(He/Him)

Student at Rutgers NB studying political science and public policy.

I competed primarily in the Public Forum for four years, and have competed at about a dozen national circuit tournaments, NCFL Nationals, and competed for Team New Jersey's World Schools Team at NSDA Nationals 2024.

I don't like email chains but if you make one, add me to it: josephabragao@gmail.com

As for judging PF

• tech > truth and I'm fine with any speed.
• Weigh comparatively. My RFD should essentially be whatever the team that weighed better said.
• Absolutely extend warranting. The above bullet won't matter if you're not warranting and extending.
• Please collapse.
• I feel like I'm pretty generous with speaks but I won’t tolerate disrespect in any form.
• I’ll flow your prog but I believe we need to put the public back in Public Forum. I'm not an expert on prog so I may get things wrong. Don't use it abusively.
• I'll only consider (that's a big consider) tricks if both teams have no chance of breaking. Trying to use them as a last resort to pick up a bubble round is not okay.
• Use offtime roadmaps AND signpost.
• I love talking so if my RFD gets muddled please let me know.

As for judging World Schools

• Every topic should have WORLD examples. Even if it says "as the US" you must analyze the implications on other areas
• Be direct and clear when asking POIs
• Do your best to accept at least 2 POIs per speech
• I will not listen after 8:15 (4:15 for Reply) have passed

Hello, I am a parent judge with a lot of experience on the PF. Here are the main things I care about.

Overview- I love good debates of many kinds. I try to decide debates solely on what is said in the round. I love good evidence, but love good explanation, and evidence comparison even more. I will give a lot of weight to the way you argue the evidence. Everyone works very hard to get where you are, and I know these rounds are very important to you, so I try to work hard as a judge also. It is important that you treat your opponent and your teammate with respect, so that everyone can enjoy the debate.

• 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

I am an undergrad at Princeton. I have been a PF judge in one tournament before, but am still not the most familiar with the PF format so please speak slower. I will take tech over truth and judge based on what is spoken, not what is implied so please warrant and impact clearly.

Hi everyone,

I'm a senior in high school and have been doing Speech and Debate since sophomore year. I evaluate how you did based on two ideals. First, the quality of the argument and who makes the better one. Second, how clear you can articulate your points. I plan on evaluating based on what I can hear so please don't spread and speak as clear as you can. Additionally as long as you are not insulting your opponent personally, I'll be willing to be generous on speaking points.

I'm looking forward to judging and hearing your rounds!

I am a computer science teacher at Riverdale Country School. Please speak slowly and clearly. Explain why your side should win the debate with impact analysis.

Hey, I’m William! I debated PF on the national circuit for Durham. Add me to the chain: williama0323@gmail.com

If you have any questions about ANYTHING in this paradigm or in general please ask me before the round. I will not discount your debate ability nor will I think differently of you for asking; if you do, I will bump your speaks up.

Debate should be fun. If everyone is nice, respectful, and chill about the round I will bump your speaks.

I know I debated, but please treat me as a flay judge. I am not a flow judge, so please be reasonable about the arguments you read, and read relatively true arguments.

Before round info:

1. Please try and stay under 850, I'm bad with spreading.
2. I value extensions really heavily, so please extend every piece of all offense, frontlines, and defense you want in final or I'm not going to evaluate it. Anything you want to read in final should be in summary.
3. Probably don't read K's. I don't really understand them to their fullest extent and you'll have a pretty large burden trying to get me to vote for a K. I don't want you to confuse your way to the ballot so I will be skeptical. If you have some topical K, I would be way more receptive if you just read it as a standard argument with framing.
4. Probably don't read theory.
5. I won't vote off arguments that don't have solid warrants, please actually have warrants for everything.

Minor things:

I do speaks basically off of pretty much solely on how easy you make the debate to judge, and how annoying (?) you are in speech/cross. Cutting people off in cross, taking too long to find evidence, and just being rude will get you lower speaks.

You can have like a 5 second grace period once your speech time, I go over like every speech so don’t hold your timer up at 4:00.(I have a weird thing with grace periods. If you are just doing some implicating and finishing up a point and you go less than 10 seconds over, that's fine, but if you're over time already I won't let you move to anything new. Like, if you get to defense at 4:01, I'll drop it).

Again I'm not a flow judge, I would really prefer not to hear pre-fiat arguments

Don't read IVI's, just read a shell

I still care about defense, not just whoever wins weighing

I'll say clear twice and then I'll just flow whatever I can

Please no open cross :( (unless you agree before cross starts)

Don't read stupid args (death good, anything you would reasonably think is dumb)/be racist or I'll just auto drop

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I typically vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

Wants debaters to speak and read speeches clearly, and at a moderate speed. Speed reading to achieve spreading is NOT ADVISED! Clarity of speech and argument is essential. Debaters should stick to the actual topic of debate supported by facts/research and not resort to using technical tricks to score a win. Debate etiquette must always be respectful and professional.

I am a new debate coach at Summit! Therefore, I am a lay judge, but I do know how to flow your cases. I am a biology teacher in Summit, so I love science! Any science jokes are greatly appreciated!

