I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

Hello, This is my first day judging. I am looking forward to to hearing from you. If you are going to spread, please speak slowly as you make your main points so that I can follow as I am new. Good luck to all!

Email: hechildress25@gmail.com, please include me in any email chains

A little about me, I am a Neuroscience major at Georgia Tech, I'm double minoring in Physiology and Biochemistry/Chemistry, and I'm very involved in politics and healthcare related subjects on campus. I've competed in almost every event - I debated for 8 years, went to nationals 4 times, and was finalist for national student of the year in 2024 (I'm just flexing, it's not important (it is very important and is a very big deal, I am just so amazing it's insane))

I prefer debaters to stand when speaking(I started debating in 2020 when we had to sit and be uncomfortable with each other, and we all missed standing, so please stand and talk to each other)

I will not accept any disrespectful language towards your opponents or judges. Don't be rude and you'll do just fine.

Don't browbeat less experienced debaters. Make this a learning experience or else you will not succeed in the round <3

LD: Summary: 1. Trad, 2. Larp, 3. K, 4. Theory (no Friv or tricks or minimizations of the resolution). I flow spread, but be clear. FRAMEWORK!!!

Framework is the most important and whoever wins framework tends to win in my experience. Use your contentions to back your framework. I love LD, please don't make me dislike it. I like impact analysis, so do what you want with that. Have some philosophy, I absolutely DESPISE how Ld has become more Policy-Jr, so actually have some philosophical standing and carry your framework throughout the case. I do not care for statistics much because this is Lincoln Douglas Debate, this is a morals and values centric debate and stats are for more policy and implementation centric debates. If it resorts to a stats debate, low speaker points, but better stats win.

- Values - I think the framework of a case is the most important part of a debate for LD. I don't care that much about implementation unless the resolution has it. PROVE HOW YOURS WINS and how it links to your case.

PF: I have never competed in PF, but I have worked with PFers and understand the basics. Use your evidence as impacts and arguments, don't just read it. I prefer traditional PF. Again, this is not Policy Jr so DO NOT ACT LIKE IT!! Stats are important, but do not overlook the importance of examples and implementation. I enjoy PF because it is fun, do not change that. PF is a partner debate, rely on your partner and if they say one thing, extend it. Be civil and have fun!

Policy: I do not enjoy policy, so if I am judging you in policy, I apologize. I do not know the jargon and I despise spreading, so change accordingly <3

Congress: Read a speech and actually know it (or act like you know it). This is supposed to be fun. Don't be rude, and actually get stuff done.

CLASH - this is a debate, not a tea party. I prefer contention impact weighing clash, but please don't resort to a definitions debate. If there is no clash, then speaker points will show that.

I will not do your work for you. If you said something in Cross Ex and don't bring it up, it is not an argument. Explain your links and impacts or else I won't.If you do not bring up any impacts, speaker points and the overall outcome of the debate.

Spreading - If I cannot understand what you're saying because you're speaking so fast, I will take off points even if I have the case. I can flow spread, but please speak clearly, and if you don't, then I will not flow the argument. I do not think spreading is helpful in anyway other than to look like you're a "much better debater." I think speaking slower and adding emphasis and tone is more important but whatever floats your boat

Extinction/Nuke War: I will not vote on Extinction arguments without proper links (minimum of 4 cards to prove linkage).

General Debate: have fun with the round, make unique cases and arguments. By the end of a topic, we’ve all heard the basic arguments, so please find some new ways to run a case. If it’s unique, I’ll give better speaks. Monotone is boring, use your tone and body language to aid in your speaking.

Losses for me: disrespect, sexist/racist/LGBTQ+phobic/literally any discriminatory comments or language, or violence.

