Hi, I am Eray Atici and a current senior majoring in Economics at UF. I did PF during my senior year of high school so I do know a bit how things should go but do not consider me an ultra experienced debater. I hope you follow general rules of etiquette (being timely, not yelling, speaking at a comprehensible speed, etc.), and most importantly, enjoy debating. Good Luck!

Hello! I am a current UF Business Admin major and Economics minor in an International Business master's program. I also participated in Public Forum and at Blue Key all 4 years of high school. I am definitely a flow judge and will be following your arguments and responses closely based upon what I was taught by my debate coach. That being said, it has been over 3 years since I have debated. 

Do not waste time telling me what arguments your opponents dropped or what they failed to mention. I will make note of it on my own. Make sure your arguments are rational and that your impacts flow through. The team that is more able to maintain the solvency of well constructed arguments throughout the debate is the team that wins the round. 

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a sophomore at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.

I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.

Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.

I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.

Returning to in person debate norms:

• You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable
• Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire
• During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying

Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk

I'm a freshman at the University of Florida and was an active competitor in Miami Beach Senior Highschool's speech and debate program for all four years of high school. I have experience in both Congress and Public Forum. 

Do not talk so fast to the point in which neither I nor your opponents can understand you. Make sure to keep the arguments well stated and signpost when needed during your later round speeches.

Do not be rude to your opponents.

When judging, I take into account mainly the impacts of your argument and the probability of them happening in the real world.

Pretend I am a parent judge who is completely new to the topic. I will be flowing the round so I will also be keeping track of what arguments you attack and don’t. Weighing is crucial so make sure to clearly outweigh your opponents on key arguments and impacts in your final speeches.

Any references to Drake will earn you a +0.5 speaker point boost.

And most importantly have fun :)

I am a second-year PhD student in the department of political science at the University of Florida. My research primarily focuses on immigration, citizenship, and national identity issues. I served as a judge a for the past 3 years for the Florida Blue Key Speech and Debate Tournament. I competed in public debates here at UF and in model UN high school. 

I do not believe speed speaking or reading are effective forms of debate. I appreciate the usage of reliable sources. I expect debaters to introduce themselves at the start of the debate and to include their gender pronouns (she/her, they/them, he/him, etc)

I graduated from the University of Florida with a BS in Advertising. I have worked in high-tech sales, marketing and advertising. I am looking for strong speakers, clear arguments, good evidence and professionalism in tone and body language. Please do not spread. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your contentions.

Hey everyone, my name is Gianna and I'm a freshman at the University of Florida studying political science and journalism. I competed in PF and Congress during high school. During the round and when asking for sources be respectful to your opponents. Give clear analysis, impacts, and implications. Talk at a human pace but feel free to extent your impacts keeping in mind your warrant stays in tact. Tech > Truth.

Email for docs: Gianna.brier26@gmail.com

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Hey everyone! I'm Dylan and I'm a junior at the University of Florida studying mathematics and computer science. I competed in LD during high school, during which I had 7 career bids and cleared at the TOC. As a debater, I primarily went for critical arguments (high theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, identity politics), but am comfortable with every argumentative style.

Email for docs: dylanb116@gmail.com

******Bluekey 2023 Update******

I have been off the LD circuit for a couple of years so may be unfamiliar with new technical jargon/arguments so explain well. If you have me for the first couple of rounds, please start at around 75% of your normal speed if you're fast so I can acclimate a bit.

• + speaker points if you're funny
• - speaker points if I have to say slow/clear more than three times

Quick Prefs:

• K and T/FW - 1
• Theory/Policy - 2
• Phil/Tricks - 3

Miscellaneous:

• Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc.
• I'll vote for anything as long as you explain it.
• Tech > Truth

Specifics

K: As a debater, this was the style of argumentation I was most comfortable with and utilized the most, but don't take that as an excuse to read a terrible K argument and expect me to vote on it. I used to have a long section with my K preferences but do whatever you do best and I will evaluate it. Listed below are some of the arguments I read as a debater, not sure if that will help guide your strategy or not. [https://opencaselist.com/hsld19/Newsome/DyBu]

I feel like this goes without saying, but please do not read an argument you don't understand.

Policy: I'm quite familiar with this type of debate since I've engaged with it a lot, but usually from the other side. Please tag cards with warrants (i.e. don't just say "extinction"). I evaluate the desirability of the plan holistically.

Theory: I have a general distaste for super frivolous theory so I prefer that some instance of abuse has happened. Be clear and articulate when you're exempting theory arguments or reading massive underviews. I don't flow off the doc so clarity is greatly appreciated (front lining, slowing down on argument names, etc). Defaults apply here.

Topicality: I enjoy these debates more than people think I do. I default limits/predictability >> textuality/semantics >>>> accuracy/precision.

Tricks/Phil: I enjoy cool/new analytic tricks, skepticism, and permissibility debates. I really love to see K teams that use their theory to make innovative analytics, and will definitely boost your speaks for doing so.

K Affs/FW: I will vote on either side of this debate. I think that fairness >> clash >>>>> skills. The aff should have a counter-interpretation, otherwise, the debate is very ambiguous in terms of modeling and I will most likely presume negative. Unless told otherwise, I will assume the negative should disprove the desirability of the affirmative. I haven't judged these types of debates yet so I am pretty neutral on the issue, but feel pretty persuaded by negative teams that representational content is inseparable from the action of the affirmative (i.e. the plan). I'll evaluate these debates in tiers. First, framework ("status quo or competitive policy option," "form>content," etc.). Second, impacts (extinction v antiblackness first, etc.). Third, the desirability of the plan v the alternative. Solvency/internal link weighing is really important here.

K v K: I really enjoy these debates but find that they often devolve into two ships passing in the night, so just be clear with your weighing and comparison.

General

Defaults (can be told otherwise):

- Competing interpretations/comparative worlds

- DTA

- T>K

- no RVI's

- presumption theoretically affirms, substantively negates, permissibility negates

Arguments I won't vote on:

- Racism/sexism/xenophobia/etc. good

- unwarranted arguments

- new 2AR arguments

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. Have been coaching all types of debate (except Policy), but most specifically Public Forum.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

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.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Most of my debate background is in LD. PF debate should adhere to evidence standards. Full source citations and quotes in context. Challenges for full PDFs should be limited to serious questions regarding the source or quotes without sufficient context. I am open to all types of argumentation provided work is devoted to development in round. 

Twenty years of coaching speech and debate (LD, PF, and Policy) mostly in Colorado, but last six years in Florida.

Two Colorado PF State Champions, as well as a team that finished 4th in NSDA Nationals. Look for quality arguments that have clean internal links and impacts. I look for teams that know how to properly weigh the opposing positions, and can identify the most impactful arguments that have surfaced in the round. Flow judge, but I can only flow what I can hear, so excessive speed will cost you. The winning team will know how to use each different speech in PF according to its designed intent (e.g. a Final Focus should not look like a frantic line-by-line rebuttal).

