Please don't spread! I should be able to follow your case and speeches clearly

Looking to see that you understand your own case, can talk about your points in your own words and stay consistent

My name is Mr. Belanger. The main things to know about my judging are:

- I don't mind talking fast, but I do prefer a slower talking speed. In either case, speak clearly so I can follow every word.

- I do not judge on crossfire. If you make a point in crossfire be sure to bring it up in your later speeches.

- I tend to look for every argument or rebuttal to be responded to by the opposition. Contentions occasionally get dropped, but make sure it isn't in response to an opponent's argument - then it looks like you're conceding the contention, which will impact your result!

- Make sure you are quantifying and weighing your impacts!

- I tend toward simpler link-chains, but if you have a longer one go for it - just make sure it's clearly proven with quantified impact!

Varsity debater, prefer argument as well as style. Please show me you are genuinely educated in the topic you are talking about and don’t try to talk fast to compensate for it. I need to understand you.

As a public forum judge, I care deeply about a few things.

First, let's keep public forum accessible to the public by maintaining a reasonably conversational delivery. I'm not a fan of spreading, and I prefer that debaters have the time and mental space to have quality arguments with deeper thoughts centered on fewer pieces of evidence. If you speak so quickly that I can't catch your points, then it doesn't make it onto my flow and I can't give you credit for an argument I don't hear.

Second, keep in mind that public forum should be accessible to parent and community member judges. When using technical debate terms, a brief definition in round is appreciated for the benefit of your judge and your less experienced opponents. You should be able to win your rounds on the clear strength of your reasoning and your evidence, not your ability to speak in coded, technical language.

Lastly, a nuanced, coherent approach to frameworks is always appreciated. Simply stating a framework at the beginning, then forgetting about it, is the mark of an inexperienced debater. After you make points and read cards, take a beat to connect the fact back to your framework. Be sure you can pronounce utitlitarian/utilitarianism if you are using that as your framework. Consider as well that most PF arguments use the US government as their subject, and the US government's primary responsibility is to the US state, economy, citizens, etc. Teams that acknowledge that responsibility when crafting their arguments will come across as more knowledgeable and measured as they divide the ground/terms of the debate with their opponents.

I am the head coach for a high school debate team and have been judging policy debate for several years. I take copious notes in a round and because of that prefer simple direct language. Arguments are what is important but style and delivery does play an important part. When looking at criteria I look for who has the most well defended plan and is relating it specifically to the prompt. The most persuasive arguments, in my opinion, are those that are well sited and defended on many angles. In regards to in round conduct, I look for competitors to be passionate but polite. Overly aggressive tactics are not taken well.

I prefer when debaters speak at a speed that can be easily understood. If a debater speaks so quickly that I cannot understand what they are saying, I cannot include what they say in my decision. In addition, I greatly prefer when debaters are respectful to their opponents, especially during cross and while their opponents are speaking. Talking over opponents or making distracting noises or movements while the other team is speaking is frowned upon. Thank you!

Hello! I am a senior speech competitor at Wayne State University and competed in debate throughout high school. I have a passion for public speaking, so I love to hear a persuasive and confident presentation when judging. Please be kind throughout, as I feel there is no proper debate if there is no decorum. I appreciate well-spoken arguments that are both backed by credible sources and relevant to the debate.

I'm looking forward to judging! Have fun!

I have been judging debate since September 2023

1. I prefer debaters to talk slowly and concisely and not to speak with anger. I give points for proven points that have been published. I like eye contact.
2. I mark positive points when arguments and claims are supported.
3. I note when key claims are supported. I give points when the opposing team hears and counters the argument with supported evidence.
4. I value argument support and flow style. It is valuable for the two teams to hear their opponent and not only reiterate their own argument but debunk the opponents with support.
5. I consider calm rational clear understanding of the argument. and presenting in a calm manner.
6. I expect respect and clarity

I'm a sophomore at UMich. I am a lay judge, please speak at a slow speed. This is one of my first times judging, though I did a little bit of debate in high school. I love to hear interesting arguments, as long as they are explained sufficiently. Please no progressive arguments, or complicated PF jargon. I don't need to be added to an email chain.

Have fun!

1.Experience Level -I was not a high school debater myself. I competed in forensics 20 years ago and did well with it. This is my first year coaching and judging debate.