No points if you are a bully.

Preferences: No spreading! If I don't hear it and it's not on my flow, then you didn't say it. Also, I am unfamiliar with debate jargon so make sure to explain the meanings of the terms you are using. Make sure to sign post and stay organized so I can keep up with the round. I expect you to self time, but I will also keep a timer just in case. Make sure to time all prep taken. Be respectful and have fun!

Remember you are doing this for fun! Don't stress.

Currently a speech coach and assistant director at Delbarton, I am a former policy debater. I follow PF closely, and track developments on the circuit by regularly spectating varsity rounds when not judging speech. Further, I work with my team on formulating quality K arguments.

Offense vs. Defense: Offense is prioritized over defense, requiring thorough extensions, frontlining, and weighing. Winning with purely defensive arguments will be challenging. In other words, if I am voting on a turn, it needs to follow the same structure as a contention—claim, warrant, impact. It should not be a blip.

Speed and Clarity: I’ll do my best to keep up with your pace, but please remain clear; if clarity is lacking, flowing your arguments becomes difficult.

Speech Guidelines:
- The second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal’s points.
- Arguments in Final Focus should generally also appear in Summary, with proper extensions and frontlining. New weighing in Final Focus is allowed but should be relevant and responsive; avoid loading it all in the final speech.

Comparative Weighing: Please use comparative weighing for links and impacts, focusing on elements like timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Note that link clarity and impact strength are critical.

Argument Scope: I’ll consider most arguments and come prepared with background knowledge on the topic (“tech over truth”). However, I’ll vote down arguments that include blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, or fabricated evidence.

Accommodations and Crossfire: I am open to making accommodations for debaters—just ask beforehand. And remember, crossfire exchanges should be civil; there’s no need for excessive intensity. Keep your crossfire balanced. If it feels like you're hogging the crossfire, you probably are.

N.B. While I recognize that PF is as much a studied game of strategy as anything else, running a K that your opposing team is ill-qualified to handle is not a winning strategy—it’s the enemy of genuine clash, and therefore, the enemy of quality debate. I will vote you down every time.

Email: jcorcoran@delbarton.org

Hello,

Few words to competitors. I prioritize logic and well-warranted arguments over unwarranted claims. Clear communication is the key- don't spread, speak at moderate pace. Be a good sport, after all we are here to learn and have a good experience, respect your opponents throughout the round. I evaluate based on the main clash and the depth of impact analysis, with a strong focus how arguments are weighed and compared. Evidence (cards) must be explained tied to your case; unwarranted cards hold little value. Final speeches should align with the summary and clearly articulate why your side should win. Debate with clarity, logic , and respect, and you'll do well in front of me.

Hi, I'm Taylor! I'm a High School Public Forum Debater (I've debated for ~1.5 Years), so you can treat me more like a flay judge (tech leaning ig)

-- For MS PF'ers: Treat me flay. --

At the elementary and middle school level, I'm a "flay" judge— I evaluate based on the flow while simultaneously caring about your persuasiveness and the truth behind your arguments. Most of my specific preferences as a judge are the same as for high school PF. If you'd like any clarification either come up to me in-person or shoot me an email before the round.

-- For Varsity and High School PF --

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

1. Be strategic but be kind. Make the round accessible, please don't be shady in cross or make unnecessary remarks/comments abt your opponents or their args. (I will doc speaks if you are mean please just don't). Good strategy = high 29s and 20s, making the round a good environment boosts your speaks significantly.

2. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH:The first place I will look is weighing, but make it comparative. Don't just tell me "I have bigger numbers so default to magnitude." (I.e. we o/w bc of this, other team doesn't have access to this weighing b/c xyz.) Weighing can start really early in the round, pls don't weigh for the first time in final. Prereqs are v compelling (if warranted well).

3. EXTEND: I get very sad when teams are winning on flow and then do not extend warranting (please don't just ghost extend) so I cannot vote off of it. Do not be that team just extend what u want me to vote on.

Also Be funny lol. Make silly metaphors or smth. I'll prob laugh and clown on you but if you're funny I'll boost speaks (if they aren't common/cringy).

Stuff you need to do.

1. Make email chain pre-round and add me (taylordickerson@hunterschools.org)

I can flow decently but if you spread I may not be able to flow everything (or just understand, and I generally don't love spreading 5-8 contention cases on other teams). Send speech docs and spread at your own risk. That being said, you can talk pretty fast and I'll be okay probably.

2. Send case and rebuttal docs before speech; I probably wont need docs for other speeches but if you spread (again, icky) send docs.

3. All cards must be cut. If you give me a random link I will dislike the ev. You have 3-ish mins to find a card when asked before it's dropped and we move on.

4. I don't evaluate cross, but I listen. If you want me to vote off of smth, it needs to be in your speeches.

5. Tech > truth: but don't use this an excuse to not warrant/implicate.

Please pre-flow before round.

IN TERMS OF PROG (Ks/T) --I won't evaluate this in MS/Novice Usually unless your opponents run it first or are rly abusive lol.

