Hi!! I've done 2 years of PF and 1 year of speech at Iowa City West High School and I'm currently a sophomore at uiowa :)

I'd say I'm a flay (flow & lay) judge, I have judged tech rounds before but it's hard for me vote on them cause I'm not skilled in that area (so whether you get my vote or not is kinda hit or miss, it depends on how I'm feeling) but I usually vote on extending and weighing!

General Stuff to Remember:
You should be about convincing me that your overall argument is better
Signposting PLEASE!! (tell me what argument you're responding to or what overall contention you're talking about), it will help me keep track of my flow and especially use them when you’re extending cards (i.e. saying the tagline).
Weigh the arguments in the round, ESPECIALLY in summary and final focus. Tell me why your weighing means you should win this round, not just why your weighing is true.
Off-time road maps, please follow them!!
Please time your speeches and prep, I will keep time, but it is also your responsibility. I usually don't keep time when I'm judging semis/finals/etc. If your opponents are going over time and I didn't notice then please make it clear and let me know.
Please bring up any trigger warnings for any arguments that could be sensitive before.
You're allowed to have 10-15 seconds to finish your sentences at the end of your speech.
Please be respectful. Respectfulness leads to better speaks. Any problematic behavior in the round (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc.) can lead to a loss or docked speaker points. I do not have any tolerance for any form of in round abuse or discrimination.
I can handle some speed (if I'm in a tech round except I'll probably struggle to flow completely) but please don't spread in a non-tech round. If you do, it's on you that I couldn't flow your speeches. Clarity > Speed!!

Speaker Points
I like to see good tone, enunciation, and speaking style. Bonus points for humor/analogies that make sense and if you roast any current ICW debaters LOL
29-30: Amazing speaking
27-28: Exceptional speaking
24-26: Average orPoor speaking/were rude and derogatory or you just didn't show up to round

Rebuttals, Summaries & Final Focuses
Use weighing, and tell me why your arguments makes their arguments invalid.
No new arguments in 2nd summary (it's abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond).
NO NEW EVIDENCE IN FINAL FOCUS. Final Focus is meant to weigh everything important that's happened in the round and to tell me why you should win, not to make new arguments.
Make sure to extend your arguments all the way to final focus!! A lot of teams don't extend their case and opponents don't notice that, so keep track of who's extending it helps me decide who to vote for!

Other
- Name is pronounced as Hah-nah, my pronouns are she/her
- Make your arguments very clear to follow and understand, especially if you are advancing them. If your opponents do not respond, make sure to mention that in your next speech!
- Please don't lie and have any skewed cards
- My email for email chains during round is: nanaaboualaiwa@gmail.com
- If we do an email chain, I'd like to see your case and rebuttal, but otherwise any cards you share with your opponent is also great to have.

If you have any questions please let me know before round! You can also always ask me questions after round about my decision. Have fun and good luck :)

I debated all 4 years in highschool. I debated at Millard West High School in Omaha Nebraska. I competed at plenty of tournaments in Nebraska and the national circuit. I've competed at T.O.C, Blake, nationals, and was state champion in Nebraska in PF.

I EXPECT THE SECOND REBUTTAL TO COVER BOTH SIDES! By this I mean that the second rebuttal must attack their opponents case, and defend their own case from their attacks from the first rebuttal. IF THE SECOND TEAM DOES NOT DO THIS, AND THE FIRST TEAM POINTS IT OUT IN SUMMARY THEN THE SECOND TEAM AUTOMATICALLY LOSSES! In my eyes not covering both sides is dropping your case. You have dropped all your opponents attacks and therefore it is too late to cover them in second summary.

Also new evidence in second summary is ify especially if its a new point.

EVIDENCE IS A BIG DEAL TO ME. I WILL CALL FOR CARDS AFTER THE ROUND IF THEY ARE IMPORTANT OR WHERE HOTLY DEBATED IN ROUND. If the card is shady, has poor methodology, or has any problems I will most likely not consider the evidence.

I like real world examples, and cross-applying. Warrants and impacts must be likely and probable. Speaking I dont really care. I debated four years so I can handle speed. Summary is a summary sign post, summarize the points, and dont do a rebuttal part 2.

Not new to PF debate but appreciate debaters who are deliberate in telling me what contention is being addressed throughout the round. I believe PF should be accessible for anyone to judge, so don't go too fast. Make sure impacts are realistic, and weighed. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters and evidence should be used to support your cases and statements. More the better.

