Name: Luke Anderson

School Affiliation: Fremd High School - Assistant Coach

Were you previously affiliated with any other school?

Palatine High School Graduate, Bradley University for Undergrad.

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

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

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

I have judged both PF and LD.

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

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

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?

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

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

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

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

Your arguments win you the round, your speaking style/skills gets you speakers points.

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

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

--

Above all, treat your opponent(s) with the upmost respect. I don't tolerate any discrimination, abusive language, or poor sportsmanship.

Tech>Truth

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

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

For border topic:

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

Arguments and Extensions:

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

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

- pls condense case extension as the round goes on

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

Speed:

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

Evidence:

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

Weighing:

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

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

Speaks and Prefs:

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

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

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

Overall I am typically a flow judge, I will be flowing thoroughly and voting based on it. Signposting is very important and I think it's essential when it comes to keeping everything organized. I can track fast speaking decently however, do not speak super fast unless you can do it effectively and understandably. If I cannot understand you I cannot vote based on what you’re saying. Generally, I am more truth over tech but I don't focus too terribly much on it unless something is blatantly untrue or illogical. I put a lot of emphasis on respect in rounds, don't interrupt other people's speeches, and generally give respect to your opponents, I think this baseline respect is crucial in debate. I will start at a 28/27 for speaker points and work from there. Even if you win the round on the flow I will be less likely to vote for you if you’re rude or immature during the round. Please treat the people and topics of the round with adequate respect. Overall try your best and have fun! :)

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

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

Name: Anusha Jayaprakash

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging: 6 years

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

Tech>Truth

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

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

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

GENERAL STUFF

Timing

I will be timing but time yourselves.

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

Don't steal prep time.

Speed

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

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

Arguments

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

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

Extensions

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

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

Condense case extension as the round goes on.

Collapsing is better

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

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

Cross

Don't assume I'm listening.

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

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

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

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

Evidence

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

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

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

Analytics with a warrant can beat evidence without a warrant.

Weighing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaks

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

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

Prefs

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

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

Speech Structure

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

Disclosure

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

I will also disclose speaks in varsity.

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

IL CIRCUIT SPECIFIC STUFF

Prog

Absolutely not instant L and 20s.

Arguments

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

Pls have links.

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

Responses

IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE IMPLICATE

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

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

Progressive Arg

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

K's

I STRONGLY dislike K's.

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

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

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

Speech Docs

I want speech docs for case and rebuttal

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

Arguments

Anything you want.

Anonymous Opt Out>>>>>>Trigger warning

Responses

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

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

Elise Meintanis (Harmening)

About me:

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

About the round:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Affiliation: PALATINE

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 7 years

Speed of delivery- As long as I can flow it I am fine with spreading.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- I like a big picture format for Summaries and a crystallization of the debate. Clean up attacks, let me know what you want to focus on, and introduce voter's issues

Extension of arguments into later speeches- All arguments should be extended if you want me to flow them through.

Flowing/note-taking- I flow the entire round except for crossfires and final focus.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? To win the debate I value argument. To get high speaker points I value style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, that argument should at least be mentioned in those two speeches.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I don't require front lining - I think debaters should be allowed to deal with attacks against their own case in the summary. Unless we add more time to the second speaker's rebuttal this doesn't seem fair.

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

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

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

I value style as well as substance equally.

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

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

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

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

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