Interp/Speech: Only rule for me- SCREAMING DOES NOT EQUAL EMOTION!! If you can show emotion without screaming, you did good. Now if it's a getting louder because the piece needs to show emphasis, sounds good. (Please have some movement, it makes it look better)

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy out west. Take that for whatever you think it means.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion (Framework, Standard, etc,) - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it. I am open to all arguments but present them well, know them, and, above all, Clash - this is a debate not a tea party.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
• Speed - Debate is a SPEAKING event. I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread - it better be clear, I will not yell clear or slow down or quit mumbling, I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth! NEW for ONLINE DEBATE - I need you to speak slower and clearer, pay attention to where your mike is. On speed in-person, I am a 7-8. Online, make it a 5-6.
• Email Chains Please include me on email chains if it is used in the round, but don't expect me to sit there reading your case to understand your arguments - pchildress@gocats.org **Do not email me outside of the round unless you include your coach in the email.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• Casing - Love traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans, theory - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis. It is really hard for you to win with an AFF K with me - it better be stellar. I am not a big fan of Theory shells that are not actually linked in to the topic - if you are going to run Afro-Pes or Feminism you better have STRONG links to the topic at hand, if the links aren't there... Also don't just throw debate terms out, use them for a purpose and if you don't need them, don't use them.
• I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, I don't either), who made the most successful arguments and used evidence and reasoning to back up those arguments.
• Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with a rare low point win each season. I am fairly generous on speaker points. I disclose winner but not speaker points. Even is you are losing a round or not feeling it during the round, don't quit on yourself or your opponent! You may not like the way your opponent set up their case or you may not like a certain style of debate but don't quit in a round.
• Don't browbeat less experienced debaters; you should aim to win off of argumentation skill against less experienced opponents, not smoke screens or jargon. 7 off against a first-year may get you the win, but it kills the educational and ethical debate space you should strive for. As an experienced debater, you should hope to EDUCATE them not run them out of the event.
• Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
• Rule of Debate Life. Sometimes you will be told you are the winner when you believe you didn't win the round - accept it as a gift from the debate gods and move on. Sometimes you will be told you lost a round that you KNOW you won - accept that this is life and move on. Sometimes judges base a decision on something that you considered insignificant or irrelevant and sometimes judges get it wrong, it sucks but that is life. However, if the judge is inappropriate - get your advocate, your coach, to address the issue. Arguing with the judge in the round or badmouthing them in the hall or cafeteria won't solve the issue.
• Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind and respectful if you want to win.
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

Hello!

My name is Rianne Delos Santos and I am the vice president of GSMST’s debate team. I’ve been debating since middle school (6 years) in public forum.

Email: rianne.ds08@gmail.com

• Speak with confidence, clarity, and conciseness

• Have clear warrants and arguments

• State important points upfront

• This will help me understand the structure of your case

• ALWAYS FLOW (if your arguments aren’t connected, they have no purpose)

• PF is meant to PERSUADE (solidify a few arguments throughout > multiple statistics or sources)

• You’re convincing your judge of your stance, not your opponent; use eye contact, vocal variation, appropriate gestures, etc.

• Debate is civil, don’t take your arguments with personal feelings!

Enjoy the competition; debate is an art of persuasion, not degradation :)

Hi, I'm Devang, a current junior in high school who's been doing PF debate since 7th grade. I've won awards at multiple national tournaments like Stanford, Harvard, and Georgetown and qualified to the TOC. Here's how to win my ballot:

1. Weigh impacts-- compare your impacts to your opponents' and explain why they are more important
2. Respond AND Frontline-- respond to all arguments your opponents make, and defend your arguments against their responses
3. Collapse-- don't try to go for every argument you made in case and rebuttal. find your strongest arguments and win them
4. Weigh impacts
5. Weigh impacts
6. Weigh impacts

Speed Preferences: I LOVE fast-paced debates, but do not go fast if you lose clarity or don't feel that you need to. Send speech documents if you plan on speaking fast.Slowly winning every argument is better than going incoherently fast and losing me and the round

In case I forgot to say weigh impacts

Good luck!

Updated 2024, following Greenhill

Dr. Brice Ezell – The Lovett School, Debate Coach (he/his)

Bakersfield Christian High School, 2006-10 (LD, competed mostly in local CA tournaments and at NSDAs; broke in LD in 2009)
George Fox University, BA, 2010-2014 (WUDC, competed nationally and at Worlds twice)
University of Texas, PhD and MA, 2015-21 (involved sporadically in judging, but was not on UT's college teams; my PhD subject matter involved a lot of reading in phil/K lit, however)

Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. PF debaters: scroll to the bottom (though plenty of my judging philosophy in the LD section aligns with my thinking for PF as well.)