1. I don't have a ton of experience with this so read at your own risk. If you warrant well and explain I'll be able to follow along for the most part, just know that I don't have a lot of experience so my judging is just going to be off of what you explain to me. UNLESS your opponent commits a major violation for theory or you have an actually good K and know how to run it. But just be clear lol.

2. As long as you explain lower level theory/prog it's chill, but I'm not comfortable evaluating high theory so it'll just be a mess of jargon for me. I wouldn't read this if I were you.

3. I think friv theory is really funny, but esp stuff abt clothing and unpredictable violations is not educational and gets irritating so like ig u can read it if ur opponents spam theory but again in rounds that get very technical/prog-y I will likely be lost.

Good Luck!!

Hi there. My name is Luca DiFelice and I am a first year at Princeton University from New York City. My debate experience is predominantly in public forum. From freshman to senior year of high school I competed in novice and varsity public forum tournaments on national, regional, and local circuits. Currently I am a member of the Princeton Debate Panel (PDP). We compete in intercollegiate tournaments in the British and American Parliamentary formats.

Regarding my preferences for the round:

Do not spread. If you are unfamiliar with this term it essentially means delivering your speech at an extremely fast pace. When using evidence, be sure to explain/warrant why I should consider this as important in the round, why your evidence should be preferred over competing evidence from the opposing side, and how it logically fits into your argument chain. A team with only evidence and no reasoning/analysis will struggle to win my ballot. Theory/Ks are fine, but make it clear to the opposing team if you are doing this. Be sure to extend key args in final speeches. Otherwise be respectful and have fun!

If needed for an evidence email chain, my email is ld2208@princeton.edu.

Hello! I am a parent judge with no experience. Please talk slowly and do not use complicated debate language. I look for clear impacts and would prefer if you use an off-time roadmap. Also, please do not use too much technical stuff, and if you do, please be sure to explain it thoroughly. I mainly award points based on how you speak. Please be respectful towards your opponents. Thank you for your cooperation, and I look forward to judging you all!!

Dr. Evans is an Archaeologist for the National Resource Conservation Service, and member of the Oxford Union. He has previously served as Director of Geomatics for Oxford Archaeology and as a professor of Archaeology, English, and professional writing at different universities in both the US and the UK.

Hi everyone!

I'm a Sophomore at Princeton. I've debated in the following formats: WSDC, BP, Asians and APDA.

Limited experience with LD, but a ton of experience with debate in general, so I have no real familiarity/preference for more technical, niche aspects of LD debating. That being said, if you intend to run theory, feel free to do so, but provide a little explanation if possible. If you can help it, don’t spread, but if you do I’ll try my best to keep up. I will NOT read your cases if you email them - I'll just flow as fast as I can. For other LD tech, just realize that I can’t vote on it if I don’t understand it.

Try to keep your speaking speed to a clear, understandable level - I’ll signal you if you’re speaking too fast, but I won’t dock speaks for it, so don’t worry about it too much. I’ll try to flow your arguments regardless, but signposting and making clear arguments also makes it much easier for me to follow and vote on your arguments. Most importantly, focus on warranting, impacting, and weighing your claims so that I can give them as much credence as possible. Explaining and supporting the logic of an argument, as well as showing how it interacts with your opponent’s case is just as important as making the argument in the first place. I won’t intervene in most cases or take excessive steps to interpret your arguments.Try to interact with the issues in the round and present your arguments with clear structure, and you’ll be fine!

As a judge, I hope to see you all construct well informed, sound and valid arguments. More importantly though, remember to have fun!

Hello! My name is Andrew Fostiropoulos and I was a former PF debater for 4 years @ Delbarton from 2016 to 2020. I'm currently a coach at Delbarton, and this is my first year where I am back judging after a long layoff.

To win a round, you obviously need to have extended, fully, a piece of offense, meaning link warrant and impact need to be extended throughout summary and FF. Weigh, and weigh well. If you don't weigh, I have to weigh, and that makes me sad. I'm going to look first to clear offense at the end of the round, and use the weighing that is done to decide the round there. An effective summary and final focus should mirror each other, and they both should be doing weighing.

I would recommend that clarity be an emphasis, and signpost well. In terms of pace, I'd say I'll clear you if you're going too fast or you're not being clear, but to pre-empt this maybe go at a more moderate pace with me.

Other Notes:

- Be nice to each other

- I'm pretty expressive

- I'll be nice with speaker points, 28.5 as an average. I don't really know what to tell you on how I'll determine who gets what score besides good argumentation and good speaking == high speakers.

- I'd prefer you do not run progressive argumentation

- Analytical responses that are thoroughly warranted probably mean more to me than an unwarranted card that just asserts something. Also, do evidence comparison when you can.

Please add @drewfostir@gmail.com to the email chain.

