Hi,

My name is Dominic Allocco. This is my first year judging. I am the parent of a novice Public Forum debater. I prefer if all evidence is introduced by the end of the First Summary. I listen carefully to the cross, but I don't typically flow it. I don't RFD in round.

Tech > Truth

I personally don't like theory, but I will evaluate it.

If you want your arguments and impacts to be flowed through, make sure it is extended in summary and final focus. I allow sticky defense.

I am pretty lenient when it comes to speaker points, Make sure your speeches are easy to understand(Signpost) and follow a good order. I am fine with speed but will dock points if it seems like the opponents can't understand what you're saying.

Add me to the email chains so I can take a look at the evidence: abhilash0ari@gmail.com.

If you believe any evidence was misconstrued or false, Let me know at the end of the round so I can call for it.

Here's the best ways to avoid losing a round that I am judging: DON'T read fast. DON'T be rude to your opponents in crossfire. DON'T cite just a name and date without any other information. For example, if you say "Baker 2017 argues ______" what am I supposed to do with that if I don't know who the person is, why they are qualified, who they are writing for and so on? For all I know you could be citing your uncle, but maybe your uncle is qualified to speak on the subject matter. But how would I know without a more complete citation than just a name and a number? If you speak at a reasonable pace, are generally pleasant and have great evidence, you'll sound like a winner to me.

Hello everyone! I'm Aadhi (he/him), and I'm a senior and a 2nd year Varsity Public Forum member at Eagan High School! I've participated in several tournaments across both the Minnesota and National Circuit.

Please add me to any email chains in the round: balas139@umn.edu. You're more than welcome to reach out with questions before or after round.

If you have me as your judge, please keep a few things in mind:

Flowing: For those of you skimming this two minutes before the round, I'm a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. Being clear, organized, and having quality extensions are ways to ensure your success. Having a strong narrative that is extended throughout the round makes it easier to crystallize and condense the key points in later speeches. If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Extensions: Walk me through how and why affirming/negating leads to something good/bad in summary and final focus, as well as the quantitative impact of this, and I will be very happy.Your offense (the reasons I should vote for you, or your case and turns made on the opponents) and your defense (the reasons your opponents are wrong, so blocks) are NOT STICKY- this means that I need you to extend the 'story' of your case in the summary and final focus speeches. This is very important to me. I'd recommend prewriting a short paragraph that you can use to summarize your arguments in later speeches. Most novice teams don't do this, so please extend.

Speed: I'm not a very fast flower but I can manage above average speeds. If you're going to spread, send me a speech doc. The slower you go, the more I will understand. So do with that as you will.

Weighing: Aside from extensions, this is one of the easiest ways to win my ballot. I need you to compare your impacts to that of the opponents in summary, final focus, and even rebuttal if you have extra time. Saying that you outweigh on magnitude because your impact is nuclear war is NOT weighing. Saying that you outweigh on probability because drug overdoses are happening right now and therefore are more probable than a nonexistent nuclear war blocked by mutually assured destruction is better. I love metaweighing (comparing weighing mechanisms) so bonus points for doing that.

Collapsing: If you have three contentions, please don't try to go for all three in summary and final focus. Quality>Quantity; as debaters it's your responsibility to funnel the round down to the one or two biggest issues and spend your time extending and weighing those.

Evidence Ethics: This is hugely important to me. I strongly prefer cut cards over paraphrasing. I'm okay with speed cites as long as you're prepared to share the full source citation upon request. Failure to abide by NSDA rules regarding evidence ethics will result in a loss with the minimum speaker points possible.

Other:

• Please be respectful. Making inappropriate comments about your opponents during round as well as being rude are grounds for a low point win, and if it’s egregious enough, a loss.
  SIGNPOST please, off-time road maps are fine but I want to know where you're starting and where you're going
• As far as speaker points go, I average 27 and go up and down based on a combination of your speaking and argumentation skills.
• I'm not flowing crossfire or considering it in my decision, but since there are lots of judges who will I'll give you feedback on it.
• I'm not very experienced with Theory or K's, so would prefer a substantiative debate, but am willing to hear it out if you are willing to explain it well.
• I'll disclose upon request if both teams want to hear it and if the tournament is on schedule.
• Auto 30 if you get me cold coffee

Lastly, and most importantly, please make sure to be respectful and enjoy the debate experience. No one likes to watch an aggressive debate round. You got this!

