Name: Luke Anderson

School Affiliation: Fremd High School - Assistant Coach

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?

Palatine High School Graduate, Bradley University for Undergrad.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in:

This is my second year judging and coaching! Although I'm newer to the debate world, I've learned a lot in a short time and am comfortable with mostly anything you want to throw at me.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so.

I have judged both PF and LD.

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.)

Whatever you feel comfortable with. I can somewhat tolerate spreading, you'll be able to tell if you've lost me though.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision?

Very important - I need something to weigh your impacts against! Give me clear and strong links for all your arguments.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

Voting issues are always nice to have. Explaining back to me why you won that round never hurts.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches?

Not important to my decision, but have the potential to be for the sake of my organization and yours.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Your arguments win you the round, your style gets you speakers points. Poor speaking can effect your

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round?

Evidence is king. Give your contentions both strong empirical and analytical evidence.

Tech>Truth

Email: ellabeutel@gmail.com (pls add me to the chain)

First-year out from Belvidere North High School. Debated PF all 4 years. (3 years nat circuit).

For border topic:

- be mindful of ur advocacy and terminology it's easy to accidentally be problematic on this topic

Arguments and Extensions:

-I will vote for any argument as long as it is cleanly extended and has a claim, warrant, and impact at a minimum (it should also preferably be weighed especially turns)

-2nd rebuttal has to respond(frontline) all offense, otherwise, it's dropped.

- pls condense case extension as the round goes on

-Anything new brought up after 1st summary I won't buy (unless weighing in 2nd sum)

Speed:

-I am comfortable flowing around 200-250 WPM as long as you are clear.

Evidence:

-If bad evidence is pointed out I won't drop the team just the argument. However, please don't misuse evidence its counter-productive for education.

Weighing:

-Pls weigh and make it comparative (tell me specifically why what you are arguing matters more than what your opponents are).

-Pls only go for and weigh the arguments you are winning(I don't need you to extend your whole case just pick a contention and tell me why you are winning).

Speaks and Prefs:

-I won't give below a 26 unless you are offensive.

-I don't mind light sarcastic debate just don't make your opponents too upset.

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions before the round starts please feel free to ask!

Hi, I am a current PF debater, senior in high school for U-High, and am experienced in competing.

I prefer tech > truth but don't run egregiously wrong arguments without cards. If you do have a card for it and even if its wrong, as long as your opponents don't call it out, I still buy it as much as it might hurt me.

I don't flow cross and I expect people to keep track of their own time. I will track time too but if you're over time, I won't cut you off I'll just stop flowing and stare at you and dock your speaks.

Don't spread and speak so fast your opponents can't understand you, I'll dock speaks and I'll prefer the opponents. Don't assume things like: if your opponents drop something I'll know, but I need you to point it out or else I don't weigh it.

Don't be disrespectful duh.

Please weigh and explain why you're impacts matter more in the round. Write the ballot for me, I'm lazy and the less thinking I have to do, the better your odds.

I know theory and K's aren't run on Illinois, but in case someone gets creative, don't.

I might make a face at you if you run extinction or nuclear war args, but I'll still weigh it. If you're the opponents and don't say anything about it, I'm going to be really disappointed.

Corny, but have fun. I debate too, tournaments are tiring and often times boring, so get something out of these god knows how many hours.

Bonus speaks if you make me laugh or guess one of my favorite music artists :)

I expect a clear and organized debate. Make sure to speak clearly and loud enough so that that everyone in the round can hear you. Make sure that you are respectful and courteous to your opponents, especially during Crossfire. Cutting off your opponent when they are speaking is not useful or necessary.

I highly suggest you keep an organized flow and go line by line down your opponent's case whenever possible to ensure you address all their attacks on your case and can defend your key points. The win will go to the team that flows through the most points from case to final focus, effectively delinking their opponent's case and defending their own.

As your performance, preparedness, and effort on your debate is valued and admired, I do prefer quality vs quantity. This helps me consider all important points in order to make the best decision. Speed is not favorable for me.