2.Preferences for Rate of Delivery and use of Jargon/Technical Language - I prefer a clear and conversational rate of delivery. I do not mind if it is fast(er) as long as you slow down and are clear when you state your framework, contentions, main argument, etc. This helps me to keep an accurate flow. If you are too fast or unclear then I have a hard time keeping up or I'm left wondering exactly your argument was.

I have found that jargon tends to somewhat distract from argumentation. Technical language is alright as long as it pertains to your argument and is used to help clarify rather than confuse.

3.Description of Personal Note Taking - When I flow I try to make sure that I at least get the framework, the contentions and the main/key arguments from each one. Those are the big things for me. I will also draw arrows from rebuttals to constructives or summaries to rebuttals, etc. to make sure that arguments are addressed/refuted and that no one drops one.

4.Argument over Style? or Style over Argument? or Argument and Style Equally? - I value structure and clarity. The less time I have to spend trying to catch up to or deciphering your arguments the more time I can spend actually analyzing the "meat and potatoes."

5.Specific Criteria I Consider - Were your frameworks, contentions, and arguments clearly stated and/or well defined? Were you able to show the impacts of each of your arguments? Did you clearly tie each argument or speech back to your framework? Did you address your opponents arguments without dropping them? The more systematic and methodical the better.

6.The Most Persuasive Speeches I Have Encountered So Far - Have had a clear framework and clearly stated arguments. They were not overcomplicated (2 contentions are good, 3 is alright, any more starts to get hard to keep straight). They addressed and refuted their opponents arguments in an orderly manner, and were able to tie everything together very clearly and succinctly in their summaries and final focuses.

7.Expectations for In-Round Conduct - We're all doing our best. Be respectful and friendly. Keep a cool head and try not to let yourself get carried away. It takes guts to get up there and do what you do. We've all experienced the dreaded freeze or blank, if that happens extend compassion and empathy where and if possible. I like to see sportsmanship after the round concludes. Handshakes, Fist Bumps, or other acknowledgements of "Thanks for Debating" between opponents and between competitors and myself are personally really appreciated.

Background and Approach

I bring nearly 20 years of experience as an educator to my role as a judge, which has taught me the value of clarity, preparation, strategic argumentation, and thoughtful analysis. While I am new to judging public forum debates, I trust that your preparation, logical reasoning, and engagement will speak for themselves in each round. My evaluation philosophy focuses on fairness, critical analysis, and adherence to the structure of the event.

Evaluative Criteria

Here’s how I will evaluate each round:

1. Content & Argumentation

   • Clarity of Arguments: Arguments should be clear, well-articulated, and easy for the judge and audience to follow.
   • Evidence & Reasoning: Claims must be supported by credible evidence and logical reasoning. Avoid relying on broad or unsupported assumptions.
   • Case Construction: The initial case and arguments should be well-reasoned, relevant to the resolution, and structured in a way that supports strategic debate.

2. Refutation & Strategic Analysis

   • I value debaters who thoughtfully engage with their opponents' arguments, respond directly to challenges, and strengthen their positions by addressing opposing viewpoints through analysis and evidence.

3. Crossfire & Strategic Flexibility

   • Strategic use of the Crossfire rounds can strengthen arguments and demonstrate the ability to think on your feet. I value debaters who maintain composure, use these opportunities to press their case, and respond respectfully to opposition arguments.

4. Overall Presentation & Strategy

   • While style is not the sole determining factor in my evaluation, I appreciate clarity, effective communication, and a professional demeanor. Arguments that are strategically sound and communicated in a clear, concise, and persuasive manner will score higher.

5. Impact & Significance

   • Debaters should emphasize the broader impact of their arguments, connecting their points back to the resolution and demonstrating relevance to the central issues of the debate.

Expectations for the Round

• Respectful Communication: Public forum debates rely on mutual respect and active listening. Personal attacks or unprofessional behavior will not only detract from your credibility but will impact my evaluation.
• Responsiveness: Directly engage with the arguments your opponent is making. Analyze and respond to these points specifically rather than avoiding engagement with key contentions.
• Strategic Adaptability: Flexibility is key. Be prepared to pivot your strategy or approach based on your opponent's arguments while maintaining clarity and precision.