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Hello! I'm Varshini Bomma (Pronouns: She/Her).

Judging

I am definitely a flow judge, I will only judge what is on the flow. I will judge clear and logical arguments that are extended throughout the round. With that being said, I will not flow crossfire so if you make a really good argument in cross, make sure to bring it up in a speech so I can have it written down on my flow!

Don't run theory.

Weighing

PLEASE WEIGH! I can only make a decision on who to vote for if you tell me WHY your arguments matter to me. Extend your impacts and use weighing mechanisms to do so effectively.

Reminder to be respectful to your opponents and partner at ALL TIMES and HAVE FUN!!! :)

I’m a debater from Eagan high school.

My judgment will be based off who has the most cohesive, well made arguments as well as carried through impacts. I’m a trad (tech+lay) judge who will highly value debaters who actually know their case and what they are arguing.

I can flow pretty fast but if you are speaking at such a fast pace I cannot flow it the argument will not be taken into consideration.

I am NOT flowing cross, but I still love a heated questioning segment.

Let’s have fun, also please be respectful to your opponent.

song recommendations are highly appreciated after the round is done.

I'd consider myself a lay judge. My sister Maddie Cook coaches PF for Lakeville North & Lakeville South in Minnesota, and she's roped me into judging. So, basically, this. This is my fourth year judging. Here are some thoughts I have based on the debates I've judged so far:

• I like it when link chains are explicitly clear and when you clearly state what the impact is.
• Go slower than you would in front of a coach.
• I may miss a few technical things.
• Probably don't read theory or K's...

(she/her/hers)

Speed is fine. Please weigh impacts at the end of the round.

Overall, please make the environment inclusive for everyone. Run arguments that are challenging and that you actually care about/believe in. Have fun!

Treat me as a flay judge. I pay attention to what is going on in the flow but at the same time, I prefer the lay appeal and narrative style of argument.

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. Make the ballot easy for me to write and weigh your cases and impacts and show me that they are better than your opponents.

As for speed, I can handle speed but at the same time, I'm not gonna be happy to hear full-out policy spreading in a PF round.

I would not suggest running theory on me but if warranted properly and the theory itself is not abusive then I will consider it in a round. If you run disclosure theory, say goodbye to your speaks.

I fully believe in truth over tech.

This is my fourth year judging as a parent, peak slowly, clearly, and no spreading. I try my best to flow, the slower you speak the easier it is for me to get your points down.

I expect teams to time themselves and use prep time properly.

Occasionally I will call out evidence at the end of the round, if it seems questionable or misused. In that case, email me the card at prasad.gunturi@gmail.com.

Be respectful to each other.

Hi I'm Jeune! Currently in College but I debated Public Forum all 4 years of High School.

I don't need to be on the email chain, but if there is a dispute about evidence, I will ask to see it.

How to get my ballot:

• I prefer Argument>style
• I will flow and try my best to catch every argument as long as you explain it clearly
• Impact weighing is the most important part of the debate for me, I want to hear a strong comparison of why your impacts matter more than your opponents.
• State weighing styles such as probability, magnitude, timeframe, reversibility, etc.
• The faster you speak the less likely I am to understand what you're saying so just be conscious of speed
• Condense the round in Summary and Final Focus-I would rather have you drop a contention (given there is no offense on it) than state your entire case over again
• I don't appreciate paraphrasing and will ask to see specific cards and evidence if it becomes an issue

Important Reminders:

• Don't go excessively overtime- I will give you a few seconds over to finish your sentence but then cut you off
• Be respectful-I will not tolerate any harmful language or disrespect towards your opponents, myself or even your partner
• Keep calm during cross-Please no talking over each other or yelling
• Have fun and learn! I know how stressful debate rounds can be, but at the end of the day it's not that deep I promise

