I am a student judge and I have been debating for a few years now.
Spreading is encouraged, but you should be comprehensible. Justify your contentions with as much evidence and statistics as possible. Time yourself carefully, anything spoken outside time shall not be taken into consideration. Impact weighing is important.
Good luck!

• Tech > Truth
• Run whatever you're good at - I did policy so ik LARP and theory pretty well, but I did read a a lot of K/Phil lit - spread if you want but if you're not clear, speaks will suffer
• Don't do any of the isms in round
• I don't vote for out of round/ad homs
• High threshold for trix - the worse the arg, the lower your bar for answering it is
• idrc for nebel + also prob 60/40 in favor of TFW
• default condo and judge kick
• I read ev - pls have good evidence!
• Email chain: saanvicherukus@gmail.com

for PF:

• baseline: don’t be a crappy human. respect your opponents, don’t be a bigot or read bigoted arguments — if you have to question the ethics of something you’re about to do DO NOT DO IT‼️

• have fun. the activity should be enjoyable

• warrant things please. i do not want to play a game of “roll a dice and try to figure out what i’m saying" at 8am on a saturday and it will force me to intervene

• tech > truth BUT this does not mean you get to sacrifice clarity — your argument should be explained thoroughly, regardless of what it is

• I place a heavy emphasis on evidence BUT if you warrant things well then that's good.

• don't spread, especially during virtual tournaments: my internet is bad + my brain likes processing argumentation at a normal speed ty

• i will evaluate based on clarity of links, extended arguments, and COMPARATIVE weighing -> tell me exactly what my decision should be, and more importantly, make it easy for me to see WHY.

• ks and theory are fine - I have a higher threshold for it in PF though: but just make sure you know your lit + don't use it as a way to win against novices/trade debaters who have no clue what is going on

• speaks -- argumentation is important! the point of this activity is to actually interact with your opponents' claims, not read blippy warrants with unclear impacts.

• icks: saying something is extended and then not extending it, saying your opponents dropped everything when they didn’t, talking over your opponents, reading irrelevant responses, purposely avoiding questions after being called out on it, prep stealing, dumping and not knowing what in the world you’re saying

I am Leena Cherukuri and I started judging speech and debate this year. My background is in Medicine and I focus on logical reasoning and effective communication.

I would appreciate if you could time yourself.

Philosophy: I focus on the arguments made in the round. I value logical reasoning, clear frameworks, and strong impact analysis.

Preferences: I appreciate clear framework. If you don’t provide one, I’ll default to the framework presented by the other side if they have one. Evidence is important, but I value quality over quantity. Please explain why your evidence matters to the round. Articulate clearly as I won’t vote on arguments I can’t understand. I see cross-examination as an opportunity to expose flaws or clarify arguments, but keep it professional. Logical reasoning and strong impact are crucial. I prefer debaters who explain why their impacts matter relative to their opponent’s. Please speak at a conversational rate and a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to
understand arguments in the past.

Decision-Making: I vote based on the flow, so be sure to crystallize key voters in your final speech. If you want me to vote on something, it must be explicitly stated and weighed. I don’t like overly aggressive behavior—it’s fine to be assertive, but respect is essential. I also won’t vote on arguments that lack warrants.

Final Note: Debate is a great learning opportunity and I appreciate the effort you put into the round. I’m excited to hear your arguments! Please keep it respectful and enjoy the debate. Good luck!

I am a parent judge so I am not a professional and may have questions.

Time yourselves and do not exceed the time limit.

Before your primary speech please state your name and what school you are from.

I do not flow crossfire. If something important or relevent comes up, state it in your rebuttal, summary, or final focus.

I prefer clarity over speed, so please do not spread; if your talking too fast to the point in which I can't understand what your saying, your argument will not be taken into account.

Follow the rules of competition

Respect the other side and all team members and their position on topic.

Track your time

Speak Clearly

Experience Level: I have coached high school debate club since 2021. My direct experience in debate is limited to coaching and judging; I was not part of a debate club in high school or college.