I am a traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed through strong, logical arguments supported by evidence and designed to uphold a sound value structure (in LD). Spreading is tolerated (barely) but certainly NOT appreciated or rewarded. If being tolerated in a round is your goal, go ahead and spread. Ad Hominem attacks, implied or explicit, are a pretty sure way to get a loss. Civilly presented, compelling, and supported arguments and counter arguments will be measurably appreciated. NO THEORY

Hi everyone! I'm currently a Senior at Lexington High School (Co2025) and I'm in my 4th year of debating in Public Forum. If you have any questions post-round or if setting up an email chain for evi my email is 25stu468@lexingtonma.org

My overall TL;DR: don't be any -ists or perpetuate any -isms, and in an ideal world be topical, but honestly I can evaluate what you want to run, just make it really clear to me because if I can't explain your argument back to you, I won't vote on it. Signposting is important, besides just the name of your card (i.e.Last name Year). Time yourselves because I won't flow after a certain point! If you want to appeal the most to me and my style of judging, read the rest of my paradigm :)

In LD:

I'm really not that experienced with LD so treat me as a "flay" of sorts. I can understand and evaluate frameworks as well as substance perfectly fine. I'm good evaluating Ks and Theory as long as you thoroughly explain your framing/ROTB/Interp+standards+voters because again I won't vote off something I can't read back to you. I'll default speaks to 28.5 in LD and similar criteria as in PF to increase/decrease. I also don't judge LD often so this may not even apply but just in case!

In PF:

Here's how I will be voting:

1. I am a flow judge, however, if you do not signpost, you're risking that your point may get missed as I try to find where on the flow you are.
2. When signposting, please briefly reference the material in your cards and not just the tagline, so that your argument can fit better together with the relevant pieces of your evidence. In the case that your opponents or I miss your tagline or author name it could also be very confusing to everyone when you reference some obscure "Day 24" by itself.
3. If you need to exchange evidence, I will time prep from when you get the card and start reading it. This doesn't mean you take forever to find the card, please try to take no more than 15ish seconds to find it. If you set one up, I'd like to be added to an email chain. It will only impact my decision if there's a piece of evidence that's hotly debated or referenced throughout the round.
4. I'm okay with spreading up to 300 wpm if you provide a speech doc before your speech. If you spread off your flow in the backhalf I think it's okay not to send a full speech doc but ideally please do just because I don't want to miss anything important.
5. I am generally tech over truth, I prefer arguments that are made better and I will generally vote on the flow. If it comes down to me that the weighing is unclear and I have to make a decision (assuming there's a util framework) I'll generally default to "truthier" arguments/impacts unless there is a significant difference in magnitude with unclear probability weighing on both sides.
6. PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES! I will stop flowing 5 seconds over time and keep time to check, but not remind you when to stop. If you notice your opponents go over time and I'm still flowing, knock the table twice just to let me know they are over time and I'll stop.
7. Cross Etiquette: I will not flow cross and tbh I don't pay attention often to cross because usually I'll be working on my ballot, but I do want a civil, alternating question-and-answer format rather than a one-sided interrogation or a mutual screaming match. That being said, if you guys are not dialoguing at all and there's no real interaction then I'll deduct some speaks (like 0.1-0.2). The first speaking side should ideally take the first question but it doesn't impact my decision so it's fine either way if you feel like it. Please do not go over time, if you need to respond to the last question I'll give you a few seconds, but if you start a long response please wrap it up ASAP (don't keep going for more than 10 seconds). If any points stand out to me, I will also take notice, use your cross to your advantage, and don't waste it.
8. Prog is fine, but at least run at your own risk. I somewhat know how to vote off some progressive arguments such as disclosure/paraphrase theory, topical Ks, and a few of the more common non-T Ks, however, I believe the spirit of PF is to remain as close to the resolution as possible, and it will make all our lives more complicated. Especially true for frivolous theory/non-T Ks, don't run them if you can't properly make a solid case around it and make everyone's lives more complicated. Severance is bad for your speaks and I'm responsive to severance shells read in round if it comes to that, so again don't run arguments you're not sure you can defend throughout the round. If you violate your own shell, credibility goes down the drain and I will tank your speaks.
9. Frameworks(Framing): I will vote off frameworks if they are extended throughout the round (ideally at the top of each speech), and you prove why you win on a framework debate. If you are proposing a framework as a response to your opponents, I expect the framework you propose to be extended from rebuttal (or if the fw is proposed after case, whatever the next speech your team has) to the end. Keep your frameworks relevant to your case because I will drop you if your impact doesn't fall under the winning framework even if it is your own.
10. To win my vote you want to have a good balance of your strongest offense and defense, you want to address clash in the round, and you want to convince me to prefer your impacts. I will be looking mostly at the summary and final focus for you to clean up the round, but please extend the points you want to keep to the end in both the summary and final. I won't evaluate new arguments past 1st summary except if you're responding to an argument introduced in the first summary (in which case the second summary can respond).

Speaker Points:

I'll default speaker points to a28 but it's really easy to increase speaks: this is only assuming you don't stand out at all in the round (which is more difficult than it sounds).