Coached state LD champ in Colorado and several NSDA national qualifiers in LD. Fairly traditional in LD judging. Will weigh competing values, but cases must clearly link to value being proposed/defended. Definitely a flow judge, but all arguments are not created equally. Looking for good analysis, and will definitely look for clear links. For that reason, spread is not generally going to impress me as I value quality over quantity. Some speed is fine, but most debaters think they are clearer at speed than they are, and if you fail to clearly communicate your argument, I can't properly flow it. Most kritiks are pretty poorly constructed, and I can only recall picking up a team based on their K one or two times. Debaters like to ask if I will vote on Theory arguments. The simple answer is that it depends on the theory and how well its run.

Also judge WSD. I generally like this form. The key to winning is well constructed argumentation, with proper warrants for your claims (empirical evidence or through logic, both count). This is a unique form and I expect you to use your time well in the way you structure your speeches, build on previous arguments (don't just repeat), and clearly demonstrate how your arguments refute or subsume your opponents. Delivery should be more 'congressional' than that of a spread debater. Quality, not quantity, of argument wins here. Use your POIs well. They are an interesting strategic device.

I am a prior LD/PF competitor for J. P. Taravella. I am comfortable with all manor of speech, and spreading is not foreign or particularly difficult for me to keep up with. I won't love it if you spread your entire case. I just prefer a competitive round with good case structure and sound logic/reasoning. I am also comfortable with theory. I am fairly laid back and personable, so please relax and enjoy yourselves.

*EXTEND ARGUMENTS*DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING*HAVE FUN*

1) I buy any argument as long as it has strong warrants, links and is understandable.

2) Please weigh 

3) 28 speaks means you're okay

4) I don't flow cross

5) Please cleanly extend through summary and ff. I don't buy arguments that randomly appear in FF but not summary. 2nd speaking team summary try to extend turns but I don't need you to extend response if it wasn't answered in first summary. 

I did PF and competed in the circuit as mostly as capitol CM for about 3 years. Broke at harvard, stanford, blue key, sunvite, long beach and GMU. 

As a judge I look for the speakers' knowledge of the topics being debate, a continuous flowing debate from both sides and the speakers' ability to articulate themselves.

I am a parent judge. Please limit the use of jargons but feel free to send me cases at judylycheng@gmail.com

Here are some guidelines for success:

1) Please speak clearly; I can only vote for an argument I thoroughly understand and is well supported. Please attempt to remove as much jargon as possible.

2) Just because I am a lay does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is true. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy it.

3) Handle your own time and prep. Create a way of evidence sharing before the round start time.

4) Be respectful to me and your opponents, any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I can give you.

5). Confidence, Presentation and Clarity of speech is half the game. Present yourself clean and neat; conduct yourself calm and collected.

My name is Sydney, and the October 2022 speech and debate tournament is the second tournament I have judged. While judging PF, I enjoy a clear delivery that stays on topic. I'm still fairly new to speech and debate and judging as a whole, so please keep this in mind. I look forward to judging debates based on their key points along with how well the points are delivered.

Head debate coach at Strake Jesuit

I've coached for a long time and have watched/advised every type of debater.  I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate.  Persuasion and speaking skill matter to me.  Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and to articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to.  If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me.  I will not vote off of something that I didn't understand.  You need to make my path to your ballot clear.  I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.).  My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned.  I also am a big fan of disclosure.  I think that it levels the playing field for all involved.  Drops matter.  Impacting is important.  Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.  

Before the round begins, I kindly request that the teams send me their cases in advance. This will greatly assist me in keeping track of the arguments and taking thorough notes during the round. Although this is not a requirement, it will help to improve the quality of my decision and feedback. I would like to assure you that the case information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the round. Teams will not be penalized if they choose not to share their case. This request is solely aimed at enhancing the academic outcome of the round.

How I base my decision: Warrants (45%), Weighing Mechanism (45%), Impact (10%)

• It is important to note that while teams may focus on the magnitude of their impact, a strong argument also requires a well-supported warrant and a method for comparing and weighing arguments. A lack of these elements can weaken the overall effectiveness of an argument.

• Tips to Strengthen Warrants in a Debate: 1) Challenge or defend the logic or evidence presented by your opponent instead of simply restating your own argument. This will bring new information to the discussion and help me understand the issue better. 2) During crossfire, ask "how" and "why" questions that focus on the reasoning behind your opponent's argument. Using common sense can also be valuable, as it can support a hypothesis that is backed by evidence and basic reasoning.

• Examples of weighing mechanisms: utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, priority based on urgency or importance, ethical principals: fairness, justice or equality, trade-offs.

Speaker points: Content & preparedness Quality (80%), speed (20%)

Your speaker points will primarily be determined by the quality of your arguments. The rest of the score will take into account your speaking speed. Public Forum debates should be clear and easily understood by all listeners, and speaking at a moderate pace will ensure everyone is able to fully follow and engage with the debate. I am comfortable with average speaking speeds, but if there are any misunderstandings due to excessive speed, it's important for the speakers to remember that it is ultimately their responsibility to communicate their ideas clearly.

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions: nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

My name is Elizabeth Daniel and I am a junior majoring in computer science at the University of Florida. I am looking to see debaters that are respectful, eloquent, and put a lot of thought into their arguments.

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye on the screen for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

I am relatively new to PF debate judging and have judged about 25 PF debates. I am ok with some speed, as long as you are clear when articulating your key contentions, subpoints, and rebuttals. While I do consider delivery, I am a flow judge and the team that is able to best argue and support their contentions with with logic and strong evidence, while effectively rebutting the contentions made by their opponents, will win the match. I place emphasis on when strong contentions (i.e., supported by clear evidence) are made by one team and not rebutted/addressed by the other team. In my view that's an implicit agreement with the contention.

When stating evidence, please ensure you provide the date when referencing.

On crossfire, my expectation is for each team to give each other the chance to ask at least one question.

I prefer for the teams to manage the debate round, including maintaining order and making sure to ask for prep time. I will have a timer, but teams are encouraged to maintain their time as well. I will ask at the beginning of the round, if teams want a 1-minute, 2-minute, etc. warning.

Please be courteous and respectful to each other.

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

Debating

- Please signpost, it’ll help me anticipate what you’re going to say so that I don’t miss anything

- Comparative weighing and impact calculus - prove to me why opponents are wrong by extending all impacts you choose to go for and comparing yours to theirs (must be in final focus and summary!)

- Extending: arguments, impacts, and evidence - you need to restate your evidence to further strengthen your links and claims (not just stating the author’s name and publication year).

- Evidence: please make sure that if you use a card during any point in the round, you have it available if opponents call for it (rarely do I ask to see cards unless a, you want me to assess its credibility against your opponents’ or b, you offer a card that is tying your entire argument together and I want to see it to strengthen my vote).

- Crossfire: I will include what happens in crossfire in my final decision. To me, having to directly defend your ideas and poke holes in your opponents' case is important, so if arguments are made that you want me to vote off of they have to be extended.