Judging Philosophy: I value logical arguments supported by evidence and clear reasoning. My background emphasizes understanding diverse viewpoints, favoring arguments presented clearly and without excessive jargon.

Preferences:

• Rate of Delivery: A pace that ensures understanding of the arguments. I can follow a decent speed, but would recommend prioritizing quality over quantity.

• Note-taking: I flow arguments and evidence and look for clash between the teams.

• Criteria for Assessment: I consider the strength of the arguments, the evidence presented, the relevance to the topic, and the ability to engage with the opposing side's points. Dropped arguments are highly considered. I also take weighing, and, when applicable, framework into consideration.

• In-Round Conduct: Expect respectful discourse, with a focus on the quality of debate over theatrics.

Hi everyone, my name is Chanel Kreuser. I did PF debate at West Bend all four years of high school, and I occasionally did congress. I was decently successful and attended a few national competitions. I graduated in 2020, and I now attend MSOE.

I talked quite fast in debate, so don't worry about that, however, I do not join in on link chains or look at your blocks. I shouldn't need to to make a decision. Everything I need to know about why you should win should be in your speeches.

Off time road maps are always good.

I do not flow cross fire, if you believe something important was brought up, bring it up in your next speech.

I love a good summary speech, especially if your team is going second. To me, it is necessary that you pull any important arguments through every speech. If it was brought up in rebuttal, but not summary, then I'll drop that argument. If it was not brought up in your constructive and summary but not your rebuttal, it will not hold much weight in the round for me.

I like to hear voters in your final focus. It makes it much easier to know what I should be voting on and why your team should win.

Please be polite and respectful in the round, it makes your team look more intelligent. Have fun and good luck! (:

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

Judge Paradigm:

Background:
As a judge, I believe in fairness and objectivity. My role is to evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, not my personal beliefs or knowledge. I appreciate clear, logical argumentation and effective communication.

Flow/Structure:
I will flow the round carefully, so I appreciate clear signposting and roadmap speeches. A well-structured case that’s easy to follow will always benefit you. If you want me to weigh a specific argument, make it clear in your summary and final speeches.

Evidence vs. Analysis:
I believe both evidence and analysis are important. Strong evidence should support well-thought-out analysis, but a debate that is too evidence-heavy without explanation or context may lose persuasive power. I value quality of evidence over quantity—just throwing a lot of facts at me without tying them to your argument won’t win you the round.

Speaks (Speaker Points):
I evaluate speaker points based on clarity, delivery, and engagement. Confidence and professionalism in presentation matter, but you don’t need to be flashy. Effective use of rhetoric, persuasive tone, and strategic word choices can enhance your delivery.

Cross-Examination (CX):
Cross-examination is key to identifying weaknesses in your opponent’s case. I appreciate debaters who use CX to ask meaningful questions and clarify points rather than trying to score cheap wins. It’s also a good opportunity to control the narrative.

Theory/Framework:
If you run theory, make sure it's warranted and not frivolous. I am open to hearing theory and framework debates, but it must be well-justified and impact the round significantly. I am more inclined to vote on these if the abuse is clear and affects the debate directly.

Speed (Spreading):
I’m comfortable with speed, but clarity is a must. If I can’t understand what you’re saying because of speed, it won’t make it on the flow. I’ll call for "clear" if needed, but keep in mind that over-spreading can hurt you more than help.

Weighing:
I highly value good weighing mechanisms. Make sure to tell me why your impacts matter more and how they compare to your opponent’s arguments. Impact calculus is crucial in close rounds, and I prefer to hear clear explanations of magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

Voter Issues:
In the final speeches, please be clear on your voting issues. Summarizing key arguments and telling me why you should win will help me when making a decision. I prefer to see debaters focus on crystallizing the debate rather than introducing new arguments in the last speeches.

Conclusion:
In summary, I look for clear, structured, and logical arguments. I’m open to all kinds of debate styles, but clarity and strategic choices are key. Make sure to tell me why you win, and I’ll base my decision on what’s presented in the round.

email: mintinoa000@wbsd-schools.org

I've been debating all four years of high school in both LD and PF. I've also completed on the national circuit.

