and internalize your speech. Do not repeat exactly what was mentioned. That will not earn you extra points. Build upon your contentions, and forge strength on your arguments.

Debate is a team sport. So work and win together as a team!

Summary and Final Focus: Don't list everything. Intensify your defense, summarize your arguments, and finally, weighing is a must but make it clear!

I really dislike speaking more than your allocated time. No spreading pls.

Be respectful of one another.

If it is virtual, your cameras need to be on at all time unless otherwise instructed.

Best of luck!

I require speech docs sent for all cards. Please include me on the email chain:
edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

I am a lay judge, but I have been teaching for 14 years and have extensive background in argumentation. I would prefer you not speed or spread. Please email me at nfuchs@ladueschools.net.

Communication:

Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity; therefore, communication should be your most important consideration in the round. I expect debaters to speak at a conversational rate or a bit faster – I do not appreciate nor do I follow spreading. If you are speaking faster than you are able to clearly communicate, then you need to slow down. I will not interrupt you during a round but will stop flowing if I cannot flow or understand what you are saying. Reading piles of evidence without having analysis is not good communication. I do not believe students need a card for every single idea presented in a round – I expect students to think and bring their own ideas into the round. You should thoroughly understand all arguments you make in a round. Speaking and the ability to knowledgeably communicate arguments in the round are key to winning my ballot.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is about current(ish) events so I expect arguments to take place in the context of the current world order. I do not want to see a 45-minute debate about evidence – arguments should focus on the big picture ideas in the round. I expect there to be balance in crossfire, which requires a give and take on the part of all competitors. I do not want Public Forum to be Policy Debate, so the ability to give a line-by-line argument is less important to me than being able to effectively summarize key ideas in the round and weigh the two sides.

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

Greetings, debaters. I'm a parent in my second year of judging debate. It would be helpful if you would:

1. Please ask, "Ready, judge?" before you launch into each speech. (I will be keeping time, too.) Even better would be something like, "Ready, judge, for my four-minute speech (three-minute crossfire)?"

2. Sign post your arguments. "Moving to my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

3. Speak a little slower. Don't spread.

4. Avoid running theory during your arguments.

FInally, please be a good sport and have fun.

I am a new judge committed to evaluatingthe arguments presented by both teams based on their clarity, logic, and evidence without bias.My aim is to provide a fair and educational experience for all. Please speak slowly and track your time. I look forward to hearing your arguments!

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) try and set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 3rd year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu ( if wanna join lmk! )

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine, weigh warrant, signpost, try not to be blippy.

How I evaluate rounds:

1st: Go through all pieces of offense extended into summary then final, then determine whether every piece of the argument is extended properly. If offense is not extended properly, I have a pretty low threshold for evaluating it.

2nd: Then I look for defense on each piece of offense. I only really evaluate defense if it's terminal, otherwise it better be weighed really well for me to properly evaluate it. If there is no weighing done on a piece of offense, then I default to the path of least resistance. However, if weighing is done I look to the argument that is weighed comparatively and smart (some smart ones include prereqs, link-ins, and short circuits). At this point, I will also look at framing and see if it applies to the round.

Overall Specifics:

• Speed: I am fine with speed, if you are CLEAR. However, I find speed unnecessary; good debaters can win arguments and frontline properly without the need to speak fast. Plus, for the most part, at least, the faster you speak, the blipper your arguments get. I will clear you if you are not being clear, but that has never been an issue in a PF round ive judged.

• Weighing: Weighing is one of the first thing I evaluate on any flow. However, if the weighing is not comparative and warranted correctly, it will just seem like an extension of your argument. If you are going to weigh, please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing responses in rebuttal it makes my job easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

• Progressive: I have came to the conclusion that if you are at a varsity national tournament, you should be prepared to debate some type of progressive argumentation. Now, this doesnt mean run theory or a K on some novices. Specifics: K's better have a good alt that you can explain well (or it's just a DA and will be evaluated as such) + framing that is well explained in the round or don't expect me to vote on it. I would say my understanding of K's mainly comes from NFA-LD, which is more similar to HS policy and I don't know what norms exist in PF for such arguments. I have read some Cap, Set-Col, Virilio, Rhetoric K's, Security, and psycho. I wouldnt claim to be an expert on any of these tho. Theroy is okay as long as there is an actual proven violation in the round. I rather not judge some bs theory debate that probably doesn't accomplish any real norm setting. T is fun but never read :(

• Extensions: Many teams think that if they frontline case, that just counts as an extension; I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made, and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions. Good extensions extend warrants and internal links.

• Collapsing: Collapsing arguments early makes your narrative so much cleaner, and also, I don't have to spam extensions and card names all over my flow.

• Evidence: I will not read evidence unless explicitly told to. I aim to minimize judge intervention via evidence

• post round me, idc.
• Presumption: I default first speaking team.

Things I do not like:

• Overviews: I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments, but I will have a super low threshold for responses, and your speech will likely reflect this.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Things I like:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfjeGfX_5I&ab_channel=Tay-K
• house music.

Message me on FB here for questions or ask me before the round!

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

ALWAYS check if the judge is ready.

Above all- maintain decorum. Assertiveness is perfectly fine and even encouraged. But unprofessional behavior will only get you an easy L.

Public Forum:

Self-described as hybrid trad-tech judge, slightly trad-leaning.

If you try to run a theory case, it better be reasonable. Don't make false accusations for the sake of confusing your opponents or catching them off guard.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll give you some grace, but I will also cut you off if you go too far over. When in doubt, play it safe.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary. It's a fine line, pick your battles accordingly. Don't pick every battle.

Don't let things go- if claims or frameworks go unrefuted, they drop to the bottom of the flow.

If something is argued prior to grand cross, it can be brought back up in final focus. In other words: if you bring it in, then you make it fair game to be attacked or responded to.

Student Congress:

I value an efficient PO. If you keep the chamber productive and run it fairly, I will likely rank you.

Unless you are the author/sponsor, you should be clashing. Late round speakers should not just rehash previously presented arguments.

Please behave like actual senators/congressmen and congresswomen; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as jeremy lee's

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory

I was a PF Debater for 4 years in high school but that was 6 years ago and I have only judged on and off over the course of that time period. With that said, I can handle as much speed as you can be able to personally handle, however after reading some other paradigms, I must say I am outdated on some of the lingo and may not be as knowledgeable on "common debate terms" anymore. I do not believe K's should be used in PF debate.

I leave all personal beliefs and knowledge on a subject at the door, I will not use any information I personally know to enhance either sides arguments, it is on the competitors to properly present their arguments and explain to me why that matters. I will also accept every argument made at face value, regardless of how outlandish (ie: claiming the sky is red), unless your opponent rebuts the fact. As a debater, it is your job to refute your opponent's points, regardless of what they are, and I do not believe the judge should do any work for either side.

#1 Pet Peeve: If you claim something it better TRULY be common knowledge (ie: the sky is indeed not red) or have a card to back up your statement. I will not personally call any cards, but if your opponent calls a card and you do not have the evidence to back up your statements it will be heavily weighed against you.

I am a parent judge. This is my third year of judging local and national tournaments.

I base my decision off of my flow. Please be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude. No spreading, speak slow so I can understand you. Finally, have fun!

Aaron T. Hill, Sr. (he, him, his)

Director of Belonging and Interim Head of Middle School

The Lovett School, Atlanta GA

The aggregate experiences of my military career, subsequent undergraduate and graduate studies, Independent school administration, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging practices, and community service have influenced my career in teaching and informed my teaching philosophy. As a teacher, I believe in teaching the whole child ― academic, emotional, physical, and social (AEPS). At every opportunity, I strive to create an active, exciting learning community for all participants, including myself. As an executive administrator, my greatest source of pride comes from providing safe and healthy learning environments that empower teachers and students to think about, explore, and discover successful outcomes and navigate problems to effective conclusions. Through my various administrative positions, I became a learner and leader in a new and exciting realm. I consistently establish and maintain effective and cooperative professional business relationships with all levels of management, employees, and outside clients. My focus remains fixed on the whole child concept, having watched and learned from my students, parents, and teachers that neither (academic, emotional, physical, social) are mutually exclusive from the other.