- Arguments: I expect a clearly constructed case with contextualized claims. Any critique of the status quo has to come with why amending it is good, and why any other options are bad.

• Theory/K arguments: If you prove the link between the resolution and your theory argument, I will hear you out and flow your case like any other. Stress to me the importance of addressing your atypical argument before solving for the resolution. But please, don’t run these arguments just for the sake of not wanting to debate the resolution. If it’s not something you genuinely care about, I’ll more than likely be able to tell, and there’s a high chance you won’t be as successful at running it.

Speaking

- General Preferences: please try to not read super super fast; if you choose to, add me to email chain (email: leahje7@gmail.com) However, if you aren’t clear, I will ask you to slow down a little.

- Speaker Points: earned through fluency, intelligence, and being engaging and respectful in round. Please remember that anything said within rounds that I deem offensive will result in me dropping you with 24 speaker points. (this includes: inappropriate comments, hostile behavior, but most importantly, hate speech directed towards any marginalized group of people)

Other

- tech and truth judging: I don't love the stress that is placed on appealing to tech judges the most (this doesn't mean im truth); I vote off of warranted arguments, not just claims. Unwarranted arguments are useless since they do not allow for comparative argumentation, something a team has to do in order for me to give them the ballot. when you pick tech over truth, and vice versa, your're not allowing for the comparative argumentation that I normally look for in round. that being said, just because you make a warranted claim that is true outside and within the round does not mean that I will vote for you based solely on the fact that I know it is true. facts can only get you so far. Using them skillfully is what secures the round.

- although this sounds super cliché, try to have fun. yes, if you're competing you want to do your very best, but this doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your personality in round for the sake of debate; almost all debaters would rather laugh in round than feel as if they need to be quietly analytical (if this is the type of person you are however, that's just as fine too. fun is subjective!)

- A less stressful environment is ultimately beneficial to everyone involved in a tournament, so if there is anything I can do in round to make you feel more comfortable please let me know

- regarding spectators, I personally have no problem with them if all competitors agree to let them watch. If even one debater feels slightly uncomfortable by it, I will ask the spectators to leave (this only goes for prelims; breaking to outrounds and having people watch your rounds only makes you a better speaker and debater long-term) 

note: if spectators are coaches (school or private/hired) they are obviously welcomed

- if you have any questions for me at all, before, after, or during the round, please feel free to ask them 

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

Background:

Competed in Public Forum on the national circuit level for two years (Junior/Senior).

Speeches:

-Please extend extend extend arguments, evidence, and rebuttals. It helps to strengthen your points in your summaries and persuade me more.

-I appreciate clear impacts with comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponents on the most important issues in the round.

-You can go fairly quickly in terms of speed, but spreading may hurt you as I will not be able to flow accurately.

Evidence:

-I may call for a card if the meaning of the evidence seemed to have change throughout the round

-I may also call for a card if there has not been a clear, persuading interpretation of the evidence by either team.

-A name, year and if possible a very brief qualification of the author (simply the

name of the site, institution, etc) for each card will give more credibility to your arguments.

Final thoughts:

-Please be civil. We aren’t fighting to the death.

-A clever and subtle Office reference/analogy is appreciated:)

Hey, what's up!
I'm CJ Gilchrest, I debated in Public Forum to some degree of success throughout Highschool, so I know what is going on.
To me debate is a game, and I am voting for the team that best wins the game within the round. That means that generally I will be voting off of tech over truth, and will be trying my absolute most to intervene in the round as little as possible. I'm willing to vote on anything, including any kind of progressive arguments, as long as you win them I will consider them. Beyond this generic way of viewing the round I do have some specific details that will at the very least help you out with speaks.

- I absolutely DO consider first and second crossfires to be parts of the round. I don't "flow" them necessarily, but I will be paying attention, and I think what questions you choose to ask and how you respond to questions is a core part of how you are doing in the game of debate, so I will be paying attention and will be basing my decision in part on first and second cross. I will probably sorta pay attention to grand cross, but it is so late in the round and so hard to communicate effectively in that I can't imagine it mattering in a round too much.

- While I am willing to evaluate progressive arguments, I will NOT evaluate them if I feel that your opponents simply don't know how to handle them and you are only using them because you know your opponent can't. I am willing to drop on face for attempting progressive arguments against teams that clearly aren't ready for them, so think about whether or not it is worth it.

- I (probably) won't call for cards unless you tell me to, so if you think there is something wrong that I need to see, you have to tell me to look at it. It will be very very hard to still win the round if I find some kind of egregious unethical use in your evidence, so if you have that one card that you know is sus but you usually run anyway, maybe think twice about it.

Beyond that, just ask me any specific questions before the round starts and I'd be happy to answer them, and most importantly, just have fun with it. As long as everybody is being respectful to each other, its just debate, so please try to calm down and have fun with it. Also feel free to ask me anything after the round, about your specific round, debate in general, or even stuff like applying to schools or UF. If you want to ask me any questions after the round is over, feel free to email me at itsacusterthing@gmail.com.
Good luck and have fun! :D

lake highland '21, fsu '25

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) PLEASE SET THIS UP BEFORE THE ROUND.

4 years pf (broke toc, states, multiple nats), 3-year NFA-LD (qualled to nfa-nats 3x)

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine (just send a doc), weigh, warrant, signpost, just try not to be blippy.

How I evaluate rounds:

1st: Go through all pieces of offense extended into summary then final, then determine whether every piece of the argument is extended properly. If offense is not extended properly, I have a pretty low threshold for evaluating it.

2nd: Then I look for defense on each piece of offense. I only really evaluate defense if it's terminal, otherwise it better be weighed really well for me to properly evaluate it. If there is no weighing done on a piece of offense, then I default to the path of least resistance. However, if weighing is done I look to the argument that is weighed comparatively and smart (some smart ones include prereqs, link-ins, and short circuits). At this point, I will also look at framing and see if it applies to the round.

Overall Specifics:

• Speed: I am fine with speed, if you are CLEAR. However, I find speed unnecessary; good debaters can win arguments and frontline properly without the need to speak fast. Plus, for the most part, at least, the faster you speak, the blipper your arguments get. I will clear you if you are not being clear, but that has never been an issue in a PF round ive judged.

• Weighing: Weighing is one of the first thing I evaluate on any flow. However, if the weighing is not comparative and warranted correctly, it will just seem like an extension of your argument. If you are going to weigh, please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing responses in rebuttal it makes my job easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

• Progressive: Just don't run theory or a K on some novices. K's better have a good alt that you can explain well (or it's just a DA and will be evaluated as such) + framing that is well explained in the round or don't expect me to vote on it. I would say my understanding of K's mainly comes from NFA-LD, which is more similar to HS policy and I don't know what norms exist in PF for such arguments. I am familiar with Cap, Set-Col, Virilio, Rhetoric K's, basic stuff. Theroy is okay as long as there is an actual proven violation in the round. I rather not judge some bs theory debate that probably doesn't accomplish any real norm setting.

• Extensions: Many teams think that if they frontline case, that just counts as an extension; I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made, and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions. Good extensions extend warrants and internal links.