If your side is con, facts or showing cards demonstrating why I should decide for con is important to convince.

Loreto Galvan-Alva

As a flow judge, my primary focus in determining who wins the round is on the technical aspects of the debate/arguments rather than the truthfulness of the arguments presented (I also do not flow through the crossfire, I simply listen so make sure points made in crossfires are brought up in a speech). However, in close rounds I recognize the importance of both tech and truth and I will consider both aspects in determining the rounds winner. Above all, I simply want every debater to remain respectful, and to have fun throughout this process!

1. Tech Over Truth

• Organization, Clarity, and Coherence (e.g., it's okay to speak quickly, so long as clarity isn't affected)
• Strength of evidence presented (e.g., stats, studies, data)
• Structured Speeches (i.e., organized, clash with opponents- speeches change depending on the debate itself/argumetns being presented)

2. Flexibility in Close Rounds

• While I prefer technical arguments, during close rounds I will consider arguments that challenge my initial beliefs or opinions.
• Strength of arguments and connection to why I should vote for either PRO or CON world is what I refer to when making a decision in close rounds (i.e., what are the main voting issues you want me to vote on)

3. Fairness and Behavior

• I encourage respectful discourse, I expect all debaters to engage with their opponents in a respectful manner (remember that you are clashing with the arguments, not the debaters themselves)
• Refrain from any potentially distracting behaviors while opponents are speaking (e.g, talking, giggling, expressive facial expressions)
• Plan ahead for any potential wifi/tech issues (e.g., not depending solely on computers), the wifi of other school's will be unknown until the day of the tournament (being prepared for any potential issues allows us to be respectful of other teams/judges times)

So simply put remember to be respectful, have strong arguments, and have fun!

*My personal preference is to not disclose at the end of a round, I will leave all feedback on the ballot*

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 6 years

General:

- keep speed within reason; if you’re going too fast for me, I’ll put my pen down and look at you until you slow down

- I judge off the flow, lay everything out for me, I won’t make any assumptions or connections for you

- arguments need to be extended throughout the round; if something gets dropped and doesn’t make it to the end of the round, I won’t vote based on it

- give me clear voting issues, I don’t care who won more arguments, tell me why the things you won mean that you should win the round, weigh clearly for me, tell me why I should care about the arguments you won, why do they matter

- I don’t flow cross; if something important comes out make sure you bring it up in a later speech so it ends up on my flow

- keep track of your own time and prep time, if you opponent is going way over, let me know

- treat me like I know absolutely nothing about the topic, I haven’t done any of the research you have

LD:

- I don’t care who wins framework, just make sure you weigh under whichever framework is agreed on

- I don’t like pointless framework debate, if your frameworks are compatible, like justice vs morality, just collapse and move on instead of wasting time arguing which is better

PF:

- If you’re speaking first, it doesn't make sense to go back and defend your case before you opponent’s rebuttal

- the round should funnel down; your constructive and rebuttal focus on the line by line, by the summary you should pick voting issues and address the line by line arguments that tie into them, in final focus I don’t want any line by line arguments, focus entirely on the voting issues for the round and weighing them

- no line by line in final focus, it’s too late for that

Hey all! I'm Ivory, and this is my 3rd year debating for Fremd:)

• tech > truth, i wouldnt care less if u argued extinction just give me clear warranting as to why humanity will go bye bye from implementing one ruling
• speed: i can flow pretty fast just make sure you're enunciating
• timing: make sure you time yourselves, ill stop flowing if u go over 10 seconds
• cross: will not flow cross, but if you want a point mentioned during to be evaluated make sure to bring it into speech:)
• give me an offtime roadmap and please signpost in all speeches or i wont be able to follow!
• defense isnt sticky!! make sure to extend your argument through all speeches or i will consider it dropped. along with that, please do not drop it in your partner’s speech and pick it back up for your own, it’s partner debate for a reason! collaborate
• weigh. weigh. weigh. tell me why i should vote for u.
• MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!!!!!: if you include the mean girls reference “that’s so fetch” in your speech ill boost your speaks…oh yeah and be respectful to each other and have fun or whatever:)

final note for the 10/5 tournament- this topic can get political and problematic, be mindful of the wordings you choose!