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts.

Prefs: Though I hesitated to do this at first, as I don’t want debaters to get the sense that they have to run one kind of argument in front of me to succeed, below is how I’d categorize my preferences when it comes to LD. I recognize there is value to being transparent about this as a judge, though I really try to be tabula rasa in-round as this is an activity whose practices are created by its participants. Debate is as much a creative as it is an academic activity.

I Like These and Vote on Them Regularly - Run Truly Whatever

Philosophy

Policy (LOVE plan/CP debates)

Post-fiat K debates

Theory

Truth-testing

Skep (moral or epistemological - big fan of args involving the latter, actually)

I Could Definitely Vote on these But My Threshold is Higher

Pre-fiat Ks

Performance (though I stress one thing: make sure you know what the word "performative" actually means)

Serious gaming

I Can't Imagine Voting On These Ever

Tricks* [see note below]

Frivolous theory (e.g. "URL theory," font sizes, etc)

*I know there may be some confusion in having tricks ranked at the bottom here and skep/truth testing in a higher level of willingness to adjudicate. To put it frankly, I’m not totally clear on what constitutes a “trick” – it’s a confusing set. If by “tricks” one means what this definition on Circuit Debater tells us, wherein a trick is an argument that’s meant to be abusive, then I will say without reservation I will vote these kinds of arguments down. As a general practice, irrespective of the style of case one runs in front of me, I reward debaters for running toward the debate, rather than trying to win on the narrowest grounds possible. Go for clash! With that in mind, I’m not clear why truth testing and skep cases *must* constitute some kind of trick or attempt to be abusive to your opponent. Truth-testing is a flavor of old-school LD, and done well is hardly abusive, certainly not in a way where an opponent couldn’t sufficiently respond to it.

Stray Things

Speed: No problem! But be especially clear with your tags and author attributions. If I have to say "clear" more than once some of your args might not end up on my flow.

Tech>Truth?: Yes. But this bears saying: when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense. So if you're running a K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument with its own jargon, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. An example: feel free to run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what that means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals. The strategy of obfuscating in the 1AC/NC and then in rebuttals being articulate in the way you should have been in the constructives will bode poorly for speaks in front of me.

Cross-x: Is binding. I flow it and think it’s one of the most important parts of the debate.

Flex-prep: I’m cool with it.

Timing: I trust debaters to keep their own time but note that I will keep time as well (a) as an extra accountability measure in case there’s a dispute, and (b) because I like to make note on my ballot of how speakers allocate their time strategically.

RVIS?: Probably not.

Speaks: Here's how I allocate speaks unless a tournament gives me a bespoke speaker point scale:

30: No notes. If I were a betting kind of person I'd bet you're going to win the tournament.

29.6 - 29.9: Near-flawless strategy and delivery. If this kind of performance is repeated, I'd expect you to get to late elims at this tournament, if not win the tournament altogether.

29.2 - 29.5: Your strategy and delivery mark you as a debater I'd expect, assuming consistent performance at this level, to get solidly far into elims.

28.8 - 29.1: I'd expect you to break based on how you executed strategy and delivery in this round, assuming consistent performance at this level.

28.4 - 28.7: I'd award in this range if I thought you'd break or be on the bubble for breaking, but there are strategic or delivery issues that I could see being an issue in other rounds.

28.0 - 28.3: This is where I start my adjudicating of a round. A debater who stays at this score level is merely "fine" -- nothing too bad, but nothing too flashy either. I would not expect a debater consistently competing at this point level to break.

27.0 - 27.9: You've got a lot of work to do, either in strategy or delivery.

26.0 - 26.9: You've got a lot of work to do in both strategy and delivery.

25: You did something profoundly offensive.

One sure way to get good speaks from me: quality on-case argumentation and engagement with the opponent's cards and tags. I too often feel that even good debaters hear the tag of the AC (e.g. "oh they're running X policy case"), and then rather than engage the substance (or maybe lack thereof) in the AC, will go only for off arguments and weighing, leaving little time for direct arguments on case. Go for your offense, of course, but show me that you're engaging your opponent's case in detail! Put most succinctly, debaters that get good speaks for me eagerlygo for clash, and to me part of good clash is getting into your opponent's case and saying how and why they're wrong.