• Collapsing: Collapsing arguments early makes your narrative so much cleaner, and also, I don't have to spam extensions and card names all over my flow.

• Evidence: I will not read evidence unless explicitly told to. I aim to minimize judge intervention via evidence

• post round me, idc.

Things I do not like:

• Overviews: I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments, but I will have a super low threshold for responses, and your speech will likely reflect this.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Things I like:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfjeGfX_5I&ab_channel=Tay-K
• house music.

Message me on FB here for questions or ask me before the round!

Hi, I'm Casey (she/her/hers)! I’m currently a student at the University of Florida. I thoroughly enjoyed debate in high school and was an active participant. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum throughout my four years in high school. I was a traditional debater, so I prefer traditional-level debate.

Email: caseyglymph@ufl.edu

Conflicts: West Broward HS (Pembroke Pines, FL); Accokeek Academy; DCUDL

Personal Notes

1. Respect your opponents at all times. Regardless of their race, gender, or skill level, show them the same level of respect you wish to receive from any one. Any form of disrespect will be noted on the ballot.

2. Going along with TWs, if you are running a controversial or sensitive topic as an argument, please be respectful. That being said, I don’t like blatantly, offensive arguments at all, especially if they only exist in the world you have created in the round.
3. Please keep track of your own timing and hold your opponents accountable for timing as well.

*Notes specific for virtual debate tournaments*

1. Please keep evidence exchanging brief. I know there are unique challenges with debating online, but please try to minimize time spent sharing evidence. Stopping the flow of the round messes everyone up. A few suggestions would be; to start an email chain before round or share a google doc with everyone and copy and paste cards there.

2. If possible, please keep your cameras on. If there are wifi/connection challenges that is completely understandable. I just like putting a name to a face :)

Summary of my judging style

I am ok with progressive debate, but I am not a pro at it so please take this into account (Ks, theory, etc.). I'm chill with counterplans.

Summaries should focus on FW, warrants, and why you’ve won. Final focus should weigh impacts, don’t try to revive arguments that weren't even touched/mentioned in the summary.

Other notes

Speed: It is your burden to make sure your speeches are clear and understandable. The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. I do prefer slow-medium pace speed, but I can handle faster speed.

Speaker Points: Speaker points decrease based upon professionalism in the round. If the round is well debated, regardless of who wins, speaker points will reflect. I’m not in the business of screwing people over through speaker points, trust me I know the pain.

Please ask any questions you may have pre-round. Hope you have a great tournament!

No Debate.

Firstly, If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it (this includes not flowing/being a lay judge lol I am g-d tier mom judge and won't intervene)

Here is how you should read my paradigm: at the top of each section is the most important stuff. If you only have a few mins read that. reading below those parts will provide a more in-depth take into my judging philosophy.

Update for Online Tourneys

I rlly can't follow like REAL spreading but I can take 99% of PF speed. I'll clear u if i need it. also ask questions if u have them and I'll answer as honestly as possible!

Most important part of my paradigm:

If you make or buy me a chicken parm or mac and cheese, I will get you prep on a topic or coach you for a round or something. I rlly like chicken parm and mac and cheese....

My name is Sam and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA. Was a meh first speaker and got carried imo. Now I'm a member of the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta.

TLDR: Normal circuit tech judge who likes warrants and logic and needs you to collapse on args

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before round or my RFD after round. (thx @Kate Selig for this idea: I'd rather you postround me than tell everyone I'm a bad judge )

Also, ask questions before the round starts! I might have thoughts on the topic you'll wanna hear. tbh also might not cuz I'm kinda dumb

Speed:

u can go fast, but don't like SPREAD SPREAD plz plz. i will try to keep up and clear u if need be.

I can flow it but only if you articulate well enough. 300 wpm and up I need a speech doc. The faster you go the more work I have to do and I'm lazy. I will always flow ur speed, but chances are if you feel the need to go too fast, then your time allocation was bad/you made bad strategic decisions. Also like fr just cuz u can go fast doesn't mean u should. Speed kills

Theory/Progressive args:

read whatever you want. i ran a cap k during medicare for all and loved it lol. I'd rather you not read random theory args just bc you want to win. if you're doing that, ASK YOUR OPPONENTS/DISCLOSE BEFORE ROUND. its rlly shitty if you don't. i can't emphasize it enough, reading theory on novices or people that don't understand what's going on = :(

If it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

d-d-d-d-disclosure theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very (like actually completely 50-50) tab ras about disclosure, i do not think it is good or bad, just that it exists.

p-p-p-p-paraphrase theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very slightly biased (55-45) for paraphrasing good but its not hard to win paraphrasing bad.

all other theory/k stuff: if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

Cross:

it doesn't matter

Its useless to me. If you want to use an answer your opponent gives in cross, then say it in a speech. Don't be rude. Hug your opponent for a 30.

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to stand up and yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and your partner each get 30's. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get 26's for interrupting cross.

Framework:

I default util.

Explain it well and how I'm supposed to evaluate offense under it. the more complex, the more explaining u need. Framework debates aren't my absolute favorite but hey, you do you!!

Evidence disputes:

read ev if u want. don't miscut but i won't drop u for it.

I value all evidence equally unless you weigh it, which you should. You should ALWAYS tell me why I need to value your evidence more. also, evidence doesn't matter nearly as much as logical warranting. also like in general i won't call for cards unless ur like "sam call for this card" in speech. I think that calling for ev in any other circumstance is intervening.

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

You will get better speaks if: You make jokes. You give good speeches and make good strategic decisions. You aren't a dick. You make me laugh. I am extremely generous and tend to give out 29's routinely. I will give you a 30 if you are exceptional. *Send me a speech doc for an extra .3 speaks (sgoldstone514@gmail.com). Also extra .3 speaks for collapsing (if u do it correctly and it makes me happy) in 2nd rebutal. I guess I'm receptive to 30s theory but like it shouldn't be hard to get a 29.5 from me. I good example of really good strategy is what Jason Luo did in first final focus of TOC finals. also i will give speaks relative to the round and the level of competitors in the debate.

Here is an itemized list of my favorite speakers in no particular order:

- Rahul Shah (his voice is soothing and he's so damn cute)

- Claudia Leduc (gives summary without looking at the flow at all, hella impressive)

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

collapse in 2nd rebuttal. at least frontline offense and stuff. anything not frontlined is conceded.

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

I like roadmaps. I don't need defense in first summary. Don't extend too much in Summary, thats my biggest pet peeve FOR JESUS' (or any g-d u may or may not believe in, but if u wanna win the round do this lol) SAKE: COLLAPSE. When extending the argument you're going for, please extend the uniqueness, link, and impact in both speeches. An incomplete/ghost extension would a) make me sad and b) possibly lose you the round.

Please impact out turns in summary (although its better if this is done in rebuttal) if you plan on going for them. It is 100% okay to just go for a dropped turn. Also, u can go either line by line or give voters/do what you usually do. Don't extend through ink lol. Defense isn't rlly sticky it (unless u make an arg that it is in speech) but I'm less inclined to vote for a team that doesn't frontline at all even if their opponents don't extend defense.