What I Look For

1. The quality and clarity of arguments supported by evidence.
2. The ability to engage in strategic rebuttal and effective crossfire techniques.
3. How well you connect your points to the overall resolution and to broader impacts.
4. Strategic choices—such as when to prioritize certain arguments or adjust your approach based on the debate's progression.

Tiebreakers

If I find myself struggling to choose between two strong performances:

• I will evaluate the strength of strategic choice, focusing on how debaters effectively adapt to their opponent’s arguments.
• I’ll prioritize arguments that emphasize clear logic, quality evidence, and relevance to the resolution.

Final Thoughts

I’m new to judging public forum debates, but I will approach every round with fairness, attention to detail, and respect for both competitors and the spirit of the debate. My goal is to reward logical analysis, preparation, strategy, and effective communication.

Good luck to all participants! I’m excited to see the insightful arguments, strategies, and perspectives you bring to the table. Let the best reasoning win!

Greetings and Happy Holidays!

My name is Lavern and I go by Vern. I debated for Uprep High School's policy team between 2018-2021. I qualified for the 2020 UDL Nationals along with my partner, but sadly could not attend due to Covid. Bit of a history nerd so if you're looking to break the ice before a round, history's gonna be the best subject. Writing a novel on Mansa Musa and I'm looking for connections if anyone has any.

ldhj0608@gmail.com | Email Chain Pls

As a Judge

• RoB is 1st priority for me, but it must be extended throughout all speeches to be weighed in my ballot.
• I was a K debater, I never cared for heavy political action formats where we'd spend 1-1.5 hours debating on different bills and laws. I find them dull, but if that's what you're bringing to the debate space, then I'll judge you on it.
• If you're running a K, then run the K, but extend your arguments and answer what the other team brings to the debate through your framework.
• Not a stickler for Topicality because everything in debate is debatable, but if another team proves you as being not-topical within the round, then you're not topical.
• I loathe teams that stack a bunch of advantages, disads, and other off-case arguments in their constructive speeches. It's bad practice and I look at it as though you're hoping the other team misses something (but if they miss it, then they miss it and will be judged accordingly).
• When addressing a member of the opposing team, it's best to use names so make sure you ask at the beginning so we're not butchering eachother's names.
• Lastly, we're all just here because we enjoy this stuff. Enjoy yourself! Don't get too wound up (guilty)!

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

FOR DEBATE: I generally look for the team that best carries their own contentions all the through the round while continually showing how they defeat their opponents contentions.

I also place an emphasis on competitive manners. Be polite to each other while competing.

Please don't tell me when to start my timer. That's my job as a judge, not your job as a competitor.

FOR FORENSICS: I listen closely for speakers and performers who vary their vocal tones. No matter which event you do, change it up throughout your performance or speech. That gives our brains a chance to reset, which allows them to stay interest in what you're saying. Make us interested in what you have to say.

I'm a Umich college student with 6 years' experience in debate.

I prefer logical and well put arguments to theatrical performance. I care a lot about framework and PROOF as well as magnitude of your impacts, if you can't prove it doesn't matter how big it is.

All that said, what I hear is how I judge, if you blatantly lie then we'll have a problem, but I don't bring any knowledge into the round. Please please please be Politte to each other, it doesn't develop your skills and loses you points. time yourselves but I'll have one running as a formality, I'm not allowed to judge what you say in crossfire and I'm a firm believer in that rule, you have to do a callback to it, then I can think about it/consider it. Please weigh impacts, I value it a lot.

I'm happy to give more meta debate feedback after my general feedback, just ask for that after I finish general comments.

I debated in Public Forum for 6 years through middle school and high school, so talk as fast as you would like to. That being said, if you talk quickly please speak clearly, if I can't hear you I can't flow your points. Please no off-time roadmaps.

Cross: I do not flow crossfire and thus do not judge on points that are brought up during cross. If there is something mentioned during cross that you would like me to vote on please bring it up in your next speech. For example you could say, "as my partner mentioned in cross..." or "as my opponents stated in cross..." Please be aware, however, that I do take cross into account for your speaker points so please be polite.