My primary goal is to ensure a fair and educational round. My judging philosophy centers around clarity, respect for the rules, and the merit of arguments presented. I have been a educator and coach of speech and debate for 26 years.

• Flowing: I am a flow judge. I will be taking detailed notes throughout the debate, capturing the progression and development of arguments. It is crucial for debaters to signpost and clearly extend their arguments throughout the round. Dropped arguments are critical, and I will weigh them heavily.

• Debate Formats: I am knowledgeable with all debate formats, including Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. Although each debate is very different I stand firm in the fundamentals of clear argumentation and strategic engagement.

• Clash and Rebuttals: Effective clash is essential. Debaters should directly engage with their opponent’s arguments rather than speaking past them. Strong rebuttals that refute the core of the opponent's case will be rewarded.
• Evidence and Logic: The quality of evidence and logical consistency of arguments are critical. I appreciate well-warranted arguments backed by credible evidence. Debaters should clearly explain how their evidence supports their claims.

• Respect and Decorum: Professionalism and respect for opponents and the judge are paramount. Rude or dismissive behavior will negatively impact speaker points and overall impressions.
• Clarity: Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Speed reading (spreading) is acceptable if done clearly, If I can't understand you, I can't flow you, but I can keep a very fast pace.

• Avoidance of Abusive Strategies: I do not appreciate abusive practices such as intentionally misconstruing an opponent's argument, running blatantly unfair positions, or engaging in tactics that undermine the spirit of fair competition. Such practices will result in lower speaker points and could impact my overall decision.

• Weighing Mechanism: I will use the weighing mechanisms provided by the debaters. If none are provided, I will default to my own criteria, which prioritize the impact, probability, and timeframe of arguments. I will look at my flow for dropped arguments and clash.
• Voters: Clearly articulate why I should vote for you in the final rebuttals. Highlight the key voting issues and explain their significance within the context of the round. I value solid technique and strategic argumentation over debate "tricks." Debaters who focus on the strength and coherence of their arguments will fare better in my evaluation.

As far as judging in PF, Congress and Lincoln Douglas goes, I do not have a lot of requests. Just the few that follow.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I am not a fan of spreading, and in my books it has the potential to harm your score/rank. I also want to be able to understand your case, so speaking in a manner that is easy to follow is key.

I do not like disrespectful and overly aggressive competitors. I prefer a team who can convey their message in a respectful way, without talking over and being rude to the other team.

During the round, I weigh both arguments and style. I like to see a balance of both and will weigh them accordingly. As well as this, to win the round, I would like to see the arguments extended into the rebuttal and summary speeches. Lastly, I prefer arguments over statistics. Of course you need some stats to have a good argument, but I do not like the back and forth of stats. You can argue those all day, but in the end it comes down to which team conveyed their arguments better verbally not statistically.

Lastly, some thoughts on my preference on overall style. I enjoy listening to those who have a true passion for the event. I like arguments and cases that are well thought out, and have a new perspective that I have not seen yet. I also like to see good solid questions in cross x. Cross x can make or break a round for me. Anyone can read a speech, but to be able to ask well thought out questions and answer them in a quality way, really shows me you are well versed on the topic.

For the other speaking events, I enjoy people who show passion for their event. Someone who can grab my attention from the start and keep me there the entire time will score highly.

ejg4284@msn.com

All competitors should adhere to good sportsmanship and uphold respectful mannerisms.

Some examples of good sportsmanship & mannerisms are, but not limited to...

1. Refraining from discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and profane language during the competition
2. Listening to each others' arguments thoroughly and attentively
3. Not interrupting the opponents' arguments

I am fairly new to debate so I am still learning some of the fundamentals of debate. I prefer debates that are reasonably slower pace with a bent towards flow policymaking.

Background

I am a speech and debate coach at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing speech and debate in some capacity for 11 years. I am versed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum mostly, but can keep up in a policy round.

Lincoln-Douglas

You must win the value-value criterion debate in order to win the round. I am a stickler for time management, so make sure you divide your time wisely in each speech to attack each argument with an emphasis on weighing values and value-criterion. I would like Key Voter Issues from both Aff and Neg in their last speeches. I will vote against spreading in an LD round due to auditory processing issues.

Public Forum

I prefer the 1st rebuttal to be fully spent attacking your opponents' case instead of using it to circle back around and re-build. It makes it less confusing. I like clear, offensive voting issues in the final focus.

Policy

I can follow a quick policy round, but warn me beforehand. I prefer analytics over cards and/or explaining why one card is better than another with logic or analytics. No "Refer to author B to cross apply to author C and D." I won't follow that because I don't have a photographic memory for evidence. If you're spreading, make sure to say your taglines very clearly or slow down so I can catch them. Provide a clear roadmap before and during each speech. If you do not tell me where to flow something, I will absolutely NOT flow it or vote on it. I prefer a full document for each speech with each argument typed out. I know that's annoying, but it ensures that I can follow your arguments even if they're fast or confusing because I have trouble with auditory processing. I like out of the box arguments if you have constructed them fully. I'd rather listen to something crazy and mentally engaging than the same old thing. I understand 90% of policy terms, but it is more convincing to me if you can explain them in your own words and explain how they play into the debate. It helps your ethos if I know you know what you're talking about.

Lay judge. Please make your contentions extremely clear and do not spread.

I care about well-analyzed arguments, empirical evidence, and relevant impacts. I do not like seeing theory in rounds- please debate the resolution given.

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Hi! I am currently a student at the University of Michigan and I was a speech and debate competitor during my time in high school (2018-2022). I competed in Public Forum for 2.5 years on the local and national circuit.

For any style of debate:

- Please add me to the email chain: nikki.kardamarok@gmail.com

- Tech > Truth but please do not spread

- Signposting is so important - if I don't know where to flow something, there's a chance I won't evaluate the response

- Second Rebuttal should frontline turns and extend defense - I think second summary is way too late to read new frontlines

- Weighing is very very important

- Please do not read Ks or Shells because I do not know how to evaluate them

Hello everyone! I am a novice judge and this is my first time judging pf. Please speak at reasonable pace- do not spread. I haven’t done extensive research on this resolution, so make your case understandable. Don’t just read out evidence, make sure to explain why your evidence supports your point. Be respectful during debates and avoid any harmful language. Good Luck!

Keep it Simple. Do not use unknown acronyms and abbreviations. Be clear, crisp and concise with your points. Do not overload with facts but rather present your views on why it helps make the case. Speak slowly and focus on quality over quantity. Sometimes the less you say is better.

Most important of all, enjoy the debating experience as you will cherish these memories for life.

NCFLs 2024 Note:I typically judge LD and CX. Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Please send me speech docs at kuo.phb@gmail.com.

Background: LD in HS, CX at Cornell, coached for over 8 years in the Northeast.

The short: I want to see you being the best version of yourself in whatever form of debate you're inclined to. I have a few defaults but will generally evaluate the round however debaters would like me to. I don’t inflate speaks. Please be kind.

Do

• strategic issue selection, i.e., don't go for everything in your last speech
• organization
• clash
• extend the whole argument: claim, warrant, impact, implication.
• thorough evidence comparison
• clear and thoughtful impact calc
• 30s are for people I think are a model of what debate should and can be. It's not enough to be good at debate; be good for debate.
• Circuit debaters should be nice to transitioning debaters from JV and more traditional programs. That does not mean don't do your best or compromise your round; however, it does mean giving clear answers in CX, making efforts to accommodate for tech, and maybe considering 3 off instead of 4 off.
• FLOW. +up to 0.5 speaks for a good flow. If you tell me you have a good flow and show me at the end of the round before I submit my decision, you will be eligible for some game-y speaker points.

Don't

• steal prep.
• play in CX. answer the question.
• have excessively long underviews. Read a better aff.
• read excessively long overviews. If you have a 1min+ long overview, I would prefer you read it at the bottom after you have done line-by-line. I promise I will get more of it if you do that.
• tag things as independent voters; just weigh. Do the work to resolve arguments so that I don't have to. Calling something independent doesn't make it independent from the rest of the reps/performances/args in the round.
• be a coward. Engage. Have the debate.

