Who am I?

Current Assistant coach at Fremd High School. Coached LD 23-24, currently coaching PF 24-25. Graduated from Bradley University ('22) with a degree in History and Education. Palatine High School class of ‘17. Did not compete in speech or debate, but am fully familiar with NSDA rules and PF/LD format. Consider me a flay judge, but I’m trying my hardest to become fully flow.

Topic Knowledge for January:Decent

Etiquette

• Be on time and ready to go for your rounds. It should not take you more than a minute to get your cases pulled up and flows ready. Failure to prepare will be reflected in your speaker points. I'm sympathetic to tech issues, so please let me know as soon as possible if those arise.

• Treat your opponents with respect. I’m aware that this is an intense (and often emotional) activity, but always remember where you are. Excessively talking over someone in crossfires, verbally prepping during your opponent’s speeches, hateful / intolerant rhetoric, etc. will do a lot of harm to your ability to win the round. Act like you’ve been here before.

• I don’t care where you sit, if you sit/stand during speeches/cross, etc. - as long as you’re being respectful to your opponents.

• Professional body language - this ties into respect. Don’t roll your eyes, don’t turn to me with an exasperated look on your face, don’t laugh silently at your opponent. TELL me in your speech when and where your opponent tripped up.

Structure and Organization

• Know your times!!!! I will also be timing your speeches and keeping track of remaining prep, but I will not verbally correct you if you go over time on a speech read. If you see me put my pen down, you know it’s time to wrap it up.

• Please write your school, names, and speaking order on the board. Not everyone introduces themselves at the start of the round, which is totally okay - you do you. But I’d still like to know who’s speaking!

• If you are spreading, PLEASE use slowed-down taglines for your evidence. I can follow to a certain extent, but if no one in the room can understand what you’re saying, that makes for a very boring round and turns cro into 3 minutes of fill-in-the-blank.

• Signpost throughout the round, especially for shorter speeches where you may be speaking faster. I’d like to know where exactly on the flow I should be writing. Off-time roadmaps are also a huge help in this regard. If you’re jumping all over the flow, it may impact my ability to weigh the round properly.
  
  

Preferences:

Evidence

• Card Calling: if a card is called by a team, I would also like to see said card. Too many times this year has evidence been misconstrued by a team who thinks I’ll believe them because they took a quick glance at their opponents' evidence. In general, I’m not the biggest fan of calling cards, and believe evidence disputes should be hashed out in cross. However, I understand that it can be a useful strategy, so if you do call for a card please make sure it is clearly warranted. Don't treat card calling as a routine part of a round.

• I’m extremely skeptical of outdated / non-topical evidence when used to support claims about current issues. If you are able to point these flaws out in your opponent's case and postdate said evidence with relevant cards, that will strongly impact my decision.

• That being said, I am a sucker for historical analysis when it is used to provide context or draw lessons relevant to the resolution. Historical examples should not form the sole basis of your argument but can serve as a valuable supplement when tied clearly to the present-day implications or impacts of your case (e.g., for comparative purposes, or to demonstrate broader trends without overstating its importance).

• Don’t bring up new evidence in summary (especially second summary).

Argumentation Style

• Not familiar with kritiks or theory debate. You’ll most likely lose me here. Aside from that, I’m open to whatever your preferred style of attacking a round / resolution.

• Arguments should be extended throughout each round if you want me to vote on them. Once a point is dropped, I’ve flushed it from my mind.

Delivery

• As stated above, I can handle most speeds. I’ll furrow my brow at you if you lose me. If you can’t properly articulate while speaking fast / spreading, that’s a good sign you should slow it down.

• I’ve been better at understanding the technical aspect of public forum debate lately. Being a flay judge, persuasive speaking has historically worked on me regarding my ballots.

Crossfire

• I will not flow crossfires, but I am paying attention and may take notes here or there. If something comes up in cross that you want me to vote on, it needs to be brought up in a speech.

• Not partial to aggressive behavior during cross. Asking more than three consecutive questions reflects poorly on your sportsmanship.

• You can sit, stand, face me, face your opponent, do a handstand, or whatever is most comfortable for you. Don’t stress about it.

Weighing / Voters

• Weighing and voter issues are vital. Tell me where you think you won.

• Your weighing should be consistent throughout the debate. If you outweigh on magnitude with a point and then 10 minutes later that point is now weighing on probability, I will become skeptical of the viability of that evidence as something to vote on.

Adaptability

• I value teams that adapt to the dynamics of the round. If your opponents focus on certain issues, adjust your arguments accordingly to maintain relevance. Demonstrating flexibility shows strategic thinking.

• If an opponent drops an argument, don’t spend more than a sentence acknowledging the drop unless it’s vital to your voter issues. Be mindful of when your opponent strategically drops a contention / argument. Similarly, know when to cut one of your contentions loose and focus elsewhere if you can’t get around a block.