I like to see debaters speaking slowly and clearly. Go line by line down the flow and refute your opponent. Make sure your voters issues are very clear and that you tie everything back to your value. Not the biggest fan of framework outside of your value and value criterion.

In the past, I was a congressional (state finalist IHSA 2017) and PF debater for 4 years (competed locally in IL and nationally). I will be listening intently and flowing you in detail.

Hey everyone! Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best!

1. Clarity over speed - economy of language that allows you to be concise while still making your points will go further in my book than reading something as fast as you can. However, if you’d like to use speed or need to do so, I will probably be able to follow just fine.

2. Logic and reasoning - from the very beginning with your case itself, you should be defining and defending the connections (with evidence) between affirming or negating the resolution and the argument you are making. If the links themselves are weak, it matters less to me how significant your impacts are (ie don't drone on about how detrimental (blank) is if you haven't established that your position leads to/worsens/mitigates/prevents that thing).

3. Two worlds analysis - I like to see this both on the weighing, warrant, and evidentiary level. Why should I prefer your weighing over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your warrant over your opponent's? Compare them. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponent's? Compare them.

4. Engage with your opponents' arguments - Name the pieces you both agree on and use shared stances to then dig deeper on areas of clash, trying to persuade the judge why a similar argument works more in your favor than in your opponents. This should mean that the longer the round goes on, speeches feel more and more representative of engagement happening in the round (and less canned or pre-prepared).

5. Use CX strategically! It is of course important to ask for clarification when necessary, but I love to see a strategic set of questions that feels purposeful and can then be referenced later in the round.

6. Extensions - My threshold for extensions is fairly low. I expect you to extend every link in the arg you're going for. You do not need to extend evidence, just your claim and warrant. They can be paraphrased. You also cannot just extend some arbitrary number for your impact. I expect your impact scenario to be extended.

7. Signposting and organization - I hate guessing where I should be flowing. Be explicit where you are going on the flow both before your speech and during it. If you think you're being obvious, be a little more obvious. If your speech is not organized and super jumpy, regardless of signposting, I will likely get lost. Please have a strategy when you deliver.

8. The #1 rule of debate should be the "spirit of the game" - be respectful of yourselves, each other, your judge, and have fun!

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

Add me to the email chain: mkirylau@gmail.com

Background

I'm a current student at the University of Illinois studying computer science and philosophy. I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). This is my second year judging PF (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style Preferences

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (aka tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

Tech>Truth

Email: gabekroepel@gmail.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com (For the email chain)

I graduated from Belvidere North High School. I debated all 4 years (3rd nat circuit) in PF. I have also qualified for NSDA nats(3x), NCFL nats(4x) and the TOC(2x) in PF.

For online debate, just assume I am ready before every speech.

IMPORTANT BORDER TOPIC STUFF

Don't say illegal immigrant. I will give lower speaks if it happens multiple times, especially in Varsity.

This topic is incredibly politically charged, so try not to get into the weeds.

It's very easy to accidentally walk into a racist or xenophobic advocacy, so please watch yourselves.

GENERAL STUFF

Timing

I will be timing but time yourselves.

If you go over 10 seconds pastime, I will just stop writing. I’m not stopping you unless it’s like a minute.

Don't steal prep time.

Speed

I can flow anything ~200-250 WPM (800-1000 word constructive and rebuttal) assuming you're clear.

250 is pushing it, so send speech docs for 1000ish word speeches and up.

Arguments

I'll vote on anything that makes sense and isn't blatantly offensive. If it's offensive, I have no problem stopping the round, giving you the L and 20s.

It's not an argument without a claim, warrant and impact.

Extensions

Defense is not sticky in Varsity (It is sticky in Novice) (If someone drops something on their argument, you must extend it.)

2nd rebuttal has to respond to all offense, otherwise, it's dropped.

Condense case extension as the round goes on.