I will increase speaker points for clear enunciation, good argumentation, and keeping crossfire engaging and civil. If you capture my attention (in a positive way) and keep me engaged, that would also be good for your speaks. This is generally the scale I see in the Varsity PF circuit, so I'm keeping similar standards as I judge because that's personally what I'm used to.

I will decrease speaker points for ANY offensive language or actions (racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. will be an automatic 25, if this behavior is repeated through the round I will tank it EVEN further and report to your coach so that they can take further action as needed), reading sensitive topics without a content warning beforehand (although if it's an honest mistake and you correct it going forward you should be fine), swearing in the round, going consistently over time (as in over 15 seconds every speech/during cross), and other inappropriate or disruptive behaviors that hinder the progress of the debate. If you violate your own shell, read prog on novs who have absolutely no clue what you just said, then I'll still evaluate the round fairly but your speaks will tank so hard that even if you break you'll be put in a tough bracket anyways.Honestly, I think it's very hard to decrease speaks beyond 27 so long as you're a decent human.

Hey everyone, I’m a first year here at Princeton. I have over 3 years of experience in the world schools format and about 2 years in BP - never done PF before.

I value clarity and weighing - this means structure your arguments well, identify your strongest points and tell me whythey’re good enough for me to give you the debate. I also appreciate thorough and genuine engagement, so direct rebuttals generally take preference over simple mitigation, although I will credit both. Refusing to engage will cost you dearly, as anything left standing will generally be assumed as true. Generally, I will assume whatever you’re bringing into the debate is true, but I do need to be able to follow your premise structure and see logical links to credit your argument. Do not rely on assumptions!!!! Thoroughly explain your warrants.

I’m pretty comfortable flowing fast speakers, but I won’t be reading cases that are emailed to me, so please make sure that the speech you’re giving is coherent.

I also have not judged tech debates before, so they won’t help your case much.

Do feel free to email me at fh9991@princeton.eduif you have any questions. Most importantly, have fun and be nice.

Hey! I debate PF for Princeton HS. Add me to email chains, send speech doc if you're going to read relatively fast (over ~325 wpm):rinahe3@gmail.com

pf:

-I won't flow cross x, bring up anything opp's say in your speeches

-I won't eval prog unless there is a violation that makes the debate space unsafe

-signpost!! extend arg's throughout speeches, defense is NOT sticky

-collapse and weigh!

-please don't

• miscut your evidence
• say "judge" a million times in your speech
• take a long time for an off time road map

parli:

-treat me as a lay judge, no experience debating parli

-no new arg's in LOR and PMR but extend past arg's

Overall, have fun with debating and be respectful!

What i prefer to see in a debate:

I am a Lay judge.

1. Please do not go fast. Prefer to have arguments with decently fast (not super fast or super slow) to ensure I can capture details and able to make notes.

Hey everyone, my name is Vihaan. I'm a junior and debate PF for Princeton High School. If yall have a chain, add me to it: vihaanjain@gmail.com

TLDR: standard flow, tech>truth, read whatever you want.

Feel free to postround me/ask questions

Ask me questions before the round for other preferences, but most of what yall need should be below.

****goes without saying but being discriminatory is an auto-drop

How I evaluate a round:

• I’m good with speed, send a doc if its really fast(if its varsity, send a doc regardless with cut cards or hyperlinks to evidence if you're paraphrasing). I’ll yell ‘slow’ if you need to slow down and ‘clear’ if you’re not annunciating.

• I look to the weighing first to decide what offense to evaluate first. After that I just see if you’re winning a link and an impact.

• Extend everything. Everything I vote for should be in final, everything in final should be in summary.

• Every claim you make in round should have a warrant

• I dont pay attention to cross, if something happens in cross bring it up in speech

• If theres no offense left in the round, I’ll presume for whoever lost the flip unless told otherwise

• Please collapse(pick one of your arguments to go for in summary and final focus)

Stuff I will like

• If you go for a turn properly (weigh on it)

• If you have smart analytics in rebuttal

• Creative + comparative weighing

• Collapsing

Stuff I will not like

• Not collapsing

• Not extending your argument

Prog

• I'm cool with prog if yall are cool with prog. I have a very "do whatever you want" mindset around debate, just be mindful on who you run progressive arguments on. I'm cool w theory. I generally don't disclose when competing, so I've seen/had a few disclo rounds(i will also up disclo theory if you win the shell, and u might change my opinion on the issue so u can go for it). I think theory rounds only work to improve norms if the judge only evaluates whats said in the round and doesn't just vote for norms they personally think are best for the space, so I'm a good judge for you if you're reading/defending any "non-conventional" norms(like para good, disclo bad, TW bad).

• For Kritiks, i'm not really familiar with a lot of lit, but i generally know how they work. I'm convinced by smart perms and indites on misrepresented lit if ur responding. i'll try my best to keep up in higher-level K rounds. I have a basic understanding of cap, setcol, sec, and some non-topical identity lit(basically the most commonly ran Ks in PF), but I'm comparable to a really annoying 'fake flow' judging these rounds.