Speaker Notes:

• I like to start at 28 and give or take from there
• You can gain speaks by showing an effective understanding of the round and giving a strong analysis during Summary/FF
• You will lose speaks by being rude, aggressive, falsifying evidence and other negative behaviors

I am Leela and and this is my second year of judging. Communication Style is very important for me. I prefer medium pace speaking and conveying the message in simple English than complicated and difficult to follow. I like evidence quality, logical reasoning, or the importance of impacts and significance.

Hello, I am a fifth year parent judge with lots of experience on the MN local circuit. Here are the main things I care about. Outside of these, feel free to use your creativity and discretion to sway me towards your arguments.

**IF YOU RUN NUCLEAR WAR ON THE CURRENT RESOLUTION, I’M NOT VOTING FOR YOU**

• Mind your speed - this is not a speed reading competition. It is hard to keep up with your ideas if all my focus is spent trying to keep up with the words. Moreover, if I don’t understand what you say, it’s hard to give you points!
• Truth over tech. I value well though-out analytics equally as much as empirics.
• Keep it respectful during round. Disrespecting the other team or mean behavior will not be tolerated.
• I take notes throughout the round, including cross. So don’t worry if I’m scribbling away when you are speaking. I’m listening.
• Regardless of the validity or logic of an argument/contention (or lack thereof), I will buy it if the other side does not challenge it.
• I do not buy any theories, Ks, or any sort of technical tricks used in round. I expect you to debate the resolution.

Finally, while impact is obviously important, I am almost never swayed by the prospect of all of us dying in 2030 because of global warming, nor do I expect us all to die of nuclear strike at the drop of a hat. Nuanced arguments are more valuable as they are more real-world.

Good luck, and feel free to ask me for feedback at the end of the round if you want it :)

This is my first year judging.

Speak clearly and at a listening pace - NOT like an auctioneer. If I can't keep up listening, your arguments are lost.

Facts matter. Trusted/verified sources are a must. If your opponent does not state the source, call it out as an opinion. Fact-checking is your job, not mine.

Make eye contact while speaking. Show me you know the subject and are not just reading notes.

Adhere to the rules of debate and civility. If you speak over your allotted time, I may not stop you but I will disregard anything further stated. Do NOT point out time up yourself - that is my job. Work as a team with your teammate, and as a cordial peer to your opponents.

Don't get mired in the minutiae - the goal is to have an open discussion, and have fun!

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!

• Clash: The debate should center on direct engagement with your opponent's points. I value clash and weigh it heavily. If you aren't addressing your opponent's arguments, I’m less likely to evaluate your side positively.
• Offense/Defense: Offensive arguments (reasons to prefer your side) hold more weight than defensive arguments (reasons to doubt the opponent). Simply negating your opponent’s points without providing reasons why your side is preferable isn't enough to win the round.

• Evidence: I expect well-supported arguments with evidence to back claims. While I value persuasive rhetoric, evidence-based reasoning is stronger.
• Warrants: It's not enough to simply assert a claim—you must explain the "why" behind your argument. Good warranting makes your argument much more compelling.

• Impact Calculus: Debaters should clearly explain why their impacts matter more than their opponents’. Whether you prioritize magnitude, timeframe, or probability of impacts, you need to do the weighing for me. If you leave weighing out, I will have to default to my own evaluation, which may not benefit your side.

This is my first year judging, and I’m here to learn while being as fair and open-minded as possible.

I value clear, logical arguments and strong explanations backed by evidence. Since I’m relatively new to judging, I appreciate when debaters thoroughly explain their points and avoid overly technical language.

Please introduce yourself and state your side when you first speak. Speak at a pace where I can clearly understand your arguments. I place equal importance on both substance and style of delivery.

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge and will aim to make decisions based solely on the arguments made during the round.

I will flow the round, so be sure to signpost and indicate when you are addressing specific arguments. If an argument is dropped, I will consider it conceded unless it is addressed.