Hello! My name is Connor (he/him) and I have been judging high school debate for a couple years now. I previously competed in both PF and Policy debate for all 4 years I was in high school and did one year of Mock Trial. My degree is in Politics.

Having said that, never assume I know the topic. Always introduce me to the topic. My judging decision can only be made based on the information provided in the round. My decision is also based on who communicated their side of the argument best. If you have an amazing argument on paper but cannot effectively communicate that to me, you may be at risk of losing the round. You should try to effectively convince me of your side by using not only a multitude of sources, but high quality ones as well. Sometimes quality is greater than quantity. I don't have any preferences on types of arguments or number of arguments, or anything like that. I want to give you maximum freedom to present information and construct an argument.

Be mindful of your conduct in round. Be polite and respectful to not only me, but also your opponents. I have been asked to not disclose results until elimination rounds and not provide feedback in order to keep the tournament moving. I will put as much information into the ballot comments as possible, but may take time for me to update. Thanks for your understanding!

Have fun and learn lots!

Hello, my name is Calvin. I debated on the national circuit frequently during high school, and have been involved in PF since 6th grade. I'm now a first-year student at Drake University majoring in Law, Politics, and society on a prelaw track. I am also an assistant coach at Roosevelt.

Add me on the email chain: calvinj.goldsberry@gmail.com

When I am judging, you will have my full attention. I will not be on social media or other websites (Yes, even during crossfire).

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

I am tabula rasa/tech>truth. This means i will enter the round as if i have 0 topic knowledge, and will evaluate anything I can understand. If your opponents say the sky is green and you drop it, the sky is green.

I don't care about speed as long as you can produce a speech doc that I can follow.

Defence is not sticky.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence will result in a TKO.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

How to win my ballot

SIGNPOST pls bro im begging

Clarity>speed

Collapsing is important if you want to avoid judge intervention. It can be extremely difficult if not impossible to weigh 3+ pieces of offense in 2 minutes.

I won't vote on crossfire, but that doesn't excuse being rude. You can be aggressive in cross, but please treat your opponents with respect.

If something important happens in cross, bring it up in the next speech or I won't flow it.

One well-warranted analytic is better than two blippy pieces of evidence

Good COMPARATIVE weighing will probably win you the debate.

Make your evidence comparison more than just "we postdate" why does postdating matter? Get creative with it.

Implicate your responses.

Efficient evidence exchanges facilitate a faster debate, fair competition, and a less annoyed judge.

Preflow before I show up.

Kritiks

I love K debates. I think these debates are extremely important for the debate space and are highly educational when they are run well. I am somewhat inexperienced in evaluating these so please explain things in simple terms so I can understand the warrant-level debate.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

I struggle to evaluate RVIs, they do not make much sense to me. Why should you win for being fair?

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Making the round less messy is as simple as collapsing on a standard, just like you would collapse on a link in a substance round.

Tricks

These are uneducational and impossible to evaluate, please don't read them.

Just don't.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks. Being condescending/demeaning in cross loses speaks.

Less than 25: You intentionally did something abusive/offensive. I have probably contacted Tab.

25-26: You are SERIOUSLY grinding my gears.

26-27: You made some mistakes.

27-28: Average.

28-29: Pretty good!

29-30: One of the best teams at this tournament.

Other stuff
If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.

Be "Good people who happen to be good speakers"

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com and sophiargustafson@gmail.com. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. Also, every second it takes you to send emails gives me one less second to think critically about my decision. Please be speedy with the emails! NOTE: Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently an attorney in Iowa City practicing workers compensation, personal injury, and medical malpractice. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC. Both teams broke at the TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm cool with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

A list of prog I have voted for in the past: IVIs (author/rhetoric based), DTD (based on in-round analysis), afro-pessimism, black nihilism, disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory, etc.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

TLDR: Be chill and do what you want

Did PF, currently doing policy at the University of Iowa

Coaching for ICW

TOC Semi-finalist

K

I enjoy K debate, but I am not well read enough for you to assume I know your lit

I find it deplorable to read ontological/social death arguments if you do not identify as the group your literature identifies

Theory

I don't love theory debates, but I will vote on it

LARP

Substance is neat

Speaks

I am not a speaks purist by any means

I reward smart strategic decisions or if you made the round fun/interesting

The ballot determines if you win the round, the speaker points determine how much I want to vote for you.

Misc

I default tech > truth unless told otherwise

Arguments are not arguments without warrants

I don't flow off the doc. I flow the words that come out of your mouth. It's not an issue of speed; it's an issue of clarity. If I cannot flow you, I will audibly say "clear." Ignore me at your own risk.