Impacts: I vote on clear impacts. I should easily be able to see your impact's timeliness, scope, and probability. You MUST extend your arguments through your Summary and Final Focus. Even if it is one sentence, mention your contentions in every speech. If your contentions are not mentioned in your Final Focus, I will not vote on them.

Framework: If both teams present a different framework I will vote for the framework that was better argued or the one with the larger scope. If neither team presents a framework I will use a utilitarian framework. Be aware that I cannot vote with a framework that has no impacts in the round (if you run a econ framework, but only present lives impacts, I cannot vote based on econ).

Time: Judge time rules, but please time yourself as well. If your timer makes noise it should never go off during one of your opponents speeches.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me anytime before, during, or after the round.

If you have any follow up questions about my comments feel free to email me at bonniekkeating@gmail.com

Name – Joe Kelly

Current institutional affiliation – Lansing Eastern

Current role at institution – Assistant Coach

Previous institutional affiliations and role: East Kentwood, Michigan State University - debater. East Lansing High School, Waverly Middle School - director of debate.

Debating experience

High school and college debater – graduated college more than 15 years ago

If you debated what speech did you do most often? 1N/2A

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

My normal range is 26-29.5. You can lose points by being rude, behaving unethically. You can earn points by speaking clearly, making good strategic choices and good arguments.

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clear. I will also give non-verbal cues. Debaters can check to see if I am flowing or if I look confused.

===How I Judge Public Forum Debates===
I default to I vote for the best policy option. Most likely to cause the benefit with least risk of cost. Debaters can put me in another paradigm.

Dont read from a doc. (Not talking about constructive). If you read, I find it boring. Please, be freewheeling. Have fun with it. Think out loud.

Dont reiterate the same points in Rebuttal/S/FF. The round must develop. You must travel somewhere from beginning to ending. It can arrive back home (that's a very ideal structure) but you must contest certain things, spend time on the other case, drop certain pieces of evidence, concede certain weaknesses when necessary, and ultimately prove to me why you've won. You have to prove to me why you've won. It's the proof I'm considering and weighing against the other proof.Not the messy round of contested spaghetti thrown at opposing walls.

Dont make me look at a food fight and vote for whoever had a finer throwing form or whoever's clothes required fewer wash cycles. In other words, you should say "I won because of this" and tell me WHY. Think out loud. Think critically.

Have fun. Debate is a very safe way to be intellectually dis/interested in certain topics and at the same time grow way smarter. Learn from your mistakes. Even within round. Don't be afraid to progress/develop/evolve the case, but generally speaking after summary no new points will be tolerated. Summary is a prelude to final focus. Final focus is a crystallization of summary.

Have fun. Think out loud. Be bold.

Background:

I just graduated from Traverse City Central High School last year and I a am a former member of the debate team, with experience competing in public forum. My judging philosophy reflects my belief in fair, respectful debate and the importance of clear communication.

Judging Preferences:

• Frameworks: I am open to any framework, provided it is clearly explained and consistently applied throughout the debate. If both teams propose competing frameworks, I will weigh the debate based on which one is better justified and more effectively impacts the round.

• Evidence: Strong, well-cited evidence is crucial, but analysis and logical reasoning matter just as much. I value debaters who can contextualize evidence and explain its relevance to the round.

• Speed: I can follow moderately fast debate but prioritize clarity over speed. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow you.

• Weighing: I appreciate explicit impact weighing in final speeches. Tell me why your impacts matter more in the context of the round.

• Crossfire/Questions: I pay attention to crossfire, but it is primarily for clarification and exposing weaknesses. Extend arguments in your speeches if you want me to evaluate them.

• Theory: I will listen to theory but prefer that they are well-explained, with clear links to the case and impacts. Running these for strategic purposes without substance might lose you credibility.

• Behavior: Respectful communication is essential. I value a collaborative and educational debate atmosphere.

Decision-Making:

I aim to remain impartial and evaluate the debate strictly based on the flow. Please make your arguments clear and extend key points into final speeches. If something goes unaddressed, I will assume the argument is dropped.

Final Note:

I’m here to ensure a fair and engaging debate. Feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

I have been judging debate and forensics tournaments for 5+ years.

With a long career in business, my judging in debate tournaments is based on the quality and delivery of information to support your position - solid evidence with an outstanding presentation.