Please avoid interrupting other speakers unless absolutely necessary, as this may affect your points.

I admire your commitment to debating and look forward to judging your round!

I am a graduate student pursuing a Masters in Human Resources and Industrial Relations at the UMN Carlson School of Management. I have participated in 2 years of public forum debate, during my high school career. This is my 5th year of judging public forum debate.

When it comes to debating, I strongly value clear speaking. I really appreciate debaters who speak calmly and collectively, rather than at a rapid pace. Likewise, I encourage signposting as much as possible in speeches.

I am a parent judge, new to debate judging. I have judged speech before. I am particularly focused on the link chains of arguments.

How I judge rounds-

Generally I can understand any argument made within a round and for that reason, I will follow trends most associate with flow judging. When I examine a round to determine the winner, I will look for voters that are less attacked than other voters in the round. Evidence is the main determining factor in the early debate for what I believe is a strong argument as the round progresses so analytical responses will take lower priority in what I think shapes a voter.

When examining the concussion of the round, my method of determining a winner is going to fall on what parts of the round developed the most as I generally think less of an argument, even one which is pointed out to have no attacks on it, if it is not covered or explained in a later speech. If an argument is referenced lightly in a later speech when it could have been shaped as a significant voter or even a voter that has been flowed cleanly and left untouched by the opponents, my judging will focus on it less than a developed and explained argument which both sides have talked about extensively.

I am fine with some level of theory and accept arguments made in a more technical tone as long as they are explained in a way which both teams understand. I will like a theory argument less if the opponents are not provided an explanation of what they are arguing against, especially if they ask questions related to an explanation in the first cross after the theory is introduced.

Off time roadmaps are fine and I personally am in a partnership that can use them to circumvent things like not being ready to attack arguments at the start of a rebuttal. This works well when you give a roadmap so that you talk about the underdeveloped arguments last and your partner adds to the arguments while you read the other parts. They can be key for opponent and judge understanding when you intend to jump around or avoid a certain topic until later.

Speech speeds are generally whatever you want them to be. I will flow a round better if speaking is slow, but I can flow even spreading or equivalently fast speeches with some warning. This will not on it's own determine anything about your speaker points, your speaking in general does, of course, impact speaker points.

Speaking Time is something I expect you and your opponents to take care of. You are high schoolers, if your opponent goes too far overtime, you can point this out as well as what they said while going overtime to best take care of the issue. I will disregard statements said overtime only if you point that out.

Who am I-

I am an Eagan Varsity debater. I generally understand all the stock and most of the various uncommon arguments. I know various debaters along the local tournaments and love spending time with debate topics. I don't write as many cases as my partner, but I always find it fun.

If I have not mentioned something you would like to know, please ask before aff constructive

Hello

My name is Elizabeth Peris. I am a political science major at the University of Minnesota, where I plan to further my studies in pre-law. I have previous experience in this field, which also pertains to my major.

How to earn my ballot

Argument over style. Stay consistent with your argument and key points you want to validate further through the debate.

Avoid outside discussion during the debate. For example, when the opposing team speaks, it's inappropriate to console your teammate during their deliberation.

Disrespect towards your team or the judge will result in an immediate deduction of points for you and your teammates. I do not tolerate this behavior, especially in a professional setting like a debate.

Concise and clear statements. I will keep up with my flow of notes, but the points you make key will be jotted down. It's up to you how you will highlight your agenda of argument.

Anticipating counter-arguments as well as utilizing time to make sure to come prepared with your argument/rebuttal and fill space

Refrain from paraphrasing direct evidence, which is necessary to further your argument and your team.

Scoring

I average a 27 to begin with but those who exceed expectations will be scored graciously.

you will be scored lower if you display behaviors of disrespect or any inappropriate displace.

Congress: I want to see CLASH, not prewritten speeches. I enjoy some sass, but don’t push it. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. will be an automatic bottom rank in my book.