Extra stuff

• I physically react a lot to things said in a round--- please do not base your in-round strategies on these reactions, they're just my inability to sit still and a bad habit. I've heard complaints from teams saying they've gone for contentions because I nodded while they read them. Please don't base your entire in-round strategy off of a couple head shakes.
• I'm iffy on death good arguments. i've read things like s-risks to outweigh x-risks in the past, but lowk ill not vote up death-good in the status quo. Basically, keep this as a neg arg saying aff causes s-risk, or s-risk coming in the far-future, bc if ur saying death good now it becomes a safety issue.
• Usually, indites are fine and ill consider them as near-defense. HOWEVER, saying ur opponents arn't as smart as ur authors, or saying to prefer ur author quals are NOT indites. The nature of debate is that some authors will be less qualified than others, so if ur not comparing the authors actual warranting/methodology, im not convinced that I should prefer a professor to a journalist on face-value.

Background: Senior, 4th Year High School LD Debater at Lexington High School.

Email: 25stu397@lexingtonma.org

Arguments:I am comfortable with any arguments. Just be clear on what you are running.

How to win:

1.) Weigh your arguments. It is important for me to know what impacts are more important and urgent in order for me to evaluate the round.

2.) Weigh your arguments under frameworks while also having framework debates if there are different frameworks.

3.) Make CLEAR extensions and if you do not extend it will not be evaluated.

4.) Make sure your links are strong and clear. This is essential in order for me to evaluate the winner.

Speakers:

1.) Give clear off-time road maps so that both I am able to follow each argument on the flow. During the speech make sure to clearly state if you are moving on the neg/aff side of the flow. Try to go top to bottom and if you end up jumping from different arguments, just make sure what argument is being addressed.

2.) If you decide to spread, emphasize and slow down on important words/sentences/paragraphs.

3.) Be nice and respectful.

4.) Be creative and logical with arguments. I like to see arguments that are addressed with basic logic and reasoning.

Most importantly, have fun!

Feel free to email/ask me any questions

I, Raymond, commit to judging according to equanimity and integrity, and based solely on the evidence and individual arguments brought forth by each team.

I view Public Forum as accessible to a lay audience; therefore, debaters should strive for clear explanation and logical arguments.

hello! i'm a junior in Stuyvesant High School and a varsity pf debater; consider me as a flay judge. my email is jas.enshiii@gmail.com, add me to the email chains! :)

general

a) make evidence exchanges quick!

b) i think i'm pretty good with speed but pls don't go past 225 wpm, i don't want to be stressed and i won't flow off a speech doc. i favor teams who speak slower & are more engaging, i think that makes their lay appeal better.

c) i love love love warrants! don't just throw out cards for me to work with, be reasonable & efficient. i will always choose a well-warranted analytic over a non-warranted card. feel free to use "no warrant" as a response to your opponents arguments.

d) don't dump an ode amount of blocks, it's not helpful.

e) i don't listen to cross sometimes, so if something said is important, bring it up in your speech.

f) ev challenges are fine!

g) no prog.

backhalf

a) signposting & giving a roadmap is great since the backhalf tends to get messy.

b) i recommend collapsing, be strategic and explain to me why that argument is the most important in the round.

c) extend!

d) WEIGH. it's looked at first when evaluating the round. tell me why your impacts matter.

e) pls don't drop things, that's so tragic.

novices

a) have fun! relax, treat tournaments as a learning experience.

b) don't sweat about jargon and sounding intelligent, focus on getting the point across and rhetoric. charisma goes far.

Hi! I am a senior at Princeton University and debated in World Schools for Team China, British Parliamentary, and PF tournaments. In recent years, however, I have competed mainly in WSDC and BP, so I'm probably not very familiar with recent updates to PF rules or technical buzzwords.

In terms of style, I’m able to flow relatively fast speakers, but please don't spread.

I appreciate evidence to substantiate claims, but evidence/cards themselves do not stand without analysis and reasoning to prove the validity of a phenomenon/trend in the majority of circumstances. Laying out the incentives/warrants to prove your claim can set your argument above your opponent’s. While this may be necessary at times, please avoid fixating on the credibility of various sources of evidence; such disputes should not be the crux of the round.

In general, I appreciate teams with strong strategic focus who show me why their arguments are not only true but also more important. Such teams usually do multi-layered refutations, where they take the other team at their best and still prove why the case stands. They should also have a clear path to victory in their later speeches. In general, teams with strong awareness regarding the dynamics of the round do well.

Regarding equity, please do not resort to ad hominem attacks during crossfire sessions. Avoid interrupting a speaker and keep your questions/comments concise. Please be sensitive to all speakers and stakeholders mentioned in the round as well.

Based on past experience, I am a very generous judge in terms of awarding speaker points, so do not worry about your performance and enjoy the round. I look forward to watching you debate and am wishing you all the best! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me anything before the round or contact me at jl2127@princeton.edu.

This is my first year judging public forum debate. I've been a litigator at a large international law firm for over 24 years, so am very much enjoying my experience participating in this new form of argumentation.