What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.

One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format, the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, on a topic like "The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt," the CON is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in "the rulebook" for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.

I've been the Speech & Debate Coach at Starr's Mill H.S since 2018. My team only competes in Public Forum and Speech events, so that is where I have the most experience coaching and subsequently judging.

PF:

1. I'm not a tech judge. Make quality, consistent, logical arguments with clearly stated, explained, relevant evidence and you won't have a problem winning the round.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. For high speaker points, I look for sportsmanship, politeness, clear rhetoric, consistent signposting (i.e. referring to the argument you are responding to as you go down the flow), and timeliness.
4. I am not a judge for off-the-wall stuff (topicality, kritiks, etc.).
5. I do not flow cross, but I have decided rounds on crucial admissions and will take notes "on the side" as need be.

LD:

1. I am a lay judge. I only judge PF or Speech so if I get placed in a LD round, it's usually a one-off.
2. Do not spread. Do not ask if I or your competitors want your case as a workaround.
3. I'm not receptive to most counterplans and prefer standard LD cases.
4. Value/Value Criterion will absolutely weigh in my decision.

Clear communication is an essential component of a good debate. Well organized thoughts and arguments are also important. Please be respectful and kind to your opponents.

Treat me as a lay judge. Spreading in a debate is strongly discouraged. DO NOT Spread! If you try to do a "speed talking data dump" I will assume it is to cover a lack of deeper understanding of your subject. I prefer a slow, clear delivery that demonstrates a logical analysis and speaks directly to/rebuts points made by the opposing team. It is the burden of the debater to make sure the arguments are flowable.

Somewhat new judge, who has previously judged novice/JV.

Not well versed in theory, so please keep non-traditional arguments to a minimum.

Debate is about ideas, not a speed-reading contest, please don't spread.

I value how you weigh your arguments: tell me specifically why you win, tell me why your arguments matter more than that of your opponent.

add me to your email chain: lanya.hu8@gmail.com

Do filesharing before round, and I prefer speechdrop if possible/necessary
PF debater for a while, she/her

General Info:

1. tech>truth until it gets unethical
2. most of the time tabula rasa, if I question your evidence I'll call for a card
3. default util framing unless other frameworks read
4. probably read about up to 90% of your top speed, nothing over 400 wpm pls, I paper flow
5. will stop flowing 5 seconds after allotted time, I keep time but will not tell you when your time ends, will only stop flowing, so I recommend competitors keep their own time
6. If there's no citation, it's analytical, and evidence comparison > none
7. don't mind yelling as long as it's not directed towards me
8. give judge direction or I'm voting on what was extended throughout the round
9. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline
10. signpost if you aren't reading in the order of your opponent's speech
11. impact weighing and cross are taken into consideration, would consider second half of the debate to be most important
12. abide by NSDA guidelines

Speaks:

Speaks start at 28.5, all speaks SHOULD be in between 26-30, will disclose them if you ask for me to do so
I like giving out higher speaks

Scale:

29.4-30.0 - near perfect round, not really much to critique
29.0-29.3 - good round
28.5-28.9 - average round, most of the speaks I give are within this range
28.0-28.4 - mid round
27.0-27.9 - bad round, made several mistakes
26.0-26.9 - messy round, no judge direction, you would probably said something really objectionable to get speaks in this range

Inflate Speaks:

collapsing
impact weighing
being nice
addressing judge during crossfire (and all speeches in general)
reading evidence
having an interesting case, unique response, etc.
give me candy (anywhere from +0.1 to +1.5, depends on the candy ofc)

Tank Speaks:

misgendering opponent (if you do it twice, it's an automatic L and speaks start at 25)
not impact weighing (-0.3)
stealing prep
making me have to step in
sending fake evidence, taking too much time to send evidence, sending link to evidence without card or marking where evidence was taken

feel free to ask questions during round, and please talk to me if you arrive early = good first impression

I am currently a sophomore at UGA, but I was a PF debater all 4 years of high school. I haven't been debated or flowed in a while, so please don't spread because I won't be able to keep track of everything. I don't flow cross x, so make sure to include important points from cross x in your speeches. I really like frameworks, so please establish one, extend it through the round, and use it to weight impacts because it really helps to structure your argument. I like voters in final focus. Don’t bring up anything new in 2nd summary. Make sure to extend all of your arguments, or I won’t factor it into my decision.