PF: I am big on the weighing mechanism in round. If you can’t convince me (in anyway) that your side is better overall, that’s automatic L. I don’t care too much for structure, as long as you can convince me your side will cause less harm, i’ll be with you. I look for empathy specifically in pf, if you exclude empathy you’ll be getting an L.

I also listen to crossfire, and will take notes on it.

For all events: i look up sources. do NOT source in anyway that is unethical or you will be dropped by me.

When judging debate, I want to see that all the opponents are following, and respecting the rules outlined by the National Speech and Debate Association.

Things that are important to me:

• I want there to be respect to the opponents, raising your voice, getting an attitude, or rudely cutting someone off are not things that will be beneficial to your case.
• I want the debate to stay on task, asking questions that take away from the topic of this debate, or starting off with answering the question with something off topic will not benefit you in the end.

• Using any type of derogatory language, this can be the other opponent, or about a group in your debate, it is going to be very hard to allow you to win that round.
• Having credible sources, statistics, and passion for your side of the debate will greatly benefit you in my round.
• Speaking at a speed that is easily understood by myself and your opponent.

Currently, I am the novice public forum coach at Edina High School. I graduated from Aberdeen Central in 2024 and participated in PF for four years. I also participated in informative speaking and big question debate.

Regardless of the format I am judging, I am very much a flow judge. I can handle some speed, but don’t go so fast that I’m not able to get your important arguments onto my flow. I won’t vote on anything that I am not directly told in round, so if your opponents dropped something, make sure you say so! Additionally, even if I can tell your opponent’s link chain is flawed, I won’t take that into consideration unless it is brought up in the round. Feel free to give off the clock roadmaps, but keep it short and sweet. When time is up, I’ll allow you to finish your sentence or finish answering a question, but please respect the time limit.

Always be sure that you’re being respectful of your opponent and your judge. I know debate can get a bit intense, especially in cross, but always make sure you’re being assertive rather than aggressive.

Hey all! I'm Hayagiriv (pronounced Hi-ya-griv), currently a varsity member in PF at Eagan, making this my 4th year debating in PF. I've been to a few national tournaments, NatQuals, and I compete regularly on the local circuit. I'm well read about the topics that are provided, so don't worry about needing to over-explain anything to me! I'm a flow judge - I will only judge what's on the flow. If you have any questions about anything in my paradigm, want to ask something completely unrelated about debate, use me as a resource, go for it. Debate is an educational activity and I'm all for educating the people.

Tech v Truth

Generally, I'm tech over truth. This means that, if an argument is introduced into the round, and the argument isn't addressed by the opposition, the argument stays. The argument can be as stupid as "The sky is typically green at night", and I'll let it slide. I PERSONALLY will not buy it, but if it goes uncontested by the opponents, then as an unbiased judge, I'll have to consider it in the context of the round.

The reason why I'm tech > truth is because you as the competitors shouldn't leave stuff up to the judge - that's a dangerous game you're playing if you let the judge think for themselves, because that means that they input their own unpredictable biases into the round. I agree, the sky is NOT green at night, but if it's something more ambiguous like "Russia's military is currently stronger than the US's in the Arctic", then it's a bit clearer as to why having a judge's personal bias into the round can be problematic for both teams. While there are benefits of truth > tech judging, I'm going to stick to tech > truth.

TL;DR: I'm tech > truth because I'm lazy and don't wanna have to think about whether I like an argument - after all, I'm not debating, y'all are.

General stuff I wanna see!

I want to hear you explain why your argument matters, not only to me as the judge, but also in the round. (Especially in Summary and Final Focus!) I want to know what argument you're interacting with when you introduce an A2 or a Block in Rebuttal. In Summary, if you're extending case or weighing, I'd like to know what that means to me as a judge. An example might be: "Putting Surveillance Infrastructure along the southern border does X, this is good/bad because Y." I need to see the "because Y" part, because otherwise, I don't know why I should even vote on that argument in the first place. That being said, just make things very clear to me as the judge.

I prefer 1 very solid, very well explained argument, over 50 garbage, meaningless claims. Quality > Quantity.