Feedback / Disclosure

• I don’t disclose winners / losers in-round, unless I feel it’s absolutely necessary (has only happened once in two years). You’ll be able to see my RFD and feedback in Tabroom.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask :)

No spreading (speed reading)

Clear weighing of issues

I am a new judge. Please speak clearly and slow down when getting your points across. Keep time and respect the limits. Be respectful to your partner and competitors. I flow and appreciate seeing debaters address clash points and bring your arguments through each speech.

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.

As your performance, preparedness, and effort on your debate is valued and admired, I do prefer quality vs quantity. This helps me consider all important points in order to make the best decision. Speed is not favorable for me.

If your side is con, facts or showing cards demonstrating why I should decide for con is important to convince.

Loreto Galvan-Alva

As a flow judge, my primary focus in determining who wins the round is on the technical aspects of the debate/arguments rather than the truthfulness of the arguments presented (I also do not flow through the crossfire, I simply listen so make sure points made in crossfires are brought up in a speech). However, in close rounds I recognize the importance of both tech and truth and I will consider both aspects in determining the rounds winner. Above all, I simply want every debater to remain respectful, and to have fun throughout this process!

1. Tech Over Truth

• Organization, Clarity, and Coherence (e.g., it's okay to speak quickly, so long as clarity isn't affected)
• Strength of evidence presented (e.g., stats, studies, data)
• Structured Speeches (i.e., organized, clash with opponents- speeches change depending on the debate itself/argumetns being presented)

2. Flexibility in Close Rounds

• While I prefer technical arguments, during close rounds I will consider arguments that challenge my initial beliefs or opinions.
• Strength of arguments and connection to why I should vote for either PRO or CON world is what I refer to when making a decision in close rounds (i.e., what are the main voting issues you want me to vote on)

3. Fairness and Behavior

• I encourage respectful discourse, I expect all debaters to engage with their opponents in a respectful manner (remember that you are clashing with the arguments, not the debaters themselves)
• Refrain from any potentially distracting behaviors while opponents are speaking (e.g, talking, giggling, expressive facial expressions)
• Plan ahead for any potential wifi/tech issues (e.g., not depending solely on computers), the wifi of other school's will be unknown until the day of the tournament (being prepared for any potential issues allows us to be respectful of other teams/judges times)

So simply put remember to be respectful, have strong arguments, and have fun!

*My personal preference is to not disclose at the end of a round, I will leave all feedback on the ballot*

Public Forum

Name: Sarah Greenswag

School Affiliation: Libertyville High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

some tips for success in-round:

-assume i have no previous knowledge of topic, tabula rasa but please no bigoted arguments

- keep time

- comparative weighing: tell me why I should prefer your args over theirs. use weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, etc)

- rhetoric/truth can be impactful when used to strengthen existing cards and impacts, just make sure you thoroughly explain why it's substantial

- signposting: mention which contention or argument you're on when talking about it

- i don't flow cx but i will be listening: if you have a point, make sure you bring up in your next speech

- identify clash points and address them

- have links and impacts: explain how you get to your impacts, strength of link >>> big impacts, but if you have both go for it

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

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

1. Speed is fine, you won't go too fast
2. Win the flow=win the round
3. Presumption =neg
4. Theory is cool, run it well (Interp, violation, standards and voters. RVI's have higher burden)
5. K debate is even better
6. Defense needs to be extended
7. I default to magnitude/strength of link weighing
8. You can run any and all args you want, but they cannot be problematic/discriminatory/ attack your opponents. This will be an auto 20 speaks and L.

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

It should be pretty easy to win my ballot. In my opinion, debate is a game, and you should play to win. Here are the specific things most debaters would want to know.

PF

- I am cool with speed, so long as you don't use it to push your opponents out of a round. I will call clear if you become hard to understand, so keep that in mind.

- I will evaluate all types of arguments equally unless told otherwise.

- I am willing to listen to things like K's and theory arguments, so long as they are impacted out in the round.

- I really enjoy framework debates as well. I think these can be particularly beneficial for limiting the ground your opponents have in the round.

- I am tech over truth, which means so long as it is on my flow, I will evaluate the argument regardless of my own feelings on it. I will also not flow arguments through ink on the flow, so be sure to engage with your opponents answers in order to win the link level of your argument.

- Summary and FF should be somewhat consistent in terms of the direction they are going. Inconsistencies between these speeches will be harmful, especially when it comes to evaluating the strengths of your links and impacts

- On that same note, I want to see some sort of collapse in the second half of the debate- going for everything is typically a bad strategy, and I want to reward smart strategic choices that you make.

- I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round. I am cool viewing the round through any lens that you give me, so long as you explain why its the best way for me to evaluate the round. If absent, I have to intervene with my own, which is something I hate to do.

- If you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so. In that same regard, I wont intervene unless you leave me no other option.

- I dont flow CX, so if you want me to hold something that was said as binding, you need to bring it up in all of the subsequent speeches.

-Speaker points, in my opinion, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. Content above style

-On a more personal note, I want the rounds that I judge to be educational and allow debaters to articulate arguments about real world issues, all of which deserve respect regardless of your own personal opinions. I have seen my partners and teammates experience sexism, racism, and other types of discrimination, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for it when I am judging.