Collapsing is better

If everyone drops defense, I will default on the weighing.

If one side extends an impact without a warrant, and one side extends a warrant with no impact, I will default on the warrant with no impact.

Cross

Don't assume I'm listening.

If evidence is brought up. Bring it up in an actual speech, or I'm not weighing it.

Cross should be an opportunity to project your case. Make it clear you know what you are talking about

A concession MUST be brought up in speech, or I don't care.

If GCX turns into a chaotic mess similar to four raccoons fighting over trash, I will hate my life. (Lower Speaks)

Evidence

I won't drop a team for misusing evidence, just the argument. Unless it's an entire constructive, obviously.

Tell me to call for the evidence and specifically tell me what's wrong with it in the round.

If someone reads Bradford 13 900 million people into poverty, my response threshold is the following as the card has a lot of problems. Just say this 1st, We've had 2 recessions since the card was written, nowhere near 900 million have ever gone into poverty. 2nd, No recession has ever been that big, it has no historical precedent.

Analytics with a warrant can beat evidence without a warrant.

Weighing

If it's not comparative, don't make it.

If it's fake, don't make it.

If you aren't winning an argument, don't extend it.

Weighing should be the same in summary and FF, unless new weighing is brought up by the other team.

If no weighing happens, I will vote for the cleanest link in the round. If both links are clean, I will default to Impact weighing.

My personal weighing preferences: Probability>Severity/Magnitude=Scope=Irreversibility>Extinction.

Speaks

I won't give anything below a 26 in varsity (Unless you're offensive in round, then you get 20s).

For novices and middle schoolers, I won't go below a 27 (Unless you're offensive in round).

Prefs

Sarcastic debate makes the round fun. Don't make your opponents too upset.

If time allows, ask me questions after the round or come find me for more feedback.

Speech Structure

Do your thing. I don't care how you structure speech, just do it how you normally do it. (Voter issues, your case their case, etc.). I would rather hear you debate your best, then bend to my preferences badly.

Disclosure

I will disclose in every round. (When the tournament allows)

I will also disclose speaks in varsity.

Postrounding is the best form of education, so go for it.

IL CIRCUIT SPECIFIC STUFF

Prog

Absolutely not instant L and 20s.

Arguments

Don't run crazy stuff. 90% of the time on this circuit if it's crazy, it makes no sense.

Pls have links.

I think trigger warnings are a good norm, but it matters less on this circuit.

Responses

IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE

If it's a turn, weigh it, or it's just defense

NAT CIRCUIT SPECIFIC STUFF (If you're an IL debater, stop reading. This isn't for you.)

Progressive Arg

I'm not an experienced judge or debater with this type of argumentation. I'm telling you right now, I might evaluate progressive argumentation wrong, so do it at your own risk.

Theory

Not a lot of experience, still a risk to run.

I'll vote on theory shells, except for round report theory or theory against a team where there was no actual abuse. I don't like voting on theory.

Paraphrasing theory-I don't think paraphrasing is a reason to vote a team down unless it's all of their evidence. At most, I'm dropping the evidence in question.

If you read frivolous theory, you undermine the point and even if you win I will give you low speaks. (You will probably get the L)

I think PF is too short to do meaningful theories. If abuse is committed, a theory shell isn't always needed. Tell me about the abuse, and let me judge the round.

RVIs are stupid, you still need to tell me why not to evaluate an RVI.

K's

I STRONGLY dislike K's.

The majority of the time in PF K's are used to win ballots, not to invoke actual change in the debate space.

If your opponent reads a norm setting K, and they haven't read it the entire tournament they are breaking their norms, just call it out. I will look at the wiki, if they didn't run it I will probably vote against it. I personally don't think you should break the norms of a K just to "get into elims".

If I evaluate something wrong, It will be with a K.

Speech Docs

I want speech docs for case and rebuttal

Summary and FF shouldn't need docs unless something new happens(Which it shouldn't).

Arguments

Anything you want.