PF:

Speed - I can deal with reasonably high speed. As long as you enunciate (especially on card tags and signposts) I should be fine.

Clarity - Very important: be clear. What is the link, warrant, and impact? Remember, PF was based on the idea that anyone could be the judge, that's why it's called public forum. Complex ideas are fine as long as you are clear.

LD:

Framework - Framework first. Tell me why your framework is the best, then tell me why you win under your framework. For insurance, I suggest you also give me reasons you win under your opponent's framework if it's getting close.

Kritiks - I don't mind a good K, just PLEASE keep it topical. Exotic K's are fine as long as you prove that it links to the resolution/ROTB.

Counterplans - The only issue I have with CPs is when people run illogical ones. If your CP is that tomorrow we end all wars then I'm not going to buy it. Yeah, that may be better than the resolution, but it's also so improbable that I won't vote on it. A reasonable CP that still allows the aff to challenge it is fine.

Disadvantages - Good, but tie it to a framework. Also, three-card DAs will earn a raised eyebrow from me. You can make them work, but I rarely see people who do.

Theory - Yes, but don't be overzealous. It's fine to debate the purpose of debate, but only if you can prove your opponent is actually inhibiting educational debate. If you tell me that they are making debate less educational because they didn't post it online yet they are actually trying to debate the resolution and you are fixating on that instead, I'll be more skeptical.

Plans - Don't. Ideally the aff's ground is the whole resolution and the neg's is the SQ. While Ks/CPs are commonplace now and kind of extend neg ground, they each allow the aff a route to win via perms or topicality. The neg can't prep every possible plan, so they overextend aff ground. While I don't drop plans on principle, all it takes is for the neg to bring this unfairness up and it's fair game to vote on. I suggest finding evidence that if the resolution is passed, it makes your plan likely/guaranteed to happen.

I value debates that are clear, well-organized, and connected to real-world implications. I want to see strong, evidence-based arguments that directly engage with the resolution and respond thoughtfully to your opponent’s points. I focus on quality over quantity—fewer, well-developed arguments will always be more effective than a scattershot approach. Delivery matters too; confident, clear speaking and strategic time management make your case more compelling. Above all, show me why your side winning matters by connecting your arguments to broader impacts in a way that feels relevant and meaningful. Keep it respectful and engaging, and you’ll make a strong impression.

Background

• I enjoy hearing diverse points of view and stories.
• I'm no expert, but I'm open-minded and curious to learn.

Judging Style

• I appreciate your passion and genuine belief in your arguments.
• Keep it simple; help me understand complex topics without jargon.
• I'll do my best to provide constructive feedback to help you grow.

Fairness and Respect

• I value respectful exchanges; there is no need for aggressive tactics.
• I’ll consider both sides fairly, regardless of personal beliefs.
• Creativity and unique approaches are welcome!

Time Management

• Stick to the given time limits, please.
• Be mindful of pacing—not too fast, not too slow.

Final Thoughts

• Speech and debate are about more than just winning; it's about sharing ideas and learning from one another.
• Good luck and have fun!

I was a quite experienced debater, but that doesn't matter too much, other than that I understand most common phrases and common debate practice. My goal is to be the judge I wish I had.

I don't think I should have to say this, but please use evidence. Analytics are only good until an expert comes up. Nobody in my rounds are experts on anything brought up in round, so I expect real experts to be used. If no experts are used, I have to decide what's right and wrong.

I don't judge critiques unless both sides force me to, or if the K is run as a valid argument/contention. If you ignore the opposing teams critique, I will probably vote for you, unless the K is topical. Focus on debating the topic, not some K against the topic that my vote has literally no impact in changing. 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. 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.

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.

Email is tidbergjosh@gmail.com

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.

I will allow JVPF to only respond to their opponents' case in their rebuttal (and to mention their case again in Summary). JVPF is still learning and it takes some time to learn to do both in the same speech. However, Varsity should be experienced enough to go down their opponents' case and then tell me why their own case is better during their Rebuttal. If Varsity drops their case in rebuttal, I will strike it from my flow.

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.