I prefer arguments that are clear, supported, and well organized. This form of debate is intended for the public, so you should not use technical jargon or overly complex verbiage that might compromise your ability to convey your points. Each of your claims should be supported by warrants; otherwise, the claims are simply allegations. Do not forget to respond to the points made by your opponent. Allowing a claim by the opposing side to go unaddressed may be construed as conceding the claim.

It is important not to speak so quickly that the listener cannot take in and process what you are saying. Substance is the key, and you do not want the substance of your arguments to be lost due to fast talking. At all times, be respectful of your opponents.

I'm looking forward to an interesting debate!

Hi! I'm Hayah, I've debated PF for around 3 years now at Princeton High School.

If needed add me to email chain at hayahpapaya@gmail.com

I don't mind speaking too fast; I will evaluate argument over speaking style.

Please be sure to weigh properly, and please please extend!!

Please be respectful to both your opponents and me during round!

Make sure nothing new is brought up in second summary or final focus, I will not evaluate it.

I participated in public forum debate for four years at Newton South (in Massachusetts) and am now a senior at Princeton University.

Overall:

Lay [---------*--] Flow

Tech [---*--------] Truth (if you make a claim I think is untrue but warrant it super well, I'll buy it)

I don't like non-topical/progressive argumentation at all, but I will do my best to evaluate it.

If you excessively (e.g., frantically type) use your laptop in the second half of the round—especially if you type up your summary or final focus and read off your screen—I will drop 1 speaker point from you (unless laptops are out because a card has been called). Look at your opponents and your judge instead of your laptop screen as much as possible. If you require the use of a laptop or believe that this is unfair, talk to me before the round. I am happy to discuss.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine, and I will only call for evidence if someone tells me to do so.

I also think that you can find evidence for a lot of things that aren't true, so when you read evidence you must warrant it.

Second Rebuttal:

Frontline all offense (link+impact turns, dis-ads, offensive overviews). You don't need to respond to defense.

Summary/Final Focus:

Collapse in summary and convince me why that argument is the most important one. Final focus should mirror summary, with the only exception being that first final focus can have defense from rebuttal that wasn't extended in first summary.

Speaker Points:

I'll boost your speaks if you make jokes, sing part of any of your speeches, or refer to a pro contention as "protention."

I consider myself a traditional debater. I like to hear a good, well-spoken argument. It is important to see that the debater understands what they are arguing rather than simply regurgitating information as quickly as possible.

I don't particularly appreciate spreading and will not side with an argument I can not clearly understand. Say more with less and you have a better chance of impressing me. Keep in mind that debate is an oral activity, it is not my responsibility to read your case, it is your responsibility to explain it to me within the time limit.

Progressive debate is not my preference but if it is done well and the argument is made clearly, I will not mark down for it or vote against it. I will also add that I don't like "one size fits all" arguments. Be sure that your critiques, if you have them, fit the resolution that is being debated. We are here to debate the current resolution only, the fact that "other problems exist in society" is a given, if a particular issue affects the resolution and can be used as a reason why it should not be passed or even be considered, then I believe that to be a valid argument but simply stating that the world isn't perfect for xyz reason is not a reason for me to vote in your favor.

Dana Mollica

I am a new parent PF judge.

Keep it clear, limit jargon, and be kind. l appreciate logical arguments and explained scenarios. Make your argument easy to follow. Avoid theory and ks. I appreciate your sticking to the resolution. Speak clearly and avoid rushing. I focus on listening during the debate and post RFDs later in the day. Have fun!

Nicholas Moore

The Masters School

(He/Him)

I have six years of debate experience in Public Forum. The best way to get my ballot is to identify your voters early and extend them methodically. Use the final focus to elevate your voters over your opponents (weigh!!)

Simply mentioning your impact is not an extension if your opponent has responded to it. To win the impact, win your clash!

Beyond frameworks, I have limited experience with theory and Ks. If you run something like that, make sure its warranted and I'll evaluate it like a contested framework (assuming your opponents contest it).

Clear signposting in rebuttals and summary is always appreciated and a good way to get speaker points. If you still need to signpost in Final Focus... that might be a problem... write my ballot for me and keep it short.

Debate is a difficult activity and it takes a lot of courage! Thank you for being here!

I’m a varsity PF debater at Brooklyn Tech. Add me to the email chain snash7877@bths.edu (feel free to email me here too if you have paradigm questions or post-round questions)

Tech > Truth (but if you have an outlandish linkchain you’re gonna have to do some extra work to convince me of it)

Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal
• Collapse LATEST by second summary
• I’ll keep times but you should be too (you can finish your sentence but I’ll cut you off after that)
• Extend all important offense into final focus
• Give warrants (don’t just read a card and not explain the reasoning behind why that’s true)
• You don't need to tell me your name in speech, also I know the resolution so there's no need to repeat it
• WEIGH (and don’t just read buzzwords, just saying you outweigh on scope without doing some comparison isn’t weighing)
• I'm not going to evaluate a framework unless you give me specific reasons (and probably some empiric evidence) for why I should prefer it over util ("prioritizing national security" is not a framework)
• Signpost (don’t make me do extra work trying to figure out which side of the flow/ where on the flow you are)
• Implicate what your responses mean, reading me a response without telling me why it’s important/what it means for the round creates a messy round
• I’m fine with speed as long as you articulate and use intonation (If you’re gonna spread and you can't articulate you should probably send a speech doc)
• Don’t take up cross and be respectful to each other
• I won't flow cross so if something important is said bring it up in a speech if you want me to consider it
• For the love of god please keep track of your own prep
• Don't run Theory or K args in novice
• Please don't postround me ://// BUT I'm happy to answer genuine questions