Anonymous Opt Out>>>>>>Trigger warning

Responses

If it's a turn, weigh it, or it's just defense

Anyone who brings me caffeine that is not coffee, or Red Bull I will give 0.2+ speaks

Background:

Four year former debater in LD, PF, and Congress

Second year judge

LD/PF Paradigm

I can flow and keep up with quicker argumentation, but please keep pacing to an appropriate level in order to enable myself and the opposition the ability to flow.

I enjoy and encourage debate on all levels, including framework, and would love to see how your arguments win in both frameworks, or why your opponent's framework should not be considered in the round.

I will evaluate each argument regardless of my personal thoughts/beliefs of the topic, so utilize time in the round to draw attention on which points hold more weight. In an ideal round, I will be told what is most important and why I should use that as a point to vote on, or why it should be disregarded.

I will also only flow during the speeches, so if there is a particularly important point brought up during the CX period, please draw attention to it during the round.

When presenting me with voting issues, and contentions that you think you have won, I should be able to find that on my flow. On a similar topic, don't attempt to revive dropped arguments in the final speech if you didn't address them outside of your opening one, try to extend them throughout the course of the debate.

I distribute speaker points based on the content of your arguments and your ability to analyze the points brought up during the debate, and not as much based on your speaking style.

Debate is meant to be an educational and fun experience, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for any sexist, racist, homophobic, or any other discriminatory arguments/comments presented during the round. If any of this occurs during the round, you will receive lowest points possible, automatically lose the round, and the issue will be brought up to the appropriate staff on site.

I will provide light feedback post-round, but if you want more in-depth feedback, I am willing to share in-between rounds!

Name: Jay Mehta

School Affiliation: Stevenson HS

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- Should be able to understand your argument; avoid mush mouth syndrome

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- Line by line

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please do so

Flowing/note-taking- Not during crossfire

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Equally

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, needs to be extended in both rebuttal and summary

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

• Be kind to your opponent
• I do not flow speed reading
• You can win the round and still not get high speaking points. Ensure you are speaking, not just reading a speech.

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

I have over 20 (yikes!) years of experience with debate and was the IHSA State Champion in Public Forum my senior year. Now I own my own law firm and work as an Adjunct Professor at UIC Law. I also work with Homewood-Flossmoor and attended Carl Sandburg.

About the round:

I am strict about timing in the round - if the timer goes off I do not want you to finish your sentence. I know it seems harsh but it helps me keep everything fair throughout the round! If I cut you off, I'm not mad, just keeping everything consistent :)

Tell me who wins at the end--I care about voting issues. Understand what the round comes down to and tell me why you won. I really mean it when I say I care about voting issues too - number them, line them up for me, make it super easy!

I also care about civility. That really hasn't been a big issue lately (which is amazing) but just keep that in mind too.

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

Heyy, I'm a co-captain for PF! I've been competing in PF and watched LD rounds, so I like to think I'm pretty experienced in debate. This is my first tournament judging, so I'm not gonna be too harsh.

• I judge based on the flow
• Sign post!!!!
• Talk at whatever speed you are comfortable with! As long as your pronunciation is good, then we are good!
• Make sure you're nice to your opponents! and don't talk over each other pls
• And most importantly have fun!

For Schaumburg (8/5)... Hi there! I'm Celine, a student judge in her third year of PF debate at Fremd High School. This is my first time judging at an official tournament, so please bear with me! We'll work through it together. :) Here are some of my preferences and tips for the round (This is a bit long, so if you're under a time constraint and can't read the entire paradigm, please read the bold/underlined statements!):

FIRST AND FOREMOST... As the absolute bare minimum, keep everything in the round respectful and kind. I know you're technically being tasked to argue and things can often get heated during the round, but debate is all about sportsmanship, growth, and passion. There is no room for any kind of blatant disrespect, such as eye-rolling, loud snickering, scoffing, etc. If I catch you doing any of those things, I'll dock your speaks significantly without any sort of verbal warning. Know the boundary between being assertive and confident, and cocky and condescending. Being bigoted in any way, shape, or form, (being sexist, racist, homophobic, etc) will also NOT be tolerated and give you an instant zero on speaker points.