Weighing:

Please weigh, and give me good analysis. It makes my job 1000x easier.

Earlier you weigh, the better. Weighing is very helpful in rebuttal, but NEEDED for me to vote in Summary and FF. With the new 3 min summaries, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to weigh in summary. No new weighing in 2nd FF, new weighing in 1st FF is unfavorable but if it's the only weighing in the round and they don't respond to it then like eh. If both teams win their weighing and cases and there is no meta weighing then I will vote for the team whose weighing was introduced earlier in the round (prereq/link ins weighing doesn't apply here bc if one case is a prereq to another then u vote for the prereq/link in). Does this favor the 1st speaking team? No, you can weigh (and do other fun things) in 2nd constructive. Unrelated but remember to weigh turns over contentions. If nobody weighs then i honestly won't know what to do. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args. jUsT mAk3 mY lyfE eAs1eR!!!

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

I vote on the weighed args first but if nobody weighs then i be big sad, but I'll vote on cleanest/clearest path to the ballot. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args and the paths are both clear/clean. If there is no offense in the round then I flip a coin to decide who picks up cuz choosing any other way is interventionist, but feel free to make warranted arguments abt defaulting to one side or speaking order. I will always disclose after the round and give an RFD. also PS lmfao u need to win the link into the impact that u weighed.

Other:

I will reward you for taking risks like collapsing on only a turn. Please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. I hate dumb analogies, chances are, even if you think you're funny, you're not. Don’t call me judge, that’s weird. If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

for every link into tourism you read, +.5 speaks lol.

i will never ever ever make any comments abt what you're wearing or how you speak. if a judge ever does, that's pretty fucked up. i don't care if u show up in designer clothes or sweats. i enjoyed debating in sweats, it's comfy.

in outs, if i'm on a panel that's 2 other lays, u can tell me to judge it like a lay round and i will. (this means voting for the team that better establishes a narrative and is more convincing lol)

Do crazy shit fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

tbh unpopular opinion but evidence is dumb, debate should be logical. obvi like use evidence if u want but warrants/analytics are perfecto. I genuinely think that debate would be better if it was just logical warranting, evidence is bad. (obviously evidence matters but: warrant + authors name vs. just warrant? meh p equal unless u give me good reasoning to prefer the evidence. unless the evidence is like a fact like "x has increased y 200%" is obviously better than a reason why x doesn't increase y)

If at any point you believe that you have won the round with no way for the opponents to win, you can call a TKO, if you are correct it will be an auto W with 30s, but if you are incorrect it is a loss with 25s.

Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lol.

Above all, just have fun! Debate can get stressful so just try to breathe, chill and relax in round.

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

plz remind me of how many speaks you should win based all the crazy stuff in here lol i'll forget what i put here

Hi! My name is Megan and I was a debater for six years. I competed in public forum, extemporaneous speaking, and congress. I have a very debate heavy background but have also branched out and tried speech events such as OO and duo. I think debate is such a great tool for improving writing and speaking skills so I’m very happy to be judging young debaters!

1. I really don’t like rude debaters. Don’t unnecessarily cut your opponent off. If I have to ask you to stop being rude you’re definitely being docked points. I have a debate background so I appreciate a speech with a ton of evidence and strong cards. However, I believe that debate requires a certain level of acting meaning that you need to sound convincing and as though you believe your own argument. If you’re speaking very monotone I will probably dock points. If you say in any way shape or form that you drop your argument….100% docking points. Even if you’ve been proven wrong, just don’t admit it. I have a legitimate debate background. This means I’m not basing my points off of how cute your outfit is. I don’t typically ask to see cards but if you lie about having a card I can tell and I will dock so so so many points for falsely supporting an argument. 
2. I love passionate arguments and speech delivery. I know sometimes it’s harder to debate one side but if you’re able to convincingly argue it and I believe you genuinely stand for that side of the debate I will be very impressed. I love questions. So much. Please ask good questions. Questions can make or break a debate round so easily. 
3. Anyways! I am judging because I want other debaters to be judged the way I wish I was judged. I dealt with too many biased, racist, and sexist judges and would like to give back to the speech and debate community as a judge who does not care in the slightest what you look like. I don’t care where your suit is from, mine was on clearance from JC Penney. 

Lay judge.

Speak clearly.

Any speed is fine.

Be respectful to each other.

Good cross examination responses.

Looking for good argument, not technical wins. I.e. I don’t care about dropped contentions if the dropped contention was weak and other, stronger contentions were addressed well. Intellectual, evidentiary, and logical domination wins over tit-for-tat flow.

Technical losses are stupid. You’ll never see my ballot say “You didn’t frontline, therefore you lose.” Debate is still about persuasion. Don’t get me wrong; frontlining, collapsing, etc., are all good persuasive techniques to be used in debate. But the failure to use them won’t necessarily or automaticallylose you the round… it just might affect the persuasive effect of your argument. If you can still persuade that your side wins without using all the specific techniques, even against a team that does use them, you’ll still get my ballot.

LD- know your VC. Understand how, e.g., utilitarianism works or what social contract means in the context of your argument before hanging your entire argument on it. Do the actual analysis using your VC. Also do the analysis using the opponent’s VC if you can. Cross is good for discovery, but also for points.

This is my 38th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix.

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save the spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the AC can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins re-election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29s and 29.7s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

she/they

I debated for West Orange High School for 4 years in PF (& a little Congress). Let's be real, none of us really care about my competitive record. You can look it up on the NSDA website if you want specifics.

Crucial stuff first, then event specific stuff further down. If you still have questions after reading my paradigm, please do not hesitate to ask! And ALWAYS feel free to reach out with any further questions - my email is niamh.harrop@gmail.com :)

And, of course, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, classist, etc!

EVIDENCE: This is at the top of my paradigm because it is the most important issue for me. If you are found to be falsifying/misrepresenting evidence, you can expect to lose the round. I will not call for evidence unless told to do so, as I believe that to be a form of judge intervention. That doesn't mean tell me to call for every single card, but if you believe something to be misrepresented, tell me to call for it and I'll do so at the end of the round.

Evidence calls should not take forever. If you take more than two minutes to find a card, I'm going to assume you don't have it and will likely drop your speaks. Once three minutes have elapsed, I'm going to ask that you drop the card and move on. If you provide a cut card and the opponent subsequently asks for a PDF, I'll give you a little more time to pull it up and locate the cited portion.

Also, the NSDA allows you to make a formal challenge against evidence, which will end the round at the point you issue the formal protest and defer judgment on the evidence to me. If you are right and the evidence is falsified, you win, but if I don't believe it has been misrepresented, you will lose. I believe evidence challenges like these are a fantastic tool when used correctly, and if you truly believe that your opponent is violating the evidence standards in a crucial way, I encourage you to utilise this tool.