If you don't understand what one/any of these points mean PLEASE ask me

I'm new to judging PF, but I was a Lincoln/Douglas Debater and state finalist in Ohio. i debated all through College and judged for numerous years.
Eleni

Hi! I am Alexandra, and I have debated PF for 3 years at Princeton High School (mostly as a first speaker!)

Add me to the email chain, if needed! My email is alexandrasandt10@gmail.com

On speeches:

I vote for the team that is the most convincing in terms of their argument and carries their arguments through cleanly (I love unique, fun arguments).

If you are going to spread, please disclose ur doc w/ me (email above) before/at the beginning of the round! But I am fine with fast speaking as long as you make sure to have good diction so I can understand you clearly:)

*Please extend your args & weigh, and don't bring up new responses or weighing in 2nd summary (and please make sure you are comparative in your weighing)!*

Be respectful during crossfire; any mocking, laughing, yelling, etc. will result in low speaks.

On the round as a whole:

Please be respectful! Discrimination at any point in the round will not be tolerated.

Have fun and good luck!!!

Hi everyone. I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging, so please avoid jargon and speak slowly and clearly. I will be taking notes throughout the debate and look forward to hearing both teams’ arguments. Good luck!

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

Greetings!

I am an experienced high school social studies teacher with 28 years of teaching a variety of A.P. level courses in both history and economics. I have been judging forensics tournaments for a few years and have judged many tournaments in this time over a variety of different categories. I have judged at Yale, Princeton, Harvard and Des Moines, Iowa as well as many, many local tournaments on Saturdays throughout the year.

I am comfortable with participants who speak quickly, however, it is important to remember that when speed hampers clarity and emphasis, it may be better to slow down a bit. Sometimes "less is more" when it comes to building a case. I appreciate participants who demonstrate a wide variety of sources, statistics, and data as well as those who are able to show why their contentions and assertions matter in the big picture. Civil, professional decorum is also important. Substance and presence work together to create the most persuasive position.

I am a new parent Judge, lay judge.

I prefer debaters giving clear claims with supported warrant, logical arguments with realistic and impactful scenarios, and responding to opponent's arguments. I prefer debaters speaking clearly and confidently.

Good luck debaters!

Please abide with the following:

1. Start weighing at summary and carry weighing throughout the round.
2. You are responsible for keeping your time.
3. Sign post with arguments not authors.
4. Collapsing after summary speech is prohibited.
5. Do not run theories and/or K's - K's are abusive in PF.
6. Do not forget to warrant and link.
7. Remain respectful to all debaters.
8. Speak slowly and clearly.
9. Be sure to frontline speeches
10. During final focus, absolutely no new evidence should be presented. Speeches should clearly tell me why your team wins the round - make my decision easy and simple!

Remember - this is a fun experience and a learning opportunity for all debaters!

What I prefer to see in a debate

Please do not disrespect or mock the opponent.

Please do not go to fast, i prefer clear and succinct points.

Parent Judge!

Please try to speak clearly and at a moderate pace—don’t spread! I need to be able to follow your arguments. I prefer well-reasoned arguments over cards with no backing. Also, aim for logical arguments with realistic, impactful scenarios. I don't like theory and k's.

I am relatively new at this but am slowly getting my swing. Convince me that what you are saying really is true! Speak slowly and clearly.

I am unfamiliar with debate jargon so make sure to explain the meanings of the terms you are using. Make sure to stay organized so I can keep up with the round. I expect you to self-time, but I will also keep a timer just in case. Make sure to time all prep taken. Be respectful and have fun!

Remember you are doing this for fun! Don't stress.

Kyler Zhou

Affiliation: Princeton Debate Panel

Background: I debate primarily BP and have judging experience with BP and APDA.

Evidence: Don't overload me with statistics. Quality >>> quantity. Spend more time on warranting and impacts.

Speed: Do not spread.

Traditional/Progressive: I'm mad progressive. I love everything prog. Prog all the way.

Some things I particularly like:

1. I look favorably on speeches that provide me a clear structure of argumentation and refutation. Roadmaps are fine, just please be (very) concise. I don't want you to yap for 30 seconds and then start your speech.

2. Please don't be too sassy/impolite on crossfire. If it gets to that point I will likely just stop taking notes and laugh. Like pls chill.

3. I like unconventional arguments, especially philosophical or fun ones. Overly cliché arguments are kind of boring to judge.

4. Charisma. I don't believe that debate should be so technical and unexciting. Bring that energy. It goes far.