***

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS

I'm a tech > truth judge, but you MUST have clear warranting.

Keep track of your own prep time and speech time. Let me know clearly when you're starting and stopping your stopwatch so our times align. I will stop you once you've reached ten seconds over the given time on MY clock, and that's with no argument.

Speed usually isn't a problem for me, I'm pretty good with faster paces of speaking. However, keep in mind that I'm not a robot, so if you're going at a thousand words a minute, I won't catch everything you say and therefore can't flow it.

Try your best to have some inflection and articulation when speaking! I'm a sucker for clear, enunciated, and confident speaking, so it's a great opportunity to boost your speaks for me. I also enjoy being entertained or even laughing/smiling when I'm listening to speeches, so a bit of witty rhetoric or creative analogies wouldn't hurt either. :)

Please don't gaslight me or your opponents lol :') Don't say that your opponents dropped something when they didn't, didn't respond to an attack when they did, etc. It's one of my biggest pet peeves. I understand that it can happen unintentionally, but if I notice a trend and catch it (and 99% of the time I do), it doesn't reflect very well on you. This is especially true for the team that has second final focus. I will actually hate my life if the round ends with yapping about a bunch of lies, so pleaseee don't do that.

^^ With that being said, I will try my best to protect first final, but remember that if the points brought up by the team speaking second is valid and was flowed through from earlier speeches, I'm weighing it in the round.

I don't flow cross-fire, but I do listen occasionally! Quite honestly though, if it's boring and nothing's happening, I'm probably going to zone out. If you want something to be weighed in the round from cross, then you need to bring it up in a speech. Otherwise, it's off the flow.

^^ Once again, please remain respectful. Cross-fires can get heated, so remember to keep everything kind and diplomatic (but still a bit aggressive and assertive) so everyone has a fun time debating! :)

***

SPEECH EXPECTATIONS (PF)

Frontlining should begin in second rebuttal and be continued throughout the rest of your speeches. This is your lifeline and what keeps your case alive, please please please frontline!! Without frontlining, you have no case left and have a limited path to the ballot.

You should be sign-posting your responses in all of your speeches, but especially in rebuttal. I prefer a rebuttal that goes down the flow and attacks/defends arguments sequentially. If I get lost while you're speaking, it ends up hurting you. I shouldn't need to find where you are on the flow than actually flowing.

Give me an off-time roadmap before starting your rebuttal, summary, and final focus so I have an idea of where to start writing on my flow.

Always, always, ALWAYS WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. Weighing in summary, final focus, and sometimes even second rebuttal is one of the most important deciding factors of the round. I cannot stress the importance of weighing enough. It can either make your win or break it. Emphasize and show me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.

Defense is not sticky, so extend your arguments from all of your previous speeches. Remember, if a point is dropped at any point during the round, then it cannot be picked up again/brought back up later. You must extend an argument for it to be evaluated at the end of the round; it's not optional!!!

Try to interact with your opponents' responses as much as possible. In other words, try not to copy and paste responses/frontlining/attacks from rebuttal. Summaries and final focuses should add another layer to the debate and further crystallize the round.

***

That's basically it! I'll be giving some brief verbal feedback at the end of the round unless either team wishes that I don't. If you have any questions at all about debate in general or my paradigm, don't be afraid to ask! I'm here to help you guys. For most of you, it's your first EVER tournament and the start of a thrilling experience, so take risks and HAVE FUN!!!!!

(P.S. I'll boost your speaks if you incorporate gaslight, gatekeep, or girlboss into one of your speeches ;))

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for Normal, IL University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged and coached a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm going to be a junior in university, so with all that in mind, I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Speed of delivery - You can go fast but make sure to clearly highlight your point, speak clearly

Format of Summary Speeches - Start with Big Picture and then double click/go deep where required

Flowing/note-taking - I am a lay judge (parent judge) but I will flow important points

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally - Both are important, but I value the argument more

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Final Focus

please signpost, if i don't know where you are on the flow, I can't flow if i don't know where I'm supposed to be.