I have debated Public Forum for 3 years at Lassiter High School and 6 years in total.

I am okay with speed, however if I cannot follow your speech, I will request that you send me a case file with your contentions. I don't typically flow crossfire (that doesn't mean it isn't important) so if you want me to consider something brought up during cross x, please mention it in your next speech. Off-time roadmaps are always helpful. Please front-line it can only help you. Weigh, weigh, weigh your impacts.

I do not tolerate any type of discriminatory or hateful speech (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc.). Keep it kind, keep it respectful. Don't cheat it's not cool.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun! Don't stress, you've got this.

I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

Hello! My name is Eden (he/him), and I am a former PF debater from Carrollton High School and a current first year student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!). I debated 3 years on the Georgia and national circuit so I'm familiar with the event.

Add me to email chain: edenlong42@gmail.com

Summary: Tech>Truth. Arguments need to be extended through every speech (besides 1st rebuttal) and evidence must be used to support your speeches. I will always vote off the flow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Impacts: Link strength comes before your impact. Basically, I won't consider your impact weighing if I don't think you've proven that your impact is going to happen. Please weigh your impacts. I'll vote on any framework as long as you win it on the flow. If the link chain is strong and you defend it well I'll vote for your impact.

Theory: I'm willing to vote for theory arguments just make sure you actually win the warranting. I'm not going to vote for you the second you start reading theory just because your opponent doesn't format the argument the way you think they should. Whoever warrants the best gets my vote. RVI's and IVI's are fine.

Disclosure: I'll vote on disclosure at TOC bid tournaments only. I ran it a few times and know how it works. Same theory stuff applies about warranting. I won't vote on jargon alone. I probably won't vote for disclosure at a non-bid tournament.

K's:I have less experience with K's than I do with theory so keep that in mind but I am willing to vote on it if you warrant it. I don't have an issue taking debates outside of the topic as long as you prove to me why we should. I enjoy when debaters read K's they truly care about and I think it brings important discussions into our event.

Tricks:I really, really don't like tricks. I think the only time we should take things out of the topic is when we really need to. I hate when debaters want to be lazy and read out tricks to confuse their opponents. If you decide to run friv theory just be prepared for my rfd.

Structure:I think rebuttals need to respond to everything in constructive. I don't want to hear a new response to case in summary and I probably won't flow it. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No new evidence in 2nd summary and final should only extend what's in summary. Don't be abusive in 2nd final. I don't flow cross so if you want me to note something, bring it up in speech.

Evidence: I'll only look at evidence in the chain if you ask me to. Don't be hesitant to call for cards in the round. I don't understand judges who are annoyed by this. Please have evidence ready to be sent, I love evidence sharing but I hate ending a round 30 minutes late.

Timing:Please keep your own time and use running prep. Don't really care if you go over a little bit just don't be hypocritical. I've gone against way too many teams who go 20 seconds over then start complaining the instant their opponent goes one second over. Don't be that team.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to help you get better so please feel free to ask me any questions about debate or the topic after the round. I'll probably be flowing on computer and I'd be more than willing to send you my flow after the round. Good Luck!

Hey guys, here is a little about me, as well as how I judge. :)

I am a Junior Nursing student at Kennesaw State University and I debated in Public Forum for three years.

I want to see a respectful debate, I will not tolerate rude comments to each other or overall being rude. I am all for a heated crossfire and debate but just be respectful of each other's time as well as who is speaking.

I will also not tolerate any cheating of any kind.

Overall I want to see a good debate, tell me why I should vote for you. I would like you to weigh through out the whole debate and in final focus I would like hear the voters specifically. This will make it easier for me to judge and see what were the most important points of the debate.

I will only flow crossfire if I hear something important come up like if you concede a point or your opponent does. Do not rely on crossfire for important points, bring them up again in speeches if you want me to vote on it.

I am okay with spreading to an extent, if I can obviously not understand what you are saying I will not be able to flow.

Lastly, please keep your own time.