For forensics competitions, the selection of the piece or product combined with your your creative interpretation are the key winning factors.

Welcome. My name is Kurt L. Manion, and this is my judging paradigm, this is the set of beliefs I walk into the room with by which I will evaluate our round.

My background is in Philosophy. I debated for 4 years in Policy and LD; I did modestly well considering the work I put in, and which I had done more. I was a policy coach for a year or two for my alma mater high school Loyola Blakefield, and during that time one of my teams qualified for nationals.

-+-

Debate in front of me as you would before yourself; this is to say that you should not compromise your style to accommodate me. I will in almost all cases choose the best argued for path that requires the least amount of judge intervention. You should have clear, organized structure to your case, and it would behoove you to give me commands on how you prefer for this to be represented on my flow.

Debate arguments function like chess-pieces: they each have a clear referent and have a determinate function; there are a finite number of moves that each may make overall and in a given situation; and, you must strategize how you're going to play each move.--Make sure I understand where an argument begins and ends: this is the purpose of clear taglines, emphasizing the author's name with a partial stop, and numbering or lettering arguments and sections. Tell me how the argument functions, i.e. its importance in the round, what it functions in relation to, what determines its truth, and what happens if it is true. Do not fall into the trap of the car-salesman: If I hear one team say "car A is good" and the other "car B is good", I would have no way to determine which car is better; please employ comparative argumentation. I should not be left guessing at the end of the round about what has or has not been said, or how I can vote.

Even though this is a competitive debate, I do not share sympathy with those who would prefer to win by employing tricks or dishonesty; rather is debate about the way in which ideas are presented, evaluated, and resolved by means of rational argumentation.

While I do and must walk into the round with a sane set of default commitments to what debate should be, this does not preclude your ability to alter these defaults by means of F/w or theory arguments. I implore to ask me before the round how I treat certain arguments that you believe you may run or run into. I will answer you honestly and be happy to examine ways you can navigate a given problem. I encourage your use of theory to initiate exciting, different ways of round evaluation.

I dislike frivolous theory. Do not pref me if you're theory heavy, I don't have the ability to reliably adjudicate an advanced theory debate, and don't want you to get JFed. Don't take this as a discouragement to utilizing theory arguments. If you believe that something wrong has happened in the round, please do run a shell against it so I have an easier pathway to taking this into account for the ballot.

I love speed but am a bit out of practice. My jargon is up to snuff everywhere except certain fringe theory topics.

Seek to make agreements before disagreements. Collapse the debate as much as you can. Be clear in the comparative world analysis and the possible pathways you have to the ballot. In the final speech make sure the story of the round is present. Tell me how to flow. Do not lie.

As an old school judge I tend to make my decisions on the clash in the round and how well/clearly the arguments are developed/responded to. A dropped argument does not mean an automatic win for the team if it is not key to the main argument being presented. Evidence is important to me and arguments based on quality of sources, analysis on importance of post dates info, etc are acceptable but should not be the main focus of the debate. I also consider how well the teams treat each other, and rudeness can impact how I view the round. Finally, the last two speeches should be narrowed to winning arguments and articulated in such a way to be convincing. I will make my judgments based on what you say in the final speech, not what I think you meant.

NOTE: YOU SHOULD READ THIS YOU SHOULD PROBABLY READ THIS YOU SHOULD READ THIS

Seaholm'21 (PF -- was bad at debate)

Umich'25 (PF/Policy -- became far less bad at debate)

?'27 (currently applying to masters programs lol)

Email chain: Meskouri@Umich.edu

I have ~9 years of experience with debate and have coached various PF teams, many of whom have done well nationally.

High speaks (+0.5): Positive Malik Beasely reference (this is +0.8), garfield reference, speaking in hilariously large numbers (e.g., "they've conceded twelve trillion impact turns") (Note: this does NOT mean that you can lie about ev, it's more for general statements), calvin & hobbes reference, saying "chungus" between sheets (e.g., "Go to C2, chungus") or send a fun comic strip in the email chain. No, they do not stack. My rounds are typically very informal -- please use them to have fun and make jokes and stuff

If you need help with something (finding files, responding to certain args, etc), just ask!