Kritiks

• these debates are best when debaters have a lot of content/topic knowledge and can make the connection to their theory of power. It seems sophomoric to critique something you have a limited understanding of. A lot of your authors have likely spent a lot of time writing historical analyses and it would be remiss to be ignorant of that.
• high threshold for explanations
• spend more time explaining the internal link between the speech act or the performance and the impact
• Really sympathetic to voting neg on presumption if the aff doesn't clearly articulate how the aff is a move from the status quo.
• please don't read model minority type args

Policy style arguments (LARP)

• love a well-researched position. Do it if it's your thing.
• probably the easiest type of debate for me to evaluate.
• 90% of time you just gotta do the weighing/impact calc.

T v. stock/larp

• read it
• competing interps
• RVIs on T are a tough sell in front of me

T/FW v. K affs

• these debate becomes better as methods debates implicating the relationship amongst form, content, and norms
• sometimes these get messy. I need more explanation of the implication of the arguments and how to sequence my evaluation.
• Go slow and collapse early

Theory

• Because I default competing interpretations, I treat these as CP/DA debates unless otherwise argued in round. To win my ballot, my RFD should be able to explain the abuse story, the structural implications for the activity (and its significance), and why your interpretation is the best norm to resolve those impacts. If you are not clearly explaining this, then I will have a difficult voting on it.
• I won't vote off:
  • "new affs bad"
  • "need an explicit text" interps
  • disclosure against novices and traditional debaters
• I am sympathetic to a "gut-check" on frivolous theory
• Good interps to run:
  • condo bad;
  • abusive perms bad (severance perms, intrinsic perms, etc);
  • abusive CPs bad (delay CPs, etc);
  • abusive fiat bad (object fiat, multiactor fiat, etc).
• If I'm being honest, I don't enjoy flowing more than 20 sec worth of spikes/theory pre-empts at the bottom of the AC; just read a better aff
• I don't have many defaults about 1ar theory, but generally think it's a poor strategic decision

Experience:

As a high school student, I competed in what is now called Policy Debate on the national circuit. I also competed in speech, with Extemp as my main event. While in college, I coached LD. Since 2019, when I again became active in coaching after a long absence, I mostly coach speech and help out with PF. In my career, I have judged Speech and Policy Debate at the local and national levels, as well as LD, PF, and Big Questions at tournaments in New England and online.

Policy Debate:

In the absence of arguments that persuade me otherwise, I default to a Policy Maker paradigm. However, I am open to any arguments debaters choose to make in a given round.

Analysis and evidence are more important to me than delivery, but debaters should understand their own limits. While speed is not an issue for me per se, if a speaker is unintelligible (for example, due to speaking more quickly than they personally are able to do clearly), then they have not communicated any coherent argument or content to the judge. I rarely look at evidence after the round, as I believe that pertinent details should be communicated by the debaters during their speeches. However, I will make exceptions when necessary for fair adjudication of the round.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I consider myself a flow judge, open to any arguments, who will default to a traditional framework unless persuaded otherwise during the round.

Content is more important than delivery, but please see the Policy Debate section above regarding intelligibility.

Public Forum Debate:

While I am also open to many types of arguments in Public Forum, quality of argumentation and clarity of communication are supposed to be of primary importance in this event.

If you need to speak quickly to provide in-depth analysis and/or evidence, and can do so while clearly presenting your case, go ahead. However, if you are only speaking quickly to put numerous shallow arguments on the flow, you may want to consider the point above about quality of argumentation and clarity of communication.

Big Questions Debate:

Like PF, quality of argumentation and clarity of communication are of primary importance in BQ.

I am a judge from Regis High School. I'm in search of logical, well-reasoned arguments delivered in a civil, respectful manner. I like to see a significant amount of effort put in by the competitor, while still keeping in mind that this is meant to be an enjoyable activity. I am profoundly uninterested in a landslide of dozens of arguments; a few well-reasoned points is always preferable to a novel's worth of statistical sludge. More than anything, I want to see that you have spent a considerable amount of time evaluating the issue and which arguments are worth contending.

Introduction: My name is David Lehrman and I'll be serving as the judge for this debate. I come to this round as a parent/judge in my third season. I am here to facilitate a fair and productive discussion. My role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both sides based on their clarity, credibility, and persuasiveness. In this paradigm, I will outline my preferences, expectations, and guidelines for this debate.

Speed and Clarity: I prefer debates that are clear, concise, and accessible to all participants, regardless of their experience level. Avoid spreading or speaking too quickly, as it may hinder comprehension and fairness. If I cannot understand your arguments due to speed, it will be challenging for me to evaluate them effectively.

Structure and Organization: A well-organized debate is more persuasive and easier to follow. Please ensure that your arguments have clear introductions, credible supporting evidence, and conclusions. Signpost your contentions and respond directly to your opponent's points to maintain a logical flow throughout the debate.

Evidence and Sources: I value evidence-based arguments. Please provide credible sources to support your claims. The quality and relevance of your evidence will significantly influence my decision. If you challenge your opponent's sources, be prepared to explain why they are unreliable. Don't just ask for supporting evidence solely because want to use it for yourself.

Relevance and Staying on Topic: Stay focused on the resolution or topic at hand. Stray arguments that are not directly related to the debate may not be given much weight in my evaluation.

Counterarguments and Refutation: Effective refutation is key to winning a debate. Engage with your opponent's arguments and provide strong counterarguments. Address the most significant points raised by your opponent, and explain why your position is stronger.

Non-Philosophical Arguments: I prefer arguments based on real-world examples, statistics, and practical applications rather than purely philosophical or theoretical arguments. While some level of theory is acceptable, prioritize concrete evidence and real-world relevance.

Cross-Examination: I encourage debaters to use cross-examination as a tool for clarification and to expose weaknesses in their opponent's arguments. Keep cross-examinations respectful and productive.

Timekeeping: I expect debaters to adhere to the time limits set for speeches and to respect the allocated time for cross-examination. Going significantly over time may result in a penalty.

Decision Criteria: I will base my decision on the strength of the arguments presented, the quality of evidence, and the persuasiveness of the debaters. I will not introduce my personal beliefs or outside information into the decision-making process.

Final Thoughts: Remember that debate is not only about winning but also about learning and improving your skills. Approach this round with a commitment to fair and respectful discourse, and I will do my best to provide constructive feedback after the debate. Good luck to both sides, and let's have a productive discussion!

I prefer traditional arguments in which the debater takes the resolution and explains their side instead of using a progressive argument, which may be hard to follow. I also find it easier to understand the main points of the debater's argument when they use sign-posting and/or road mapping.

Spreading is not preferred because it is often difficult to follow the debater and if I can't understand the argument I can't score it favorably. 

I'm a lay judge.

I judge based on the logic of the arguments, evidence and the impact - and how effectively you are able to rebutt/defend contentions.

I'm NOT up on all the tech, so trying to sell me on the tech reasons why I should vote one way or the other may not be of much use.

If you are going to talk fast, you may want to send the doc ahead of time to me email ganesh.letchumanan@gmail.com. Otherwise, you risk me missing large parts of your case (see line 1 of my paradigm). Spreading is likely not going to help you.

Dont tell me you won. Tell me how,

'24 Spring Note: Being at nationals is a huge achievement (and privilege) and I hope you are all incredibly proud of yourselves for having made it through a year of debate as the world falls apart over and over. I take my role as a judge especially seriously now because I know that this competition is incredibly important to the debaters. I also see now as a more critical time than ever to ensure that our research projects in debate are based in facts, not fascism. On a personal level, please remember that this is one weekend out of your whole life, and I hope sincerely that you are taking care of yourself, your mental, and your physical wellbeing during the tournament and after.

Who I am

I (she/her) debated college policy (CEDA/NDT) at The New School, where I started as a college novice. I read Ks that were research projects about things I cared about. I value debate for its educational value, the research skills it builds, and the community it fosters. I have no issue dropping speaks or ballots for people who undermine the educational value of the activity by making people defend their personhood.