JUDGING STYLE: Tabula rasa in terms of the topic. I like clear, easy-to-understand extensions - nothing blippy, no extensions through ink, just pure warranted extensions. If you want me to consider an arg, make sure it's in your final speech.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed, but I hate spreading. I think it's ableist and prevents newer/less funded programs from breaking into the top tiers of debate. Nine times out of ten I will vote against it. Complain about it if you want, I'm just trying to caution you.

If you choose to spread, I'm not going to stop you, but I do ask that you add me to the email chain (niamh.harrop@gmail.com) before the round begins, and please send me any cards that you spread in later speeches. Also understand it is going to be much harder for me to follow logic/warranting that you spread but don't include in the email chain. I can do the whole "clear" thing if you like, but chances are I'd be saying it a good amount. I will happily evaluate everything that is read into round if I can follow and comprehend it. However, there may be something you read into round that I miss because of spreading, and by choosing to spread, you accept and understand that this may occur.

PF: I tend to give a little bit of leeway with going over time. I'll flow until about 4:10 in the constructive, for example, but once you hit 4:15, I'm putting my pen down and I'm done paying attention. If your opponents go over time, don't call it out, bc I promise I'm not flowing or considering it. Call it free prep :)

I don't typically flow author names in the constructive. If you prefer to refer to your cards by author name in sum/FF, it helps me if you extend the warrant into rebuttal/sum as well.

Given that you now have three minutes for a summary, I'm a little harsher on what strategic choices are made in the summary speeches for both teams (I only had two minutes and yes I'm just a tad bit salty). I'm not going to vote on terminal defence so it's cool to leave that out of later speeches.

CONGRESS:

I know a lot of Congress competitors don't read paradigms. I can always tell when people don't read mine, and I don't really hold it against anyone in rankings or anything. My paradigm is here to help you understand how to best impress me and earn a high ranking.

I evaluate speaking style as much as I evaluate argumentation. Rehash sucks, we all know it, and after 3-4 people making the same arguments on each side, it's probably about time for something spicy and new. I'm more inclined to rank those with fresher argumentation.

I rank the PO about half the times I judge, and it comes down to a fair and efficient chamber. If you can run things smoothly, fairly, and painlessly, please consider POing.

If there's one thing I can't stand in Congress, it's the constant fight to be the one to "run the chamber" by calling for every motion. IMO it doesn't project the dominance you think it does; I couldn't care less who motions to move to previous questioning. I see this a lot more on the local circuit, but yeah, I'm not a fan.

Related to that is the issue of "politics" and gaming the chamber so that your competitors don't get to speak. In that regard, fair game. I view Student Congress as a mirror of the US Congress; if they set an example and you follow it, I can't fault you for that. That being said, don't allow the push to prevent people from speaking to descend into a mess and waste time (i.e., if you take up 3 minutes arguing over whether we should move to previous questioning, you've prolonged the discussion enough to prevent their speech). If this kind of filibustering occurs, I will probably be harsher in my rankings on the people who filibustered, and will be kinder in my rankings to the competitor who was unable to speak.

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect.

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

If you don't know what something means, just ask specific questions before the round
Add me to the email chain: adamkadaban(AT)gmail(DOT)com

Updated for Blue Key

I'm not familiar with the arguments on this topic. Make sure to be very explicit when referencing something you think I might not know about. 

Background

I did 4 years of PF for Cypress Bay High School

I'm currently a student at the University of Florida studying computer science/cyber security and sociology

CX/LD: 

I have little experience with technical argumentation. I will evaluate most anything you read as long as you make sure I understand it (ask before round if you have any doubts). Read my PF paradigm if you want more info on my judging style.

PF:

General

I do not need a roadmap. Just tell me where you're starting and tell me where you're going during the speech (signpost). If you're reading an off-case argument, then just lmk

I'm okay with speed but don't speak faster than needed

I won't be timing. All of you should be timing each other. If you are overtime, finish your thought and end

Case/Rebuttal

If you're spreading and want me to flow card names, pause after you read the author.

Warrants are mega important. If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but I highly suggest responding to offense in the first rebuttal (case turns and offensive overviews).

I will probably not vote off of theory unless there is a serious abuse, don't run it as a cheap way to win. 

Don't read any dumb arguments. I'm generally tech > truth but will not vote for a conceded argument if it is dumb. I have a decently high threshold for what I consider dumb so if you think your case is fine, it probably is. Use common sense here. 

I prefer to have a clean flow with clear extensions. Number your arguments/responses if you can and it will make things much easier for me. Overarching / narrative-based arguments are cool if they're short and if you think it'll make me understand something better. 

Offensive Overviews

I will only evaluate offensive overviews if they are read in first rebuttal. Case turns and general responses/defensive overviews are permitted in both rebuttals.

To clarify, don't run new contentions in 2nd rebuttal and call it an"Overview." I think this is unfair as it gives the first speaking team almost no time to respond.

Summary/Final Focus

You NEED to extend warrants and impacts into the final speeches. I want to intervene as little as possible and the best way for me to do that is for you to tell me exactly what out of all the arguments you read I should be voting for. Voters are also very useful. 

You don't need defense in first summary unless there was frontlining in second rebuttal. You do need turns.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow. Give me 1-2 voters in final focus.

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

Evidence

If you want me to call for a card - tell me.

Crossfire

Won't flow, but I will most likely listen. If any concessions are made, bring it up in a speech

Speaker Points

I usually give around 28's to the losing team and 29's to the winning team. Do the stuff below to get closer to a 30:

Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged. Just don't make fun of your opponents, unless y'all are tight in which case use discretion. Weigh and signpost well.

Effectively pull off a cool strategy I haven't seen before.

If you have a Carded Case, send it to the email chain (my email is at the top) and I will give you half an extra speaker point

Some Pet Peeves that might make me like you less

Talking over your opponents or "whispering" loudly while they're speaking

Taking time to preflow when the round should have already started

Vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents

Any smugness or smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument

How to lose

Ay panini, don't you be a meanie. (seriously, if you're excessively rude you will lose)

Any sexism/racism/homophobia... will give you 20 speaks or lower. 

cheat

 I competed in multiple speech and debate events for 4 years at West Broward High. Although I never competed in PF, I am familiar with basic argumentation, and I prefer debaters to carefully explain all of their arguments throughout the debate. Don’t mention an argument in summary or final focus if you didn’t emphasize it in prior speeches. Logic matters, so if you can refute arguments with it, I will tend to favor those extrapolations. If you have any questions email me. Good luck!

Pace of speaking is essential , as well Composure, posture and eye contact. 
Respect to one’s opponent and a firm knowledge of the topic with strong evidence will be assessed. 

Hey Everyone,

I competed in PF debate for 3 years in high school (Buchholz Class of 2021). Currently a sophomore at UF (GO GATORS!)

Things I want to see:

Any style of debate, I'm curious to see the creatvity and diversity of all of your speaking styles.

Make clear links to impacts. This carries much more weight than making a weak connection to nuclear winter.