Post-rounding is good

LD

Here are arguments in the order of how comfortable I am evaluating them:

LARP/K/K-AFFs

(small gap)

whatever the hell "high theory" is

(medium gap)

Tricks

(small gap)

Phil

I will gladly vote on any of the above arguments if well explained, but pref me at your own risk

My name is Anjali Kumar and I am a current college freshman. I am from Des Moines, Iowa, and debated Public Forum for four years in high school. I'm good with speed, but if you spread I might miss something and that's on you. I am a flow judge, please signpost as it makes it much easier to figure out where to put things on the flow. Unless there's an argument that's inherently racist/sexist/homophobic, whoever wins the flow wins the round. Weighing is incredibly important, give me clear weighing mechanisms for your arguments! I can follow logic arguments and I believe not every argument needs to have numbers attached to it, as some impacts can't really be quantified. If there's conflicting evidence, tell me exactly why your evidence is better than your opponent's instead of just saying "my evidence is better". I don't really mind however you decide to call for cards, y'all can decide between showing laptop screens, the physical card, or an email chain.

Have fun and learn something! :)

Hey there! I've debated in PF for 2 years and have done speech events for 2 years, now I am currently in college at the University of Iowa.

PF:

1. Please do not spread as a tactic. If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to carry your points in the flow.

2. If you include an off-time road map, make sure it’s clear.

3. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.

4. If frameworks are included, please carry them through the round. If the framework is dropped, I will not weigh it in the round.

5. I need to see impacts. I weigh impacts after the entire round, so you MUST carry them through the round.

6. If there is an evidence debate, I most likely will call for your cards at the end of the round. If you fail to provide the evidence that is called by me, your claim will be dropped.

7. Have good sportsmanship. Don't be overly aggressive and have fun while debating.

Speech:

Individual and Duo Interp Events

• Believability and connection to the story

• Rising and falling of emotions

• Discernible voices (for multiple characters)

• Partners should respond naturally

• HI should be funny

• DI should be more dramatic and build to a climax

OO, POI, Extemp

• Defined outline

• Credible sources that support your thesis and purpose of your speech

• Be natural with your movements

• Some humor is good

I did primarily PF for 4 years and have coached since 2019.I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

Add me to the email chain and label the round please: morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get there.

Please do not exceed 5-10 seconds over time or prep steal. Call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link to their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, but I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the fastest round ever I'm probably like a 7.

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow.

Ehh, I guess you can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get fast/blippy args without good warrants on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

Quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense or you will lose)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns and what you're going for in 2nd rebuttal.

Anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing.

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence, real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being I refuse to evaluate theory/K/other prog args and 10 being please run frivolous theory, I'm about a 6. Ask me questions to clarify this if you'd like.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive debates.

I am a fairly traditional judge but will listen to most any argument as long as it applies to the Resolution.

Please listen to your opponents arguments and have your rebuttal address their arguments.

I can listen to speed to a certain extent, but would rather not to have to tell you to slow down if I cannot hear the argument I cannot judge the argument.

I have coached and judged debate for 25 years.

I will not disclose in round unless told by the tournament to do so.

I am a First-year out 4 years of PF at Theodore Roosevelt High School

Add me on the email chain please: Charlesetimm@gmail.com

Please make an email chain and send docs so evidence exchange is either not necessary or it goes really quickly

Feel free to email me with any questions/concerns etc.

TLDR: I am a tech judge.

Judging Philosophy

For all events I am here to evaluate you, run whatever you would like.

I am tech>truth. I will evaluate anything I can understand.

I don't care about speed.

I do not flow off the doc so make sure you speak clearly when spreading.

Extensions must include all parts of an argument, including the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact.

Good weighing will probably win you the debate.

Evidence ethics are VERY important to me. fabricating/being unable to produce evidence is bad have cut cards.

Teams should have evidence readily available in a cut card format as per NSDA guidelines.

Kritiks

I had very limited exposure to Ks when I was debating. I have seen more since judging and can evaluate K's but only when they are ran and explained in depth in round.

Theory

Generally speaking, I believe that open-source disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. That said, I am still tech>truth in theory debates.

Theory debates can be hard to evaluate; if you want to win, make it simple for me.

Speaker Points

I assign speaker points based on strategy and speaking ability. Smart arguments usually get high speaks.

If you have any questions please send me an email or talk to me before round. also, feel free to postround me; it makes me a better judge and I do not find it offensive.