**I will be wearing a mask. I don't know y'all or where you've been and I don't want you to breathe on me. It's not personal. Please ask me for any other accessibility accommodations you need before the round and I will do my best to make the round comfortable for you!

For all formats (specifics below)

Email for the chain: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I vote on the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it. If provided them, I follow ROBs and ROJs seriously in framing my decision. I have voted both on the big picture and on technicalities.

I am excited to be in your debate, especially so if you are a novice, and I would love to chat post RFD if you have questions! :)

Policy:

DAs, CPs: Fine, no strong opinions here.

Ks: Yes, fine, good. Explain your links and your impact framing.

T: Hate when blippy, like when thorough & well-explained and have voted on T when it has won the debate many times. I am unlikely to vote on an education impact vs a K aff, though.

High theory for all of the above: Explain yourself. I don't vote on arguments I don't understand.

Likes: Clear spreading, smart debating, impact calculus, well-warranted arguments, case debate, thorough research, debaters from small schools.

Dislikes: Unnecessary hostility, bad evidence, blippy T blocks, strategies that rely on clowning your opponents, mumbling when spreading.

I am by far most comfortable in clash and KvK debates. I don't really care about policy v policy, but will give it the proper attention if put in them.

Public Forum:

If you don't share evidence, strike me. And also re-evaluate your ethical orientations.

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain. The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence. Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

Debate is a communication activity, but it is also a research activity, and I think that the single most important portable skill we gain from it is our ability to ethically produce argumentation and present it to an audience. I believe that PF has egregious evidence-sharing practices, and I will not participate in them.

I like smart debating, clear impact calculus, and well-warranted arguments.Do what you're good at and I'm with you! This includes your funky arguments.

I am fine with speed, but going fast does not make you a smarter or better debater and will not make me like you more.Debate is above all else a communication activity that is at its best when it's used for education. I can't stand it when more experienced or more resourced teams use a speed strategy to be incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things. It's bad debating and it perpetuates the worst parts of this activity.

Please be as physically comfortable as possible!! I do not care what you are wearing or whether you sit or stand. It will have literally zero impact on my decision.

I am far less grumpy and much more friendly than the PF section of my paradigm might make me seem. I love debate and go to tournaments voluntarily. See you in round!

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how you treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up.

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Spreading offers no educational value to debate. Talking fast I am cool with if you have the diction for it!

I was a PF Debater for 4 years in high school but that was 6 years ago and I have only judged on and off over the course of that time period. With that said, I can handle as much speed as you can be able to personally handle, however after reading some other paradigms, I must say I am outdated on some of the lingo and may not be as knowledgeable on "common debate terms" anymore. I do not believe K's or theory should be used in PF debate.

I leave all personal beliefs and knowledge on a subject at the door, I will not use any information I personally know to enhance either sides arguments, it is on the competitors to properly present their arguments and explain to me why that matters. I will also accept every argument made at face value, regardless of how outlandish (ie: claiming the sky is purple), unless your opponent rebuts the fact. As a debater, it is your job to refute your opponent's points, regardless of what they are, and I do not believe the judge should do any work for either side.

#1 Pet Peeve: If you claim something it better TRULY be common knowledge (ie: the sky is indeed not purple) or have a card to back up your statement. I will not personally call any cards, but if your opponent calls a card and you do not have the evidence to back up your statements it will be heavily weighed against you.

Hello!

I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Mercyhurst Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I've been coaching and involved with speech and debate since 2017, and primarily work with my school's debaters. I enjoy judging Public Forum due to it's clear and pragmatic discussions.

When judging, I, above all, desire to hear clearly delivered speeches. Without clarity, it is difficult to give consideration to your position and evidence. Also, I listen closely for a well-organized speech that clearly states contentions, evidence, and impacts.

I approach PF as the event was originally intended. As judge, I am basing my decision on who was most convincing in their argument. Think of me as a regular guy pulled off the street, so you must clearly explain things and convince me!

Finally, debaters must remain courteous and civil in debates. Rudeness will be penalized!

I look forward to judging your team!

add me to the email chain alexmc.debate@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Be respectful.

2. You do you, read what you want and debate how you want.

3. Judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar is the best way to get me to vote for you. What does an aff/neg ballot look like? What does winning x argument mean for how I evaluate the round? These are the types of questions I want answered in the 2nr/2ar. Being ahead on some part of the flow is cool but not telling me what that means for how I evaluate the round may result in you being disappointed when I decide who won the debate based on my interpretation of what those claims mean for the debate rather than what you think they mean.

4. Offense is everything - if you win a substantive piece of offense in the debate there is a high likelihood that you win the round. No aff offense in the 2ar means I vote negative on presumption. Arguments needs warrants.

The Specifics:

Topicality / Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I don't think RVI's are much of a thing unless something egregious occurs.

CP's - Perms are just a test of competition. All your cheating counterplans are fine just be ready to defend their legitimacy in the debate.

K's - I'm good with whatever literature you like. I want a clear link in the 2nr - going for presumption without an impact directly tied to the reading / politics of the aff can occasionally work but I think the aff would need to be in a pretty dire situation. Judging high school debates I often find myself dissatisfied with alt solvency explanations in the 2nr, so if your 2nr strategy is heavily reliant on the alternative be sure to be in depth and try to contextualize the alternative to both neg and aff impacts, clearly outlining how the alternative process works and how you resolve the impacts, as well as which defense / turns means I prefer alt over the plan. For framework, if you think I shouldn't evaluate the implementation of the affirmative the justifications need to be clearly outlined.

K Affs / Framework - I heavily lean towards fairness as an internal link, not an independent impact. I can be convinced otherwise but will likely need more impact explanation and comparison in the 2nr. Switch sides should have a unique reason it's good rather than solves fairness while only linking to aff offense half the time. I find ethos to be relevant in these debates, I'm not a huge fan of conditional ethics. Ultimately if you engage in good faith debate you should be fine.

I am a veteran English teacher with 33+ years of experience and of writing education. I am also a Television Production teacher with AICE media studies courses as well. What does this all mean to you? I appreciate the scene that YOU will be arranging through your arguments but also through your presence. Yes, logical arguments are first and foremost. I appreciate appropriate and effective diction. However, you ARE presenting; I like to see you looking at judges and even your opposition even as you read or debate rather than staring at your documents- it is an interactive process after all; be a part of the process and recognize how important and engaging that can be for some judges like me. Yes, I think standing looks better, and prefer it when asked. I expect good debates; please don’t disappoint us!

Hello! I'm a parent judge, and this is my first year judging, so bear with me. I'm primarily experienced in PF, although I've done a bit of speech. I'm a lay judge.

In terms of speaking tips:

1) Stay below 270 WPM- the closer you get to this number, the more you're losing me!

2) Signpost, Signpost, Signpost- I need to know what your arguments are.

3) Be polite. I judge on argumentation, not speaking quality, but if you're overtly rude to your opponents I'll take that into account in a close round. Same for any bigoted argumentation.

On debate:

1) I follow "sky is red" theory. I.e if you tell me something outlandish and your opponent doesn't engage with it, I'll buy it. Don't abuse this though, and if you don't clearly impact and extend it, then I won't vote off of it.

2) Do the heavily lifting for me. Tell me why I should vote for you in your speech. Do the weighing for me- the more I have to decide who to beleive, the less likely it is to be you.

3) Evidence- I'm not really familiar with setting up evidence chains and sharing. I'll buy that your evidence is credible unless your opponent tells me it isn't, at which point I'll be pretty upset. Don't lie or abuse your cards. As in, I'm okay with questionable link chains, but don't straight up lie.

4) I'm very unfamiliar with K, Tech, etc. I don't judge much circuit. You'll have to make it make sense to me.

Lastly- Great work! I'm excited to listen to every round. Good luck!

Background: 4 years Brookfield East PF, nsda, ncfl, gold toc.