2nd rebuttal should try its best to make sure the major turns from 1st rebuttal are adressed.

Make sure you are selective about what you decide to extend on (especially applies to summary). I can see what points were strong or weak, so give yourself the best chance and choose the points you are winning.

Being respectful during cross-fire. I know things can get heated during the middle of the round but yelling over your opponents is not a way to earn speaker points. 

Make sure to weigh, not just say your impacts are better, but explain the nuance and detail of how they are better.

Signposting (no need to explain this one)

Things I'd rather not see:

Please don't waste your valueable speech time arguing about defintions. It's the most boring and pointless way to spend a round. I know debate requires you to be clever but these arguments tend to lack any real substance. I'd much rather see you spend your time articulating the 'meat' of the issue. 

If your opponent drops a point or contention, unless it was a strong turn, don't keep beating a dead horse.

Bringing up things in final focus that were not mentioned in summary. I won't flow it (i.e. if your opponent does this you don't have to respond to it.)

If you don't have a card: just own it. No point in doing anything else. I know that moment where you read something but didn't cut a card. It's better just to drop it and move on.

Note: If someone doesn't refute your framework then that DOES NOT mean that the automatically accept yours.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round. 

I want debate to be a postive experience for others, like it was for me, so please be respectful. 

DEBATE:

**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: Courage4today@gmail.com

**Remember that Public Forum Debate is the format of debate that most of the general public can follow and understand.**

I'm a citizen judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I follow the clock and the NSDA Regs fully.

Avoid running K's and T. The meat and potatoes of this format of debate is to reach the masses.

During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.

Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!

If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have a say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit!

SPEECH:

Remember to relax, have fun and enjoy the experience!

I am a parent lay judge; I have judged both local and nat circ tournaments over the last 3 years.

I prefer signposting and clear discussion of what contentions you are addressing/rebutting. I appreciate when you point out such things as, "Aff never addressed our contention that..." or "Our impact of ___ outweighs their impact of ___."

Do not speak too quickly (ie, I will deduct speaks for spreading).

Please keep track of your time (but I will also be keeping track, because I do not enjoy watching a team cheat the other team out of prep time- yes that happened).

I understand when some judges say "tech > truth," but that is not applicable to the rest of life. If your contention is outlandish and defies logic, then it should not win.

I value respectful communication: NO STEAMROLLING. Rude behavior will cost you speaker points, if not the match.

Lastly, I believe that some of the brightest minds are competing at these tournaments, and that we are all works in progress (judges included).

Hi everyone!

I am a government public health and biomedical researcher. I have a daughter who is currently in Public Forum. This is my first year judging!

For email chains or google docs: djh9cdc@gmail.com

I will try to flow as best as possible.

Standard lay judge

• Speak slow; max 160 wpm
• Please signpost in your speeches and provide roadmaps
• Be courteous in crossfire

Have fun!

Experience/Background

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach at the middle school and high school levels (modified parliamentary and public forum) with nearly 20 years of coaching experience. I'm also the founder of a non-profit debate league in California (OCDL).

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me. I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation. I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

*Please avoid fast talking, hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents and off time roadmaps.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies, English Language Arts, Administration Services

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

Email chain/ questions: char.char.jackson21@gmail.com

they/them

As a topshelf thing, I will probably vote for arguments I don't understand

LD Paradigm:

arguments in order that i am comfy with them are

theory>larp>K's>tricks> phil

i can flow p much any spreading as long as its clear if i have a problem i will say something

I will vote on any argument as long as its not problematic, only if you sufficiently extend warrant, and implicate said argument.

PF Paradigm:

Send docs even in person i expect docs from all of you

If you want the easy path to my ballot; weigh, implicate your defense/turns, tell me why you should win.

Smart analytics > bad evidence or paraphrased blips.

Debate is a game, as such I will normally be a tech>truth judge except in circumstances where I deem an argument to be offensive/inappropriate for the debate space.

Rebuttal:
I prefer a line by line. Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.

Extensions:

I wont do ghost extensions for you even if the argument is conceded, extend your arguments.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, T, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, Kritiks, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Presumption

I presume too much, tell me why I should presume for you if you think you aren't going to win your case, if you don't make any arguments as to why I should presume I will presume based on a coin flip, aff will be heads and neg will be tails.

I also think I will be starting to vote more on risk of offense, in this scenario.

i get bored so easy please make the round interesting.

debate is problematic in many ways. if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

My name is Zachary Koziol and I am a junior studying finance at the University of Florida. I hope to see debaters who are well composed, knowledgable, and respectful.

I am a lay judge.  Prior to your round, please send your cases to me at: kkuskin@hotmail.com, so that I can become familiar with your topic.  I typically look for classic argument.  

Some tips for success:

1) Speak clearly.  If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.

2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.

3) If you are spreading, be sure that I can understand you.

3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.

4) Remember to keep your own time.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Make sure arguments have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of methods. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent.

I debated for 4 years at G. Holmes Braddock Senior High School. I did Public Forum all 4 years being part of both Braddock DL and Braddock GL with my highest achievement being a top 5 finish in the Florida State Tournament for 2022. I'm a pretty easygoing person, and this definitely reflects in how I choose to judge rounds, but I do have my preferences and I recommend you keep them in mind. 

TL;DR = Be nice, no progressive arguments, implicate impacts, convince me as to why you won, don't get lost in the flow, Truth > Tech, make my decision for me

• First and Foremost, be nice to each other. Ultimately, debate is something we all do and engage in for fun, otherwise we wouldn't spend upwards of 10 hours a week prepping so we can spend our entire Saturday nerding out with other debaters. If you make the make the round unfun, as in, you're rude in cross, you keep eye-rolling, giving attitude, and screaming, then it will affect my decision and just as importantly, your speaks. You may win the round, but you'll win with a 20.
• Stay away from progressive argumentation. PF was made in order to stray away from Policy's hard barrier of entry, progressive argumentation, and K heavy style. I simply do not enjoy judging progressive argumentation, so please stick to the resolution. 
• PLEASE implicate your impacts. Many debate teams nowadays will simply throw out " Climate Change will increase, Poverty will increase" etc.. However, if you do not tell me why I care about Climate Change or Poverty increasing, then I simply just will not vote on it. Tell me, as a judge, why I care. Even if you think it's obvious, as a judge I need to maintain a clean state of mind so I can make my decision. So PLEASE TELL ME! 
• Don't get lost in the sauce. Ultimately, winning a debate round simply means that you have convinced the judge to vote in your favor. Another big mistake I see nowadays is many teams getting lost in their flows and delivering line by line speeches over and over and over. At the end of the round, a solid, well-delivered Final Focus where the speaker CONVINCES ME as to why his team has won the round is FAR better than simply stating "judge, we turned on their A contention, we struck down their B contention, and we pooped on their C contention". Convince me as a judge, don't keep your eyes on your flow and just run down the line of contentions either team gave. 
• General Debate Stuff. Truth > Tech. Please extend arguments throughout the round if you want me to vote on them. If you want me to make my decision on something said in cross, please include it in a speech. Speed is fine but don't double breath like an auctioneer. If you want me to call for a card, mention it in a speech and I will. Time yourselves during your speeches. If you're kicking out of a contention, make it clear, but if they have offense on said contention, I will count it as offense for the opposing team. 
• Make my decision for me. Finally, the last thing I want is for your team to make my decision for me. Like I said, I want the winning team to walk up there, and by the end of their speeches, I want to feel as If that team has made my decision for me. Do not leave the decision up to me by failing to weigh or make things clear by the end of the round. If it comes to that, I will have to make a decision based on my own preferences and that's the last thing anybody wants. 
•  

I am currently a senior at the University of Florida studying Finance and Economics. I value well-researched arguments with clear lines of reasoning. I tend to enjoy presentation styles that are methodical and passionate.  