----------

Top Level

My thoughts on debate change frequently. The following is generally unflinching:

Tech > truth, absent technical arguments made to the defense of truth as a paradigm. That said, I'd much rather evaluate the way this game was played than discern whether a presented argument was "true."

By PF standards, I have evaluated everything (I very frequently find myself judging performance, tricks, theory, IVI, whatever).I like to think that I'm a good judge for whatever experimental garbage you want to read (besides high phil). I actively implore teams to read experimental garbage. I do not think that PF should be less of a game than Pol or LD. I wholly encourage debaters to use my rounds for doing/practicing things that they can't deploy in front of other judges (bc, y'know, PF judging kinda sucks sometimes. Many of my 2-1s are craaaaazy parent screws lol).

To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, death good, T-3 tier, prefiat/postfiat K, debates about debating about debate, theory, meme, science fiction, etc etc) so long as you aren't blazing (>250 wpm) through them. I genuinely enjoy debates about debate.

Any variation of the Anthro K/animals = 30 speaks probably

Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable unless it's a slow MIFA round) & 2AC/2NC docs with all new ev and (only if you can) analytics. I will cap speaks if docs are not sent.

I am not the judge for 50 analytics + no doc ngl please for the love of everything don't do that to me

I'm a pretty normal tech judge on substance. Know the difference between a link turn and a DA. Second rebuttal has to frontline no matter what. New weighing in first final is fine. Both teams should weigh. I had some braindead take last year that was like "weighing lowk not that important" but I now vehemently disagree with that obviously incorrect sentiment. New stuff in second final is lame-o. I am going to go on instagram reels during cross. Make my life easy by extending dropped responses. Beyond that, no major notes from me!

This mostly applies to MIFA: Some of y'all don't understand the purpose of framework -- you can't just be like "the framework is util, go to case!" Gang, framework a) needs to be justified (e.g. why does util outweigh? you need to tell me why my worldview should shift in this particular round, ideally with cards lmao) and b) has to harbor a clear strategic advantage for you (e.g. it'd make sense for you to read a fw that says humor is what the judge should be voting on and then read a meme case, but it doesn't make sense for teams to flippantly assert without justification that I should be evaluating through util and then read, like, a normal case that has literally nothing to do with util beyond impacts of saving lives). Don't read thoughtless framework that does nothing for you.

----------

Misc

Sorry this para is so short -- ask me if you have spec questions. Otherwise, assume I'm hypertech on most topics unless it's a MIFA tournament lmao

PF is undergoing a transformative experience wherein debaters are beginning to question the activity's foundation and the roles of competitors/judges who take part -- irrespective of my personal beliefs, I am more than happy to judge these rounds unless they're aimless and haphazard. Impassioned yet unrefined strategies are not aimless ones

Perfcons o/w 99% of the time

Thoughtful ballot disads persuade me

Meme cases are great

I think I have less of a negative predisposition towards death good than most judges do

Extinction vs. SV kinda bores me but I'm totally down to evaluate it. If possible, be unique in your interactions with these arguments!

Big fan of going for everything

Do not harass people. Do not be mean. Do not make others uncomfortable

TKOs are fine but lock in tho

I genuinely enjoy debates where teams read stupid garbage

Defense is sticky for locals

• Idk why these bullet points are here they won't go away :(

I am a Spanish teacher at Cranbrook Schools. I am looking for participants to speak clearly and concisely. I value a good debate, with strong arguments and supporting details. Important components that I will always take into account are listening to your opponents, being respectful to everyone, not talking over each other, and presenting yourself with the upmost decorum. Debate can open your mind and help you consider points that you may not have before. It is a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other and having a good attitude is key. I would be considered a lay judge that is interested in facts.

PF coach for like 5 years. Dabbled in Policy. Smidgen of LD. Heard of Congress.

I prefer clear logical explanations above anything else, demonstrating a mastery of the topic. Solid evidence as well. And squirrelly technicalities, not at all.

I'm too much of a boomer for some theory/kritiks but always try to entertain a good argument.

Please don't spread, at risk of losing your arguments on my flow. If you must, give me a speech doc.

Please signpost.

Be kind, have fun and good luck :)

Current coach for Traverse City Central High School.