Email stuff to: akashmoorching17@gmail.com

FW Prefs (Wisco heavy):

I think that local circuit frameworks like minimizing oppression, maximizing freedom, and the way Kant/other phil is read on the Wisconsin circuit are incredibly nonstrategic. These frameworks offer you very little offensive flexibility. If you want to run it, you'll need to dedicate a lot of time on the framework layer and have strong FW justifications, preferably with a syllogism/metaethics, which you can't really do without spreading.

Realistically, Util justifications are a lot more time-efficient. Again, I vote off the flow, but if you run a fundamentally weak strategy in a game revolving around strategy, then that's probably not a good idea. One thing that I've noticed after judging in Wisconsin is that there's no skill discrepancy between the schools that are winning versus the ones that are losing. The only difference is that the ones who are winning are adapting their strategy to the times, while the ones who are losing continue to run the same weak arguments.

All the debate schools in Wisconsin are small. Learn how to wiki mine. Understand the basics of progressive debate here: https://circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Main_Page. You can adapt or you can continue to lose.

Please maintain professionalism and proper decorum at all times, feel free to speak as quickly or slowly as you are comfortable with, and make sure you state your evidence explicitly - don't make me work for it. It's your job as a speaker and debater to argue your stance using words.

I will not read anything sent to me. I will only consider what is presented verbally in the round.

I consider cross and questioning heavily. If you ask just clarifying questions, that’s weak.

As an LD judge, I prefer a traditional argument to a K. You have been given a resolution and a stance to argue, and it is your job to debate within the definitions and assumptions of that resolution and stance. Debating around the resolution is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, inappropriate in my opinion.

As a PF judge, like LD, I also prefer traditional argument, but especially within PF, I need your impacts linked properly. Stating evidence is not enough. Tell me why that evidence matters and what it affects.

In Congress, I appreciate the strategic use of speech timing. As the legislation goes on, it becomes more and more important to have novel arguments and evidence so if you don’t have anything, be sure to use clash to refute the other side.

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

General:

I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional style debate with logical analysis over a technical debate with poorly explained cards. I do NOT prefer spreading. If I do not understand what you said, then I would not be able to flow or give you credit for those arguments. I prefer high-impact & high-probable arguments with a strong link structure. Make sure you provide framework and crystallize impact. Break it down and tell me what the most important voting issues are.

I will not look at cards unless it is heavily contested or the team asks me to call for one. Clash is king in the round and I fully expect direct refutations and spirited, clever, cross fire sessions.

I expect you to be courteous to your team mates and opponents.

PF:

Okay with Ks and Theory. Make it good or I will be less inclined to vote on it (structure it properly and explain it well in the context of the round).

No Tricks please.

LD:

I understand the mechanics of value/criterion debate and expect the debater to use the established criterion to measure the value. Crystallize the debate and clearly articulate voting issues. If you are using technical jargon, be sure to explain them in the round.

Hey there!

I used to compete on the national circuit in all forms of debate and extemporaneous speaking.

So, when it comes to judging, here's what I prefer:

1. Keep your off-time road maps quick and clear.

2. I look favorably upon unique, well-thought-out, and researched contentions.

3. I can follow fast speeches, but I'm not into spreading.
4. My judgment will be based on how well you stick to the flow. Make sure to link back to your main points and provide clear impacts. The cleaner and clearer your arguments, the more likely I am to vote for you.

Looking forward to a great round!

I prefer contestants to take their time with their words and not rush through their piece/speech. Use a normal conversational rate. Respect, Pronunciation, Annunciation, and Volume are all important during a performance. I appreciate evidence that backs up claims. Respectful discourse is expected and appreciated. I do not appreciate when competitors try to tell me as the judge what the rules are to the competition and what's expected of me as a judge. Please have fun while you compete.

I am a traditional judge. Please note the following:

1. Speak clearly. If I cannot comprehend your arguments, you will lose.
2. I prefer using empirical evidence over emotional arguments to win debates.
3. Please use discretion when calling for cards and have them ready upon request. Excessive card calling without a clear purpose will be noted negatively.
4. I prefer well-constructed arguments that connect the dots logically.
5. Assertiveness is acceptable, but screaming and belittling opponents is not.

Be courteous. Be respectful. Be kind.

I have a Ph.D. with an emphasis in materials chemistry. I also have a business degree. My interest includes education, STEAM, and environment.

I am a traditional judge. I strongly believe in strong data and a firm believer that if you have data on your side, your job will be easier. Little research goes along way.

Get to the point right away. Speak clearly and a good smile goes a long way.

For a bit of background, I am a rising Sophomore at Loyola Chicago who did PF all throughout high school. So I understand the format and all but I am not affiliated with any teams at the moment so I have no knowledge or background on the current motion.

Please do not excessively spread, if I can't understand what you are saying I will not flow it.

I have only a very surface level understanding of Latin American politics so please no jargon, and generally just keep things understandable to the average person, because I am the average person.

I generally lean tech over truth but I will certainly count any egregious factual errors against you. Also, do not let your sources speak for you, if you cannot explain and contextualize a source to your case I will not flow it to you.

Most importantly be polite and sportsmanlike to your competitors and have fun! :)

Debaters - if you spread, I won't be able to hear your argument.

I appreciate pleasantries and reciprocate (Good morning, thank you, have a great day...).

Please be patient with me and everyone in the room. I will do the same.

Take a few slow, deep breaths before you present. I will do the same.

I am not the most experienced judge (yet), but I take the job seriously and will do my best to offer valuable feedback.

I vote off the flow and the main points of clash. Please make sure to extend all of your evidence throughout all speeches or else I will be forced to drop it.

I don't flow crossfires but I will count it towards speaker points so be respectful.

If you have any specific questions about the way I judge, please ask them before the round starts.

If you speak fast I’ll be very mad
So don’t be bad
Or else you won’t be rad
And I'll get sad

Don’t run theory
Or else I’ll get teary
and I won’t be cheery
And the round will be very dreary

I’m lay
So don’t be flay
And let’s have a good day
In may
If you are lay
I’ll believe what you say
and your arguments won’t decay
when you stay
with the lay

If you have good refs I’ll be glad
But if you have bad contentions I’ll be mad
At you lad
And speaker points I won’t add

Please don’t spread
Or else I’ll hit you with my bread
And you’ll be sick in bed

So don’t be a tin
And have a lot of din
And you will get the win

or in other words

Hello!

I'm a lay judge and I'm a new judge, so please be concise and make your arguments very clear and understandable

No spreading or theory, I will not understand it

Please explain your arguments and refutations clearly: I will vote on what makes sense to me based on what I hear in the debate

I vote off the flow. I don't mind debate jargon, but I may ask you to clarify some terms. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). I will ask you to slow down if I'm missing arguments. I may ask you after the round for cards and evidence, so don't run out of the room until I've let you go. Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: I have a background as a philosophy professor. Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. Don't turn this into a 1 person policy round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on Kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims but it is not always needed for logical arguments. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

Feel free to ask me questions after round (if this is a tournament where judges disclose), but know that I have already submitted my ballot so please don't try to convince me why my decision was wrong. If you want to set up an email chain, my email is josephmpergola@gmail.com

langley '23, uchicago '27

about me: i am a first year at chicago studying econ and public policy. i did four years of pf at langley hs primarily on the regional circuit and nowadays im a member of chicago debate society (uchicago’s debate team) and compete in apda (american parli).

i’ll vote off the flow but pls pretend im lay. rounds with comprehensible speaking, good clash, and clear weighing will be rewarded with high speaks (as high as i can reasonably go without anyone getting annoyed). i will flow every speech, but not cross. depending on how im feeling, i may or may not even listen to cross. if something happens in cross that’s worth mentioning, you should mention it.

while i will attempt to adapt to pf as much as possible, i have given and received far more rfds in apda than i ever did in another format. if my rfds look more like apda rfds and apda philosophy shapes some of my paradigmatic considerations, i do apologize. consider this an exercise in judge adaptation.

for moral reasons (and also your speaks) pls be as nice and be respectful to your opponents as possible, but i will drop teams for only 2 reasons: 1. equity violations (racism, bigotry, etc.), or 2. losing the debate.