Please signpost. It makes my job a lot easier. Just be clear about what you're responding to and number your arguments when possible!

I can handle about 250 wpm, but after that, I start to lose you. I will understand what you are saying, but if you want me to have it on the flow to evaluate what you're saying after round, I'll be struggling. Remember, I only evaluate whatever I put on the flow, otherwise I can't.

Weighing

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS GOOD IN THIS WORLD, WEIGH. I need you to tell me why your arguments/your side should be preferred over the opponents. If I don't get weighing, I will consider the argument, but I won't know why I should vote for it. Weighing doesn't have to be long, just please weigh. It's a cardinal sin to not weigh - just because I do not know how I'm supposed to evaluate an argument when I don't get weighing. Meta-Weighing is also super rad and snazzy but if you don't do it it doesn't really matter - but I like to see meta-weighing.

General things about me!

I don't flow cross - Basically... Cross is for y'all to discuss arguments. I'll listen to it, but I will not put the pen to the paper for anything in Cross. If there's something you wanna say that you found out in CX, you HAVE to bring it up in a speech.

RFDs, or Reason for Decisions - If BOTH TEAMS consent, then I will disclose my decision and my reason for it, as well as any questions that y'all have. That being said, feel free to say no if you don't wanna openly discuss the outcome of the round, because it's totally okay to say that. Again, I'll only disclose if BOTH teams are okay with me doing so.

Defaulting/Presumptions - Typically, the practice is to default to the Neg or the side that advocates for the Status Quo. However, I don't like doing that because it puts it up to chance and whoever just HAPPENS to be on the Neg side in that round gets the victory. Instead, I'm just going to default to the side that did the "better" debating. The thing is, in rounds where I have to default, there probably isn't going to be a lot of good debating, but if there's things I liked, such as weighing, or clean case extensions, and stuff like that, I'll go for the side that did a better job. THAT BEING SAID please don't let it come down to that, I wanna judge good debate rounds.

Progressive Debate (Like K's and Theory) will be judged like any other argument in the round. However, if you bring up something stupid like Santa Claus is a consumerist god, (yes, I've hit this argument...) then I will be very annoyed. Use theory for the right reason, with great power comes great responsibility. (If you don't know what Prog Debate is, don't worry about it, it probably won't be relevant to your round anyway.)

No matter what happens - My decision as a judge isn't regarding you as a person, nor you as a debater. As a varsity debater, I understand how important the W or L might seem. However, I urge you to NOT take my decision to be the same as telling you that you're a good or bad debater. All the W or L means is whether your performance in that specific round was better than your opponents or not. What's most important is gaining experience and getting better.

Just have fun - Debate is meant to be fun, and I don't wanna have to judge a round that's full of aggression. Passion is good, aggression... that's a line that shouldn't be crossed. So please! Have fun.

I teach middle school language arts, which includes an introductory unit in debate. I tell my students that anyone should be able to judge a round of debate. This puts the burden on you, the debaters, to MAKE YOUR CASE CLEAR AND EASILY UNDERSTOOD.

By emphasizing your contentions, clearly citing your evidence, and using appropriate examples and analogies to thoughtfully and thoroughly explain and support your position, you will ensure your own success.

CLARITY BEFORE SPEED.

Thank you!

Be logical. Be clear. Solidify your statement with proof and evidence.

High speaker points will be awarded for exceptional speech skills, creativity, and margin of victory.

Talk slow. Make sense. Keep it simple.

Logical, clear and solid arguments with accurate, convincing and relevant evidence will be rewarded.

Speaker points will be considered for exceptional speech skills, creativity, and clarity.

I’m a current 3rd year debater in public forum at Eagan.

My judging is going to based off of who has the best link to their impact after the round, so make sure to keep up your defense and address hits on your case. Make sure to bring through your important arguments and cards through each round or I will not count them.