Paradigm: I want you to frame the round and tell me where to vote and why. A well developed framework on which I can vote is key. I will not create your arguments for you, so explain them well. As a teacher, it is most important to me that you understand your arguments and learn from the process, so if you can create a framework that convinces me I should vote on it and is well argued I will vote on any argument.

Speed: I come from Policy Debate, so I can handle speed, but please enunciate. Be sure to be clear on your tags and subpoints. Do not use speed as a tool to confuse. I would rather hear quality arguments and clash than spreading just for the sake of confusing your opponent.

Arguments: I generally want the arguments you make to be in the round, not just in cross fire, and I want you to extend them throughout the entire round. If you don't mention them in the last speeches, I will consider them "dropped".

Procedure: Be polite! This is an educational process and should be respected by all competitors. Regardless of your experience level in this community, we are all still learning.

I strongly prefer that you do your own Crossfires. Each team member should be able to articulate the arguments and should not rely on the other(again learning is the key). I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

Politeness and respect in the round is a TOP priority.

Other:

-Line by line! I am super type-A, and if you are not organized my flow is not in your favor.

-Having a card on something doesn't always beat good analytical arguments.

-I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

-Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

-I need to be able to understand and find your arguments to vote on them, be organized!

I'm always working on learning as a judge and updating my paradigm. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. Ask me questions, make good arguments, and help me understand why it is important to vote for you on any argument. Have fun.

poluskathryn@gmail.com

Public Forum Debate:

I competed for 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing and cohesive arguments/responses.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't drop an argument/A2 with no evidence, so long as it has a clear link to impact that makes sense and can be believed with no evidence. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge on an answer. I'll also be looking for you to flow arguments from crossfire and into speeches if you want me to flow them. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. In-time roadmaps take five seconds at maximum, you have the time for one. Speaking speed should be reasonable in Public Forum, and there shouldn't be any spreading. I will tell you to slow down so I can understand you. I want you to dedicate time to impact weighing through the entire round, especially in summary, so you can bring it up in final focus. Most of my focus when considering the round comes from the final focus, so hit those impacts. Don't worry about being repetitive.

On framework - I like frameworks, but they're not necessary in Public Forum. Regardless of if there is a debate on framework, if you have one, I want you to mention it in every speech so I can flow it through and use it in my judging.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end. As a note on collapse, if you plan to do it, mention specifically that you are collapsing so I don't think you dropped an argument on accident.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. Your speeches and your questions should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job isnot to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a relatively blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that do not compel me, and will lose you points. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming the whole peace is only going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. This is more for your safety than my tastes. Thank you.

Joe Rodrigues (He/Him).

This is my second year as a parent debate judge.

Please be respectful of all participants.

Please keep it clean during Cross.

Relevant, timely evidence and strong sources matter.

An understandable roadmap and clear signposting will help me follow your arguments.

Frameworks determine how you are going to be evaluated. I'm open to unorthodox moves. kritiks, and theory but it should be noted that these angles are no small task, and thus, should not be undertaken lightly.

If you decide to spread, the onus is on you to have a clear, understandable argument that is delivered with sharp enunciation. Titrate the former based on the latter.

If you assert - as is commonly done in summary or focus - that you are winning an argument, contention, or point of discussion, please realize that this is a claim that I expect to be backed up by strong evidence.

Strictly for those interested in the nerdy details:

I scorekeep based on claims advanced, challenged, and defended in the style of a game model with some truth boundaries. I flow the main arguments while considering impact calculus. I use a combination of semantics (for assessing relations of implication and incompatibility) and pragmatics (for assessing entitlements and consequential warrant) in judging.

I graduated from Wayne State University with a BFA in Communication Studies. I have three years' experience in public forum debate. I am currently working on my master's degree in communication studies. While doing so, I am coaching Wayne’s PF team. Also, I have debated in Policy and judged Policy.

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins 
their arguments in the debate. 
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me 
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better 
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something 
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that 
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is 
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see 
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the 
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate 
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these 
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the 
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your 
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of 
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round 
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is 
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a 
must. 
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only 
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend 
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This 
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the 
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically 
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly 
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need 
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly 
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate 
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence 
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 

I’m Mani Sundararajan, have judged about 15 + rounds this year.

I’ll be looking through your pace , flow, points on the argument and public speaking skills .