‎

some tips on getting the decision you want

on signposting: before your non-constructive speeches, let me know where i should put everything on the flow. an ideal off-time roadmap for rebuttal or summary should look something like "their case, our case, then weighing." in your speech, you should clearly indicate when you are switching flows by saying something along the lines of "now onto our case." if you are giving multiple warrants or responses to an argument, tell me the argument you are responding to and list the responses numerically. if i know there are 3 responses, i will know to look for 3 things to put on my flow. all of this will ensure i do not miss anything, which is essential for giving correct decisions. also, the extent to which i can handle speed is entirely dependent on the quality of your signposting.

on final focus: before the speech, i want you to think about one or more rfds you would like to receive in the round, and then deliver them to me in ff as ballots. this is essential, as saying something along the lines of "ballot 1 is x" will indicate to me to stop flowing (w the exception of direct responses), and i will instead write the ballots up on a separate sheet. the way i will first attempt to adjudicate the round is by cross-checking the ballots you give me against the flow to see if they are both true and winning. if one of them is, that will be my rfd. this should in theory eliminate the possibility of a true judge screw because i gave you the ability to tell me how you should've won. if you fail to do this, that is on you. i am always skeptical of new arguments (even first-opportunity direct responses) made in ff and 90% of the speech should be breaking down the round and weighing. please weigh extensively. i will only do weighing for you if your opponents do not give me a contradictory weighing claim, and this includes things like obvious pre-reqs. finally, weighing is most persuasive when it is as charitable to your opponent as possible, and you should start weighing claims w something like "take neg at their best case."

on evidence: i will always prefer analytics to cards. i debated pf for 4 years and im fully aware that maybe 30% of the cards you’re citing say what you claim they do. the point of debate should be to get to the substance of issues, not to win args because your “200 source meta-study” is 2 years more recent than theirs. cards are great and all, but they should never supplant logic. an argument about *why* something is happening is always going to be more persuasive warranting than that x person says something is happening. i am fully prepared to vote on an argument with no cards whatsoever as long as its warranted well. i am also simply just too lazy to flow the names of cards, so if there is a clash between two cards, tell me what the warrant is that you're contesting before you do the comparison.

‎

a few other things

on calling cards: calling cards is generally a good idea. both teams should have all of the cards they cite readily accessible in case they are called. once a card is called, the other team has like ~20 seconds max to send it over otherwise i'll just strike it from the flow and move on. ideally all evidence should be in cut cards, but like if its not just make sure you tell them specifically where the quote is. also, if you think a card doesn't make sense on a logical level you don’t necessarily have to call it, just explain why it’s dumb and i’ll probably believe you.

on timing: unless you go on for a really long time im not gonna cut you off, but i will stop flowing at exactly the 4 minute mark so you’re wasting your time if you keep talking.

on like theory and stuff: i’ve never run non-standard theory or any kind of progressive argumentation in any of my years of debate. that doesn’t mean i won’t vote for it, just don’t assume i understand what you’re talking about.

‎

my email is steven@stevenporter.net, feel free to reach out if you have any questions. i can give you more detailed feedback than i can fit into the rfd or can further explain my decision. i'm also happy to answer any college or admissions related questions if you have them. i love uchicago and you should definitely apply. supposedly the admissions department likes debate kids so you already have a leg up.

alright gl

I am a former LD debater from North Carolina. I now attend Duke University, majoring in Public Policy and Psychology on the Premed track. I currently compete in college level British Parliament debate. My email is casey.powell@duke.edu.

I’m willing to evaluate everything except tricks, butmake sure to clearly explain all facets of the argument. I can keep up with spreading, but be courteous to your opponent and make deliberate choices about how to manage your time during speeches.

I’m generally tech > truth and enjoy unique arguments as long as they’re logically explained (with credible evidence). DO NOT misconstrue or power tag evidence. This will significantly harm your speaker points.

This paradigm is currently updated for NCFLs 2024.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round; I’m happy to answer!

prakash.dhruv26@gmail.com --- add me to the chain AND please ask questions about anything

Background: 4 yrs of PF at Middleton (WI); state champ + qualled to TOC/nats; studying international affairs and data science at gwu; name pronounced “droov” (rhymes with move)

*If there is anything in my paradigm that is unclear please ask me before the round*

- Tech > truth and i’ll flow the whole round (except cross)

- Best way to win is to signpost, go line-by-line, and weigh

- Probably don’t go above like 300wpm without sending a doc

- You need cards for everything (with citations and highlighting)

- Please extend args and impacts into summary/final but give me the warrant, don’t just say author/year

- If it’s not in summary/final I won’t be voting on it

- Don’t be mean and have fun for good speaks

- Trigger warnings are very important (if ur not sure just ask or play it safe)

- Good with theory, ok with Ks, no tricks

If you want more detail: I judge similarly to this guy, him, and her

Hello all!

In my 5 years of judging debates (particularly PF) as a parent, I've developed a straightforward approach to judging. I believe in the importance of clear, evidence-based arguments and respectful interaction.

Rather than overwhelming with quantity, I value the depth and quality of the points made (no spreading!). I enjoy seeing debaters engage in thoughtful discussion during crossfire and creating clash throughout the round.

When it comes to evidence, reading card after card without impacts is ineffective, and I appreciate concise, well-supported claims. My aim as a judge is simple: to provide a fair, constructive evaluation and to foster an environment where debaters can showcase their skills and grow in their understanding of the topics at hand.

About me: I did PF in high school so I have some exposure to the event. I've been judging for the past couple years, so I'll probably be able to make a good decision if you read this and follow along.

Publlic Forum

1. Tech > Truth but if you're rude you're probably getting low speaks
2. Respect is important
3. The team that wins the more impactful argument gets the win
4. Final focus should be voting issues and weighing
5. In terms of speed, 200 wpm is probably my max but I'll flow off a doc if provided
6. I won't evaluate theory or Ks

Debate the way you think will win, and I'll follow along.

Hello everyone!

My name is Michele Reich and my son is in public forum. Please speak conversationally and use a normal rate of speech. I really don’t like when debaters speak super fast to cram in a bunch of info. I will automatically vote against you if you run theory- please be respect of each other!

I am a lay judge but have experience in law

I judge with an emphasis on you maintaining a speaking speed and pronunciation level which i can fully understand, i care about what you are saying so please make it clear.

I'm partial to crossfire and will make my decision accordingly

I'm also partial to statistics. For example, if both parties are making the same point but one gives numbers and the other doesn't, I will see that the one with statistics took that point.

I am a policy debate coach by background. I have been debating, coaching, and judging for over 30 years. I am comfortable with any arguments teams would like to present. When judging, I look to the work that debaters have done to reach a decision. In public forum, there are many ideas and norms that I see through the lens of my experience in policy debate and I'm fine with them (theory, topicality, CPS, kritiks, etc). I am most interested in voting for well-warranted, explained arguments. I also give higher speaker points to teams that build developed warrants into speeches. I am also most interested in understanding how teams view arguments clashing in the round. Explaining your thinking around this will also contribute to higher speaker points and wins.

I debated 4 intensive years in high school in policy debate. I've coached PF for a number of years.

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it. I'm more interested in clash. critical thinking, and understanding your case, than just repeating your points from your original constructive.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible. If I can't understand you, it will not be on the flow. I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you. If you run a crit (K), you will need to understand the philosophy behind it and be able to defend it; presenting a K that catches a team off guard isn't enough if you can't cogently respond to basic arguments and counterpoints against it.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

I am a traditional debate judge.  I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments.  I do not believe that Kritiks and other cases like that have any place in PF debate.  Speed should be reasonable.  I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.  

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of either Stuyvesant High School or the Bronx High School of Science, depending on the tournament. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible in a meaningful way.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

I favor hearing arguments that have enthusiasm backed up with valid data. I enjoy seeing debaters that have respect for one another and belief in their ideas.

The debater should not be trying to throw out as many facts as possible…in short a time as possible. I would like a balanced with reasonable time frame, with appropriate pauses between statements.

Finally, someone speaking should have a flow. Make me follow your argument with valid points and summaries. Try to be natural, relaxed and clearly share your argument with appropriate facts. Enjoy your time presenting and give it your all.