I can flow relatively fast but if you’re mumbling or mushy in any case I will take speaker points off. Speaker points will be increased with clarity in explanations and arguments, meaning the more fluent and well versed you are in your arguments the better. Respect is also a huge thing for me so if you are generally rude or disrespectful it will be costing you speaker points!

I don’t care if you stand or sit so do whatever’s comfortable. I wont be flowing cross so don't be a try hard, but if you’re good at questioning and answering it’s appreciated.

Most importantly have fun and get along with your opponents!

Add me to the email chain!

clairew25153@isd273.org

I'm a senior at Edina and this is my 4th year in PF. Below are the basic things you should do if you want my vote

1. Be organized and clear

2. Create a narrative

3. Extend your argument

4. Weigh weigh weigh WEIGH

5. Stay honest about evidence

6. Don't be hateful or mean to opponents plz, no phobics ists or isms

Some other general things about how I judge:

If u think u should have won, postround me and try to change my mind

I disclose all decisions and will walk you through my ballot, participating teams are free to opt out. There will also be additional feedback on your online ballot

If you have more questions after the tournament feel free to email me or have your coach email me, I’m always happy to go more in depth (:

Most importantly, have fun! You are (hopefully) here by choice so don’t make it look like u are forced to be here

On the current topic:

Please do not dehumanize immigrants - that's not very persuasive and definitely an ism. Citing sources such as Fox News and the Center for Immigration Studies will definitely make me doubt the validity of your arguments

My topic knowledge is pretty wide so don't worry about an argument being "too tech", I’ll buy any crazy argument cause I think those are cool

Hi y'all!

add me to the email chain ---lasakdubs@gmail.com AND lasadebatedocs@googlegroups.com

LASA Debate '22 || Macalester Debate '26 (follow us @macalesterdebate on insta!!)

Please do not read any arguments about suicide/death good.

I will not vote for toxic masculinity. If you are toxically masculine, strike me.

I'm 6'2", if that matters to you...

----- Policy -----

I spent my first two and a half years at LASA reading plans on the aff and policy strats on the neg. I spent the next two and a half reading Ks on the aff and neg. In college, I've read both policy and K things. No preference for what you read in front of me, I'm about equal in my understanding of all types of args.

Important things:

1. Rehighightings should be read out loud, insertings are insufficient and will be ignored.
2. I'm getting super close to writing "no open cross" in here. Y'all need to let y'all's partners speak!!
3. It is not the other team's burden to tell you what they did and did not read in their doc after their speech. Y'all should be flowing. If you need to ask if things were read or ask for a marked copy from your opponents, I will consider that your prep time.

Be entertaining, but be nice.

----- PF -----

I've started coaching PF at Edina (2023).

Since I'm coming from policy, I'm a tech judge who will keep a detailed flow of all arguments in the round. I am very willing to discuss arguments presented in the debate at length and give detailed speech-by-speech feedback to all debaters after the round.

In policy, I read both policy and kritik arguments, I am willing to adjudicate both in PF as well.

Speed is fine, but respect your opponent's level of understanding as well. A fast debate won't be a good debate if one team wins due to the others' lack of understanding and speaks will reflect that.

Debate is supposed to be fun! Be entertaining and enjoy the round, but be nice.

Hello !

This is my third year as a parent Judge. I am a lay judge that will vote for the team presenting me strong arguments supported by accurate, convincing and relevant evidence and outweighing the impacts.

1. I would prefer you state a source with more information while reading cards. For example: John Apple reports from the brooking institute in 2022, instead of Apple 22, this way it gives your source credibility and I will know that it is not from some random angry Reddit user’s post.

2. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Remember, this is not a speed reading competition. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I get lost in your speech because you're reading too fast, I won't be able to judge your case fairly.
3. Please be mindful of the time limit. If you are 5 seconds over the time limit, I will stop to flow your speech.
4. PLEASE NO RUNNING THEORY, KRITIKS OR FRAMEWORK

Above all else, PLEASE TREAT YOUR PARTNER, OPPONENTS AND JUDGE WITH RESPECT.

I am excited to be your judge and I can’t wait to listen to your debate. Best of luck to both teams!