I am an engineer and appreciate crisp, clear, and logical arguments. I prefer to clearly hear your argument as opposed to speed listening. Thank you.

Speech/Interpretation

While I understand that there are certain areas of a performance that require yelling or screaming, screaming or yelling for an entire performance is unnecessary. Please don’t confuse yelling as being passionate in your performances. Good luck and I look forward to seeing all of the great talent this season.

Debate

I judge based off of logic, reasoning, and delivery. Please do not spread. If I can't understand your argument, it does not factor into how my decision is made. Please be aware of that.

Generally looking for speaker/participants broader understanding of the topic and belief in the argument being presented.

Secondly, attentiveness to the opponents arguments, display the understanding and specifically counter those. And defending and building your case.

Finally, for my understanding, please send your first speech to my email: vikreddy2022@gmail.com

Hey! I am so excited to be your judge today! My name is Kyle Shekhtman. I am the Secretary of the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology (GSMST) Debate Team.

General:

• I would love for debaters to do their best to be concise and clear, so speak at a comfortable but moderate pace, and ensure that both the judges and the opposing side can understand you. Think through your response, and you will surely do fantastic!

• The best way to format your argument is to fully explain your arguments and thoughts, specifically how they support the overall argument regarding Taiwan.

• Technicals are great to have, but your skills in truly rhetorically explaining your argument are key!

• Please do your best to produce an argument for each turn – speak with confidence and clarity!

• Although I would love to converse with you, your debate is with the opposing side. Please make eye contact and debate with the opposing side.

• When forming your responses, if discussing solutions, aim for them to be realistic in the aspect of actually implementing solutions.

• Assume that I have never heard of the topic you are debating, define jargon, and explain any evidence/documents you refer to. :)

Summary/FF:

• Don’t bring up new or irrelevant arguments that do not support the claim you’ve already laid out–it would be better to focus on reaffirming and strengthening your existing arguments.

• The final focus is your time to place FINISHING TOUCHES; focus on your strongest arguments. Explaining your argument entirely is MUCH BETTER than re-summarizing contentions or evidence––focus on the why!

• Signposting makes it clear why YOUR SIDE should win––use it to your advantage.

Be respectful, be a team player, and HAVE FUN! You will do great!

Thank you for being an outstanding debater!

P.S. I will disclose the results verbally at the end of each round—just bear with us as we prepare them!

Have questions? Feel free to email me at kyleshekh@gmail.com

My judging preferences focus on decorum, argument strength, and debate structure, with a particular emphasis on impact, weighing, and strategic presentation. I place high value on respectful decorum, where debaters maintain professionalism, engage with each other's ideas thoughtfully, and avoid personal attacks. Argument strength is a primary consideration; I prefer arguments that are clear, well-supported, and logically sound, with solid evidence backing up claims. Impact is critical to my evaluation, and I look for debaters who demonstrate why their arguments matter, ensuring the significance of their points is clear. I also prioritize weighing, with debaters who compare the relative importance of arguments and explain why theirs outweigh the opposition’s. While I am open to spreading, I favor clarity and substance over speed—an argument is only persuasive if it is understandable. Regarding debate structure, I appreciate clear signposting throughout the round, making it easy to follow the progression of arguments. In final speeches, I value debaters who strategically weigh their arguments and impact, focusing on the most important issues and explaining why they should win the round.

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, judged in Georgia since 2016, and now teach English at Riverwood High School! I have a BS.ED in Secondary English Education from Kennesaw University co' 2021, and I am currently at UGAOnline getting my Masters of Education in Learning, Design & Technology - specializing in Instructional Design & Development!

I mostly judge PF:

1. Please speak at a pace where I and the opposing team can understand you.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. I do not need an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order your speech goes in, unless you are just telling me that you are just explaining that the speech has one purpose (ex Impacts).
4. Please. Look. At. Each. Other. During. Cross. Not. Me. It’s. Weird. You’re arguing and questioning each other. It’s not a speech, It's a time to question each other!!
5. Please take prep time when reading another opponent's evidence.
6. Please do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Debaters usually try to link some huge world problem in the resolve with the impact that poverty is the end all-be-all, and is the worst thing ever. Global poverty is a systemic issue that people cannot help as it is an effect of systemic racism, capitalism, etc. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year olds cannot solve, and is usually only given harmful, exacerbated solutions to, therefore I no longer want to hear about it.
7. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
8. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
9. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.
10. If I close my eyes or look to the side while you are speaking during your speech, I am trying to focus and listen. I have combined type-ADHD, and I am just trying to SUPER FOCUS on the WORDS YOU ARE SAYING!! PF has so much info, I don't wanna miss a second!! Please do not take offense!