As a traditional judge, I like to see a round that follows the actual topic / resolution. Arguments that are too progressive undermine why we are even here debating. Please be courteous, respect the time allotted, and road map as you go. I find it better to have quality vs quantity - so watch the speed in which you spread.

I am a parent / lay judge. I try my best to flow with a flow tool I've used for the past 4 years I've been judging. I don't really understand theory and would really prefer if you not run it. I will review team balance (teamwork) and clock management for close matches. The pro should convince me that the resolution should be adopted, and the con should prove that the resolution should be rejected. Speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. tomwsmith@hotmail.com is my email.

Be respectful and kind to your opponents during the round. Please speak clearly and signpost during the round so I can get everything you say. Please use voter issues so it is clear why I should vote for your side. Try to introduce voter issues in the summary and extend them to the final focus.

I have debated and judged Public Forum for a combined 7 years now. I currently am the head coach and started the debate program at Shadle Park and have judged Public Forum and LD.

Please cover the flow and dropping a significant contention will make it hard for you to win. If your opponent dropped an argument don't say, "they dropped it" emphasize why it matters and why that alone should allow you to win. With that being said in your own case if a contention is not working leave it alone and do not waste your time on it.

Anything short of spreading I should be ok with. If you go too fast I will tell you to go slower and simply adjust and you will be fine.

I appreciate good plans and counter plans when done effective. In Public Forum I will rarely vote against someone's use of a "Point of advocacy" unless it is clearly over the top. Put simply saying something is a counter plan and leaving at that will almost never win that point for you.

Do not be afraid to use other tricky framework or tricky arguments because I love those when done effectively. It is not enough to simply say your opponents framework is abusive but rather explain why. I like both statistical and the use of logic in a case. When these are put together effectively that to me is the best case.

Aggression in CX will never hurt you as long as you're not over the top and rude.

Debate should have emotion and nothing is worst than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about.

Voters: Voters will almost always decide the round for me. I love debaters who crystalize the round throughout. The last speech should be primarily focused on giving good voters. THE BIGGEST THING I LOOK FOR IS ROUND CRYSTALLIZATION!

Please do not ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to and I do not care.

Speaker points are stupid and arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.

30: Best Speaker at tourney

28-29: Very Good

27: Good

24-26 Decent

Below 24: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in

I competed in pf on the nat circ for brookfield east for 3ish years and I’m now a freshman in college.

tech>truth

debate’s a game do whatever you want but don’t be rude or annoying

I liked to run unique cases/args in highschool so I might give you higher speaks if you run one well

don't call me "judge", its corny

idrk which teams are good anymore so if you want, tell me how experienced you are when you come so i have somewhat of a gauge on what to expect.

For PF:

anything second rebuttal doesn’t frontline is conceded

please collapse at some point

defense isn’t sticky

My threshold for extensions in summary and final are pretty low, but they still need to be there. just go uq, link, impact and you’ll be fine. i don’t really care about or flow card names.

framings cool but please have actual warrants as to why to prioritize your impact over all others not just reasons why your impact is objectively important, because it’s not comparative

probability weighing is a scam, it’s usually just new responses phrased as weighing so my threshold for responses to it is very low, but if it’s conceded I’m not gonna intervene

i prob won’t call for ev unless there’s a dispute between teams as to what it says. If there’s two different cards that contradict pls weigh them bc i don't want to intervene and do it for you

call tkos please but if you’re blatantly wrong, L 20s

im cool with speed as long as it’s comprehensible, but if I need a doc to understand you, then slow down

theory, ks, tricks are cool but don’t count on me to evaluate extremely technical ks properly. If there’s a lot of random jargon just treat me like a lay

for LD and POLICY:

treat me as a lay

other stuff:

I’ll be pretty nice with speaks as long as you’re not unbearable. (28+) I don’t really care if you swear in speech, it’s pretty funny as long as it’s not directed toward your opponents.

feel free to post round, it’s educational but don’t be annoying

if you have any questions ab anything here, just ask me before round

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

I am a lay judge without prior experience judging speech/debate events, however I am an architect who owns multiple businesses and have spent my professional career both assessing staff and client complex arguments, as well as presenting and defending my own designs.

A solid understanding of all facets of a topic is essential in constructing any opinion and argument. I value a well-constructed and reasoned foundation over data, and believe a balance of argument and style are key to winning over an audience.

I expect debaters to speak at a normal conversational rate, both clearly and audibly, and without an overuse of jargon, acronyms, and technical language.

I will be taking notes during each round, and will be clear and open in my scoring and feedback. I value all sides of any issue and approach topics without bias.

In policy, I will judge primarily on the stock issues. These should be clear within the context of the debate. On topicality, I will specifically be looking at debatability and reasonability. However, if an argument is missed due to spreading, it will be considered a dropped argument.

In Public Forum, I judge heavily on impacts and argumentation, but will weigh uniqueness if it is brought up.

In LD, I am a proponent of the value debate.

Background:

During high school, I did policy debate during freshman and sophomore year and student congress during junior and senior year. During the summer of 2006, I attended the Wake Forest Policy Debate camp. I have judged policy debate, public forum, and student congress. Please be mindful as the last time I judged they used paper ballots.

Judging Philosophy:

Public forum- I'm okay with open crossfires. I’ve been told that the speed of speech in public forum has increased recently. Even though I have judged and participated in policy debate, I believe that public forum speaking should not approach policy speed. Public forum was invented as a form of forensics that did not require staff with forensics background to teach and judge. I care more about quality of arguments versus the quantity. Academic arguments and academic resources may be necessary but I prefer more real world like arguments, if possible tie back academic arguments to the real world implications. If you’re going to go into theory, framework, or critiques please explain it well.I think crossfires are an important aspect of the debate and are chances to win arguments and pick up speaker points.

NCFL NATIONALS 2024

jamesthompson@princeton.edu for any chatting, inquiries, and email chains.

Decided to keep this a bit shorter for y'all since each round has three judges:

- Hey! I'm a new-ish judge, but I have also debated for three years in PF, mostly on the local/regional circuit and a little on the national circuit as well. As such, I'm okay with debate lingo and fast speech (except spreading).

- I love extending and weighing, and I will prioritize arguments/rebuttals that have been extended from case/rebuttal -> summary -> final focus.

- Make sure weighing mechanisms (scope, magnitude, etc.) are clearly stated, followed by a brief explanation of why that mechanism applies.

- I do not judge cross, but I do note and appreciate when arguments are carried from crossfire into speeches.

- Please cut cards with clear links to the original source so your opponents (and, maybe, I) can scan them quickly.

- All arguments are welcome, as long as they follow a logical line of reasoning. (Though, of course, the longer the chain, the greater the burden of proof).

Other than that, just have fun and learn from each other. Let me know if you have any questions about debate, college, or other stuff, and I'm looking forward to seeing everyone in rounds! :)

whatever floats your boat.

NCFL NATS 2024: speak loud.

for email chains and junk: unowitzjerrod@gmail.com

I have been a coach and judge for 2 years now.

I flow continuously, but if you are spreading too aggressively it is likely that I will miss a key point or argument, so make sure to pace appropriately.

I do not flow cross, but I will notice if points from cross are extended into speeches.

Debates can get aggressive, I have no problem with that. But be respectful of your opponents and judges - do not lose speaks because you were rude or disruptive during cross or spending more time insulting your opponent personally than taking apart their case.

New arguments in Final Focus will be dismissed, and speaker points will be deducted if this is attempted.

I will vote based on what argument is most convincing and backed with concrete evidence. Be sure to weigh and clarify important voting points, as this gives clarity to your arguments.

Cut your cards - it is unprofessional when finding a card extends the round unnecessarily.

Lose with dignity, win with professionalism. If the tournament allows disclosure, do not argue with my verdict. Complain to your friends, not to me.

I will not disclose unless the tournament allows or requires disclosure. Don't ask me to do so if you know the tournament does not allow judges to disclose.