Weighing and voting issues are super important to me in a round, you need to be able to tell me exactly why i should be voting for you.

The debate case should have clear contentions with cards/evidence supporting your claims that explain the topic well. Generally, your case should be structured so it is easy to flow and understand as the audience. The arguments should be concise, and clash is essential. Follow the structure of the debate format you are competing in. For example, in LD, the Value and Value Criterion are significant; centralize your case towards them and focus on them in Rebuttal/Voting Issues. Extend your arguments throughout the Debate; consistent repetition is not necessary. Speak clearly and spreading is not preferred and may harm speaker points. Be organized and give road maps before speeches. Rebuttals should attack main points and be should be specific to case, not generalized attacks (strawman arguments) that aren't applicable to their case specifically.

Debate Experience:

[4 years] High school: PF, LD, Congress, World School, American Parliamentary, and more; competed at nationals

[Present] College: IPDA, LD-Policy, British Parliamentary; competed at nationals

Judging since 2019

General Paradigm for ALL debate formats:

I value RESPECT and DECORUM above all. No shouting, being rude, cutting opponents off, making faces, openly expressing annoyance of opponents' arguments, certain body language, and more; these are valid reasons to deduct speaker points. Getting excited about an argument and going full into it does not count as disrespect. I judge based on age group. There is a fine line between firm and rude. If I see you being rude, I will give you low speaker points, but I won't make you lose the round.

I am a LOGIC judge, if something doesn't make logical sense, you'll lose the argument

I love ANALYTICS, analyze the evidence

Be organized

Clear contentions

Spreading or speeding is okay if you are coherent. Policy debaters, refer below

Off-time road maps, please

Follow the flow of the round- don't make my life harder than it has to be

I like jargon, its helpful and I am familiar, except for IPDA

LD-Policy + Policy Paradigm:

Run anything, I don't care, as long as it works. DA, T, CP, K, etc, all work, just make it make sense. I may be educated but I don't know the whole dictionary, so make sure to explain in simple terms at the end, like 2-3 sent final summary. Second, make sure you still attack the general Aff plan and why it does not work. I need both, just in case, to default.

I can not express this enough if I don't understand your arguments, then it's hard for me to vote for you.

Be organized and make sure you upload clean documents after your speech. No shady things, for example, copying your speech twice to make the document hard to navigate...really? Make sure to do this right after your speech ends, so your opponent has time to use the clean doc.

Spreading:

(1) Only do it if you want to relay more information and can speak clearly, if you have not practiced reading your document and are choppy + taking breaths in, do not spread

(2) make sure your opponents are okay, debate is supposed to be fair, equitable, and educational

(3) make sure to explain anything important, if I miss something and you don't explain it, that's on you

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

Just because you read a card doesn't mean you're done. Explain its impact

I flow the cross. Anything important should still be brought up in the subsequent speech

LD Paradigm: Traditional Judge

Focusing on the V and VC

Clash is important

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

I don't flow the cross, anything important, MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

PF Paradigm: Lay Judge

Clear contentions, strong evidence, links, and impacts

I don't flow the cross, anything important MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

Other:

Have any questions, need coaching, or help?

Contact me @ nuveriat@gmail.com

Need accommodations, let me know

Confidence, clear and to the point discussion.

Common curtesy and mutual respect for ech other.

I have some experience in debate, but that doesn't matter too much, other than that I understand most common phrases.

I don't judge critiques unless both sides force me to. If you ignore the opposing teams critique, I will probably vote for you. Something similar is true for theory. If you run theory to try to get an easy win, I won't vote for it. If someone doesn't sign up for a random wiki, that has literally nothing to do with debate. If your theory is for something valid and is run as a proper argument, I will consider it. Ex. Op team spreading and you have asked them to slow down.

I won't tolerate racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or other derogatory terms, and these will result in a loss and 20 speakers. The exception is if your evidence uses this word in an important quote or appropriate context, like evidence why an author is bad. Same thing with swear words, except those won't result in an automatic loss. Hard swears can lead to lower speakers, even if said during prep or other similar times during round.