-If you have any other questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me. I also will give feedback after rounds, you just have to find me and ask.

LD

- All of the above applies here as well. There are a few extra points that may be helpful.

- I will always evaluate framing first, so long as there are competing positions. If values are the same, just collapse and move on. These can be either traditional or more progressive/kritical frameworks.

- For the NR/2AR, don't go for everything- there simply is not enough time and debates are not lost by making strategic decisions to go for one or two arguments instead of extending the entire case.

- I dont need voter issues- just go top down the AC and NC and win your offense/extend defense.

- Impact calc is necessary- PLEASE weigh your impacts. I default to a net benefits impact calc, unless given a competing way to view the round.

Hey guys, this is my second year judging, and I really love a good debate! During rounds I want to see good clash in your speeches and crossfire. But, I also value respect a lot, so I will be vocal if I do not see it.

PF/LD:

1st SPEAKER:

I want to see a range in your voice and be loud with your speech, so that I can hear every detail about your case! I want 1st speakers to weigh during their summary and please use voter's issues! Please organize your speeches as well, so that I can have a good flow! SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST!!!!

2ND SPEAKER:

For 2nd Speakers I want to see aggression and passion in your speech because at the end of the day you are arguing (again not too much aggression). I would like to see ORGANIZATION and for you to SIGNPOST as well! Please don't have your speeches only be evidence, explain your cards and how those connect to your opponent's statements. I want to see a clear connection between arguments and their value to your overall rebuttal. I would also like to see voter's issues to be incorporated and it should be relatively the same with your partner's.

Hey, debaters!!

A little about me: I'm a senior, I've debated PF for the last four years as a second speaker (with a partner that crushes being first speaker!!!), and my favorite topic I've debated was whether or not the U.S. should legalize all illicit drugs.

I'll keep my paradigm fairly short!

1. I am definitely a flow judge so make sure you go straight down the flow when responding to attacks and extending arguments! But this doesn't give you an excuse to not speak clearly, so presentation still matters =).

2. Sign-posting is highly encouraged, it helps me understand where you're going with the direction of your speeches. For example, stating "We have four attacks on their C1 of xyz"

3. If you talk too fast, I will stop flowing/listening and I will dock your speaks.

4. Tell me the clash points of the round and tell me WHY YOU WIN!!!

5. Talk with projection and confidence, even if you know nothing, act like you do.

6. If you use the phrase "shambles" I will up your speaks ;).

7. Please be respectful to one another- no eye rolling, talking during opponents' speeches, and try not to cut each other off during cross. But just have fun!!!!!

Hi all, I'm Hayden Mazzeno and I'm a senior at Libertyville High School. I've competed in PF debate for the past 3 years, 2 of which have been in Varsity, but this is my first year judging.

In terms of what I like to see in speakers I need above all else intelligible speech. I by no means flow slowly, but I'm also not a robot and if you mumble your speech or read through cards too quickly I may lose the plot. I am against judge intervention as much as possible, so it is up to you to moderate the speed of your speech and I will not provide any cues if I can't understand you.

As for rounds, I look for:

• Cohesive link chains over mountains of data-heavy cards
• Line-by-line rebuttals
• Big-picture summary speeches
• Flowed arguments (don't bring up new arguments late in the debate!!)
• Decorum in debate - be polite and encouraging to one another, I know debates can get heated but maintain courtesy

ONE KEY NOTE FOR EXTRA POINTS!!!!!!

IF you can successfully make two funny Taiwan-focused jokes during twoseparate speeches, both you and your partner get a 0.5 speaks boost.

Name: Jay Mehta

School Affiliation: Stevenson HS

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of delivery- Should be able to understand your argument; avoid mush mouth syndrome

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- Line by line

Extension of arguments into later speeches- Please do so

Flowing/note-taking- Not during crossfire

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

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, needs to be extended in both rebuttal and summary

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? Yes

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

• Be kind to your opponent
• I do not flow speed reading
• You can win the round and still not get high speaking points. Ensure you are speaking, not just reading a speech.

I am a current varsity first speaker in public forum debate.

Some things that I like to see are clear speaking, good analysis, and clean voter issues. One thing that is very helpful is signposting. This is when you give me a clear explanation of where you are on the flow. Additionally, I love to see impact weighing (magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc. )Please do these things and it will make following the debate and my voting much easier. Additionally, tell me the clash points within the round and why you are winning! Show respect for your opponents for the round, you are all doing the same thing here, there isn't any reason to be disrespectful. I will take speaker points off for disrespect if it occurs. Other than that, just show me a good debate. Good luck!

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.

Please talk slowly so that I can understand all your points and use all your time.

Also, mention running marathons and reading books :)

Speaking tempo: Please speak slow enough to allow flow. If I put my pen down, it is because I have stopped my flow.

I am a new judge.

Speak clearly. Slow down if you need to get your points across.

Keep time and respect the limits.

Be respectful to your partner and competitors.

I flow and appreciate seeing debaters address clash points and bring your arguments through each speech.

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.