Hi, I’m Kyle (he/him/his)

BACKGROUND

I currently coach for Ridge High School and competed extensively in speech as a student there. I coach both speech and PF, meaning I emphasize both good delivery/style as well as clear argumentation.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE

All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION

I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER

Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC

Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES

I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

//not judging this tournament in PF sooo//

PUBLIC FORUM:

Add me to the email chain or, create the Google Doc: kwatkins@bernardsboe.com

Either way, do this before round if possible.

Ask me questions post-round/over email if you want!! I'm happy to answer anything

GENERAL

I will flow your arguments as long as you are clearly spoken, but I heavily encourage considering me more on the lay side of debate.

I won't vote for something I don't understand/wasn't well extended

Clear weighing/voters are incredible :)

Use ff to write my ballot

If you’re speaking too fast you run the risk of me losing stuff, and I won’t knock your opponent for missing stuff cause you tried to fit too much into your case.

I love strong narratives and cohesion of arguments — simply saying “extend this” or “extend that” doesn’t explain anything to me.

All arguments should have clear warrants and impacts.

IN ROUND

Signposting is so important–y’all all want to get through a ton of content, but it doesn’t matter if I have to waste my limited brain cells trying to understand how what you said interacts with your case.

Don’t be rude? The bar is low.

Take a breath before you speak! Don’t forget how incredible and unique y’all are for the amount of work you put into this activity, and the breadth of knowledge you have. Remember, I always want to vote for you, so you have no reason to be nervous.

IMPACTS

I wanted to make a whole section for this cause I think it’s so important

Timeframe, Magnitude, Probability

How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts

How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

CROSS

In crossfire, don’t ask questions with long preambles that come across as you trying to have more speech time.

I don’t flow cross, but you need to extend contradictions your opponents say for me to consider it.

RULES

Do not misconstrue evidence — if you do have an issue with your opponents’ evidence, please bring it up in the round and contact tab accordingly.

Read content warnings about potentially triggering content. If you don’t like content warnings, bummer. Content warnings allow speech & debate to be inclusive.

If you have spectators from your team, I fully expect your team members to be off their technology and not communicating with you. If you’re cheating in any way, you lose the debate and get to chat with tab.

FINAL FOCUS

Gosh I love final focus.

This is your time to explain voter’s issues, weigh on the valuable args in the round, and overall just write your own ballot. FF is time for your persuasion to shine, and my favorite speech in PF :)

SPEAKS

I believe speaks are important, and the points I give you relate to what I feel you should take away from my judging.

30: Lovely speaking, no notes.

28-29.5: Good stuff, minor issues or stumbles, mostly I vary here based on comparison in round.

27.5: You have work to do on your speaking style, and I would encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

27: You have lots of work to do on your speaking style, and I would heavily encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

26.5: I felt you said something disrespectful or behaved disrespectfully in round.

26 and below: You’re gonna hear from tab.

ARE YOU IN NOVICE? READ THIS:

Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.
I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.

I love seeing people new to debate, so I’m never going to mark you down if you don’t use conventional debate jargon, break conventional norms from inexperience, etc. I will still fairly judge, and novice-ness is no loophole to missed arguments and the like.

Big Questions Debate:

Don't assume that I know debate jargon. Explain it out. I am more familiar with IEs. 

Dislikes - Spreading. I will be flowing and working to understand what you are saying. I am more qualify vs quantity in words used in an argument. 

Likes - Display great communication skills. Treat opponent with respect. 

Hello competitors. Please do not spread so I am able to hear your whole argument. No condescending tones and do not disrupt your opponents during their prep time. Try not to interrupt, unless the situation deems it necessary. Good luck!

leland high school '23: 4 years of pf (sx, lx)

uchicago apda

add me to the email chain: sterlingxie@uchicago.edu

paradigm prefs

• contextualized strength of link weighing resolves clash

• terminal defense > weighing

• weighing must be warranted

• i don't consider cards without warranting and contextualization

• defense is not sticky

• extensions are a claim and a warrant

• won't reference email chain unless point of major clash or told to

• tech > truth

• will only read speech docs for clarification: i don’t flow off of them

progressive

• decently familiar with theory, must have good warrants

• pretty low threshold for prog

• have heard Ks and can vote on them but walk me through

Hi! I went to Shrewsbury High and just graduated and now I go to the University of Michigan (go blue!!) I did PF for four years, a bit of world schools, a bit of college policy, and competed on the local MA circuit for my freshman and sophomore year and then the nat circuit kinda after that. this paradigm is a mess so let me know if you have questions I also haven't done debate in a few years so keep that in mind.

I did public forum, so I will flow, I should be able to follow your argument. You shouldn't have to use a bunch of techy words and phrases to convince me, you need to warrant. As in please try to avoid blippy extensions. My philosophy is that narrative debate is the most important thing in debate, and is what separates a ok debate kid from a good debate kid.

If you're a good speaker, I will appreciate it. If you spread, don't expect me to go out of my way to listen. You can talk fast as long as it is understandable. - be careful with speed online and maybe dont do it at ncfls.

also make sure to time yourself or tell me if you want me to time you!

DO NOT BE SEXIST, RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, ETC. it's not cool and I will drop you or lower speaks significantly if you are.

things you should know about how i evaluate rounds:

- you need to CLEARLY extend points in summary to use them in ff

-you need to weigh!! weighing is the most important part of debate - especially with this ncfl topic establish a framework.

- I will call for evidence if you ask me to or if I have to use it to determine who wins the debate - however keep in mind your card doesn’t matter if it wasn’t warranted in the round. Additionally try to avoid using sketchy evidence and be good w evidence ethics!

-I prefer logically warranted arguments

-If you give an off time road map it should be followed otherwise I’m dropping your speaks

- In rebuttal, the second speaking team should frontline turns.

-I’m conflicted about the use of progressive argumentation in PF and I don’t really know how to evaluate it so keep that in mind if you’re thinking of running it. DONT RUN IT NCFLS UNLESS U FOR SOME REASON REALLY HAVE TO WHICH IS LESS THAN 0.0000001 PERCENT OF THE TIME

As long as it's allowed, I will disclose but pls don’t argue w me if I do disclose and you don’t agree! You are allowed to ask questions respectfully!

Overall, debate is a learning experience so enjoy yourself and take something out of each round!

don’t be mean :(

i did pf at bronx science. i did some debate at uchicago. i am now an adult with a job.

i've done what i can to think about debate minimally in recent years, so please have mercy on me in early rounds.

general round wise:

- i'm flow, but not super techy. i will know your jargon, but give you an exasperated look if you use too much of it.

- i have the fine motor skills of an elementary schooler. This means i cannot write or type super fast, so I do not flow things like card names. If you extend just a card name I will be confused (so please avoid saying stuff like "extend Johnson '15" with no clarification of what Johnson says).

- on evidence: tech > truth. by using sketchy cards you are running a risk. if you indict evidence, you gotta warrant your indictment. if evidence is indicted in the round and a team extends it into ff, i will wanna see it before my rfd (if i forget this feel free to remind me). but never fear! if you are using sketchy evidence ill only evaluate it with the warrant provided, so run it with the hope they dont call ya out too good.

- if you wanna email me stuff send it to elizerof@gmail.com. unless you ask me to read something in round I will not read it.

i did PF in high school @ brookfield east, and i am currently a freshman in college.

• speed: should be fine, but if you're worried send a speech doc
• framework: cost-benefit-analysis unless you present your own, but if you do, make sure you extend it
• evidence: please don't assume your evidence speaks for itself. explain it, and weigh it against your opponents. analytical arguments= awesome!!
• final focus: collapse, give me voters, and weigh, please weigh. won't flow anything in ff that was not in summary
• cross ex: won't flow it, but please be respectful and be strategic about it. when done well, can help your position. when done poorly, will affect your speaks.
• will flow, but make it clear if arguments are dropped & if you think evidence is misconstrued

things that i don't understand/won't help you in round: theory/k's, extinction impacts, that's about it!

be respectful, have fun, and good luck!

if you have specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before round to clarify!

my email is: ezz6@cornell.edu (please add me to your email chains)

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

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

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

Be confident, respectful and have fun.

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I would appreciate all competitors speak slowly, loud and clear AND clearly state their contentions.