Specifically for this topic, I want all to know that any inappropriate names for immigrants(illegals, other similar words framing immigrants as less than people) will result in a deduction of speaker points, and less trust in your arguments. No human is illegal. Undocumented immigrants and other non-derogatory terms are far preferred.

Framework should be used as a framing device. You need to tell me why it is important, and why you win under it. Failure to do either may prevent me from using your frameworks.

Speed should be kept to a reasonable speed. If you have to gasp for air to get your whole case out, I won't be able to understand. And I won't read a speech doc, because that's doing your leg work for you. I won't penalize slower speeds, and will always vote based on arguments. Speeches that are too fast tend to make me lose arguments, even if they were mentioned.

I may be inclined to vote for a team that sounds confident and projects compared to a team that mumbles and sounds unsure. My top priority as a judge is education, though, so I will always comment and vote mainly off of the arguments brought up in round, and how both teams can improve. But, like most speeches in history, being understandable and confident make people listen and take you more seriously.

Be nice to your opponents. You can stand or sit, figure it out with your opponents. Don't be overly mean or aggressive. Ask any questions about my paradigm before round. And have fun in the round. Believe you can win, no matter how hard a round may seem.

I am a PF judge for Fort Atkinson, although I have judged policy in the past. I judged policy from a traditional policy-maker position and tend to prefer cases that are on-topic and had a course of action that I could take. While we are not looking for a plan from Public Forum debaters, arguing the topic directly plays right into my preferences, so it will be tough for PF debaters to go wrong with me.

Speed should not be an issue for public forum debaters, however I know that some students compete in several formats. Having judged policy in the past, I am comfortable with a novice-to-varsity level of speed, however, if I think that you are speaking too quickly for a public forum setting, I will say "clear" up to 3 times. If you speed up again, I will merely start to take off speaker points. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot flow the debate (which should never happen in PF; this isn't policy!), that will simply be to the detriment of your case. I will not judge what I cannot flow.

I judge primarily base on the arguments/analytics that are presented in the round. I feel that speaker points are best suited to reward debaters for style. In other words, while arguments, facts, and logical deductions are the bread and butter of any debate, if you make it look good or convince me that you know your case backward and forward, that will be reflected in speaker points.

If you are arguing from a moral high ground, please be sure to emphasize that I should be considering moral obligations before considering other aspects (such as utilitarianism) and why. For example, I need something in your arguments telling me why I should value human lives above, say, dollars and cents, but from there on, this can be referred back to as a moral imperative without having to re-argue the original moral argument. Just be sure to include something in your summary or final focus that mentions that I should vote based on moral obligation above all other considerations.

When you are wrapping up the debate, please indicate clearly which arguments you think are the most important for me to consider and why. If there are flaws in the opposing argument, or if you want to toss some analytics, I am fine with this. Analytics are the application of logic to draw a conclusion based on the evidence at hand and they indicate to me that you've been seriously considering the side of the argument that you are presenting.

On my ballot, I try to indicate areas of improvement for everyone along with what was done well. If I indicate a mispronunciation, it is only to improve your debate for the next round, not to embarrass you. While a large vocabulary is desirable, nobody can claim to be perfectly familiar with every single word. English is far too large of a language and it can be terribly inconsistent.

You should also know that I am an Air Force Brat. I grew up on an Air Force Base, near a naval station, that housed Navy personnel and Marines. I am familiar with military equipment of various kinds, how they function, and the role they play in current and past military strategies. Tactical maneuvering for military and political advantage are not unknown to me and I have a good grasp of recent conflicts and their history. Please don't quote conflicts and dates unless you are certain because I will not find it convincing if it's incorrect.

I expect a clear delivery. This affects more than speaker points. In my opinion, it can affect my judging of that round. Articulation, speaking at a pace where words can be understood, making contentions and impacts clear are important.

Unique contentions and impacts with good, current, solid evidence will sway my vote.

Respectful conduct, always. A good well organized delivery is important.