Critical thinking - How well you catch opponents points which seems to not logical or lack on evidence. How well you defend your points and citing the evidence.

Having a framework and surround your points towards that will add more value for your arguments.

Respect your opponents , having excessive aggression makes your speech less weight on your content .

In summary, putting forth good arguments at a reasonable and understanding pace, answering opponents arguments with better evidence, logical and staying on topic will be the criteria for the winner of the round.

I encourage you to be taking this debate as a platform to improve your public speaking skills , critical thinking , collaboration, how to respectfully disagree and argue on the points to bring in more value of what you side as right .

Enjoy your day , be open , have fun, learn more , take home great experience that can come through your life .

BACKGROUND:

I have been a practicing attorney for over 20 years. I have judged mock trials at the high school and college level. However, I believe a public forum debate is best viewed as with the audience as the average (reasonable) person.

WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR:

Mature and courteous behavior to the other team, but fierce advocacy based on the evidence. Arguments that get overly emotional or rhetorical are not very effective. I understand that the "pro" side and "con" side are often not equal. Therefore, you are judged on what you do with the position that you get. I will make every effort to remove any internal bias toward either issue and I am open to the better argument. But, once again, the better argument is based on well-developed facts. The biggest factors for me are: (1) clear and strong message that is not rushed, (2) preparation and research, (3) quickly determining and addressing the other team's weaknesses, (4) respect for the other team and your own teammate. The majority of the score will be based on the speeches and rebuttals, not the crossfire.

WHAT I AM NOT LOOKING FOR:

Speed. Emotional pandering. Uncivil behavior.

Carsen Troub, He/Him

Public Forum Debater for Wayne State University

Overall I am not particularly picky when judging. I mainly see debate as a game so I'm open to any kind of argument as long as you can properly explain to me why I should vote for you (this threshold is much lower if you run a meme case). With that being said my threshold to vote is a bit higher for Kritik's so keep that in mind when making arguments. I will most likely be flowing in some kind of way so make sure you are responding to all of your opponent's arguments, it is very likely I will vote you down if you simply concede an argument. Similar to the last point I put a lot of importance into the idea of tabula rasa so I try my hardest to come into rounds with a blank slate, of course, I am only human and I am not perfect so that doesn't always happen. This means you need to make sure you respond to things that might seem obviously false to you. If your opponent says the sky is green and you do not refute it during the round the sky will be green until you tell me otherwise, remember I see debate as a game so I'm going to treat it as such in many ways. I'm not too worried about civility as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Try your hardest to as civil as possible but I won't vote anybody down for being uncivil unless it gets out of hand. Speaker points are also not something I put a lot of importance on as long as you don't do a bad job speaking both sides will likely get high speaker points.I am comfortable with speed just make sure you are speaking clearly when speaking fast. If I cannot understand you I will let you know.

When making a decision I tend to find a few things to be most important. First I put a lot of value into impact calc so make sure to explain to me the negative impacts that come with your opponents arguments and the positive impacts that come with yours. Second of all I like seeing people collapse to their best argument, only having to heavily weigh your most important point against your opponent's most important point makes deciding close rounds much easier. I really like seeing that you understand the argument you're trying to make. One of the main points of debate is education so I put a lot of value into actually understanding what you are talking about. In my mind, this most often takes the form of you being able to further elaborate about your case when asked to in cross.

Also don't be afraid to ask me questions about my decisions or paradigm, I put zero effort into organizing my paradigm so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit confusing. If you need me to clarify something before a round go ahead and ask.

Good luck to all of you I hope it's an enjoyable round.

HI,

I am Sarah Walker and I have been apart of the Michigan debate community since 2019. I am pretty traditional judge and I am open to whatever argument as long as it is answered/ explained functionality.

For public forum:

I value clear pronunciation and prefer a speech speed of 180 words per minute or slower.

My judgments are based on what I can comprehend. I appreciate logical arguments and rebuttals that directly address opponents' contentions. Speeches that don't engage with the opponent's points lack true debate intention. Ignoring or dodging questions is seen as weak. Contentions must be supported by evidence or reliable sources; otherwise, they are considered a disadvantage.

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.

PF Judging,
I score the speaker points according to the outlines by the tournament and the debater performance.

Most of time, speaker points are between 24 and 30.