11. I prefer not to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

12. Please, use your manners and let each team finish speaking during the crossfire. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners y'all.
13. Give me a second while I am entering a round for the first time to set up everything. I be carrying junk around in my bag.
14. Please extend arguments and impacts in your summary and Final Focus, I understand it can be tempting to summarize your contentions. The other team and I listened to the whole hour plus of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

15. I disclose verbally after every round because I hate typing. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

Lanawall.snd@gmail.com

I am currently a varsity PF debater for Sequoyah High School and mentor for middle school team, Dean Rusk. I am a rising Senior and have done debate for 4 years (one year in middle school). I have participated in national tournaments such as Harvard and have attended many more. I have judged officially at Nationals 2024 and other local tournaments and I have experience judging with the middle school and high school teams, one of which I mentor and also have experience from just watching/judging other practice and official high school rounds within my team.

SPEAKING

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

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

TECHNICALITIES

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

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

OTHER

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

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

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

For a bit more fun and speaker point advantages:

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

Example: oil spills impact “Doing this would make it so Marlin and Dory would die before they even found Nemo because the water would make them so sick!! Do you want Marlin and Dory to die?!?!?!?”

(And if it’s a music reference that’s even better because that’s DIFFICULT-)

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

♡ ∩_∩

(„• ֊ •„)♡

|￣U U￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣|

|____Good Luck ^o^____ |

￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣

Resolved: The United States should substantially reduce its military support of Taiwan- Please provide some brief explanation of the topics and arguments in first constructive or before round

This is my second tournament as judge. I will not be timing you at all, and it is up to you guys to time yourselves and point out if the opponent is abusing time so I can mark them down.

Please speak in moderate speed with CLEAR warrants and good arguments, it is very likely that I will drop you if I cannot understand what you are saying.

I'll most likely be taking notes on the entire debate on a pen and piece of paper, so try using more rhetoric compared to just creating a lot of arguments.

At the end of the day whoever makes the best argument with the biggest impact should win the round.

Hi! I've been debating public forum for 4 years now. Here are some of my preferences:

General:

1. As long as you're clear, I don't mind if you speak fast.

2. Warranting/explaining your arguments is really important and telling me how they impact the round will help you win.

3. Weighing also makes it easy for me to vote for you

4. I don't like super wacky arguments, but if you do run one, just make sure you explain it thoroughly so that a) it's harder for your opponents to respond and b) it makes it easier for me to follow along and buy your argument. However, you will win the argument if your opponent does not respond to it well (but this is unlikely).

5. Please tell me what you are responding to or talking about in your speeches.

6. Be respectful to your opponents; no racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc.

7. I would not like it if you read an argument about a group that is not part of your identity.

8. Ask for my email if you want to share ev.

9. Ask me if you have any questions before the round.

Rebuttal:

1. Weigh your turns (and other offense); even better if you implicate them

2. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal; otherwise, bringing up something completely new in 2nd summary is abusive

3. Please tell me exactly what you're responding to. Make sure you also talk about how your response is applicable to their case/this debate (implicate it); don't just read ev without warranting.

Summary/FF:

1. Extend all parts of your case and rebuttal that you want me to consider in the round.

2. Don't bring up any completely new arguments in 2nd summary besides weighing. 1st summary also shouldn't be bringing up completely new responses to the opponent's case, but frontlines are fine of course.

3. Frontlines shouldn't just be extensions of your case.

4. Anything said in final focus should have been in summary. Make sure you're extending the arguments/weighing/analysis you want me to evaluate on the flow.

5. Weighing is really important; make sure it's actually comparing you and your opponents' arguments. Don't just tell me the mechanism, actually explain how you're a pre-req or why you have greater probability, etc.