Hello, my name is Ryan Livingstone I'm a business Admin major minoring in statistics at the University of Florida. I competed In PF for 4 years. I am a traditional-style debator I prefer quality and compressive evidence over quantity explain your points thoroughly and extend through ink. New Evidence or arguments presented after the first summary will most likely not affect my decision of the round. If you're going to rely heavily on a piece of evidence ensure you're using this evidence correctly as I will call for evidence after the round. Overall have fun, be nice, and give me a great round of debate.

email: turnerloesel@gmail.com

wassup

i did pf for 4 years in high school.

on that note tho i haven't really debated in about 3-4 years so pretty please take it easy on me.

with that being said, speed is not my strong suit. while i will try my best to keep up, it's in both of our interests if you slow down (it will be evident if it is too fast for me).

things that I make me smile:

1. signposting. like i said before, i'm a lil rusty. help me help you and tell me exactly where you want me to write otherwise i might flow an argument in the wrong spot and it will make the round more difficult to follow and inevitably judge.
2. weighing at both the link and impact level. i need to have some probability of your link to even start to evaluate your impact, so i think a majority of your time should be spent at the link level explaining why I truly believe that your link is possible, the importance of your impact should be clear.
3. frontlining in second rebuttal. this makes the round clearer and more interesting to debate. at minimum, I think that turns/ DAs should be responded to in second rebuttal.

things that make me not smile:

1. "overviews" that are basically new contentions (especially in second rebuttal). i'll consider them as arguments but the threshold for responses to these types of arguments will be significantly lower so i suggest putting your time elsewhere.
2. theory, K, etc. tbh, i don't know enough about them/ how to evaluate them so you're wasting air time. If someone is genuinely being abusive and unfair, put it to me in simple terms.
3. being rude. whether it's crossfire, in round behavior, or any direct/ indirect way of belittling your opponents is just not cool. while it won't affect the outcome of my decision plz don't it makes the event and tournament environment toxic and weeds people out of debate.
4. flex prep. I get the purpose of this, but tbh if someone is spreading to the point you can't hear it, I probably didn't either. if they're not spreading, this is on you for not flowing well enough. I won't stop it if ya'll do it but feel free to not answer if you don't want to.

TLDR: debate is a game. tech> truth but don't get too crazy w it. a warranted logical response will beat an unwarranted carded response every day of the week. weigh, implicate defense, and explain the offense left in the round and why i care.

debate like yourself, not someone you idolize

I am a volunteer judge with two years of judging experience.  My judging includes a fair amount of note taking, documentation and attention to details in regards to some of the following.  First and foremost I am looking for the team that overwhelmingly persuaded me to believe in their arguments.  In doing that I look for confident teams, speed is not an issue as long as it is used wisely.  Secondly, I appreciate teams that can properly roadmap and flow through their debate.  It helps with my documentation technique and provides a fair understanding of what the intention of the upcoming narrative will entail.  Lastly, I look for teams that are passionate in delivering their facts, an emotional angle, a relevant example, or an empathetic point that is backed up by citations will be valuable to me as a judge. 

I did pf in high school a few years ago but the event has changed a lot since I last debated.

I can understand and would really appreciate if you spoke at a regular debate pace; i hate reading speech docs and flowing people as they spread

weigh and extend

have fun, don't be a bad person, any mention of drake or a drake bar would be a +0.1 speaker point boost

if you wanna ask me something specific about my paradigm or add me to the email chain, use rohanmahtani27@gmail.com

Second year out who debated for 4 years. I haven't really been involved in HS debate since senior year so take that as you will, lol. Anyways here’s how you can win my ballot (shamelessly stolen from Alexis Huang):

- add me to the email chain, my email is mrmapa0625(at)gmail(dot)com

- for Blue Key: not super familiar with the topic lit so don't assume I know more than I do, also if you reference a CupcakKe song in a speech I'll give you +0.5 to +1 speaks

- have your evidence ready to go, if it’s taking a really long time to find one card then I’m gonna get annoyed

- preflow before rounds if possible

- lmk if there's anything I can do to best accommodate y'all

How to win my ballot:

- don’t be a jerk or I’ll tank your speaks and give you the L

-  weigh (and also if both you and your opponents weigh, weigh the weighing) so I don't have to do it

- warrants are good, I can’t evaluate blippy arguments

- collapse, less is more in PF, and going for an argument or two and explaining how it interacts with whatever your opponents are going for is far more effective than just trying to go for everything

- frontlining rebuttal responses needs to happen in second rebuttal and first summary, I’ll still flow it if it happens later, but your opponent won’t have to do much for me to consider it refuted

- write my ballot for me in final focus because I look there first, anything in final focus should be in summary

- extend arguments, not just card names or I probably won’t catch it

Other Notes

- don’t spread, speed is fine

- I won’t flow new arguments in final focus

- Theory: never hit it, idk how to evaluate it so please don’t run it

- Ks: not super familiar with them but I have an idea of how to evaluate it, just make sure you actually collapse on it, since otherwise it comes off as a scummy way to win rather than an actual critique

- postrounding: questions are fine, but you’re not gonna convince me to change my decision

- miscut evidence: I don’t call for evidence unless a. you tell me to, b. I really can’t decide the round without it (which hopefully doesn’t happen) or c. it seems sketchy and you collapse on it. I’m willing to drop based on miscut evidence so don’t do it

- I don’t flow cross, so if you use that time to talk about literally anything else I won’t care

- y'all can keep track of your own prep

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Most of the thoughts that follow are inspired by my experience judging and coaching LD, especially the Policy-lite model of LD that's become common at the college level. If you're concerned about how these thoughts translate to PF or to more traditional LD settings please ask about that in-round.

3. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one.

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument, but will vote on drop-the-debater if that argument is warranted out to me. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm). if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position.

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I'm a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

cosby '21 fsu '25

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 1 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats)

important stuff

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.

please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

theory and ks are fine, I didn't run them in HS but I have gotten a lot more familiar with them in college ld so I would probably be a good judge if you want to try/test prog args. just please dont run trix, i hate them.

gendered language>disclosure>paraphrase>friv

for theory i default to competing interps and no rvis

ks are fine, just try to have a link to the resolution

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Hi, my name is Roshni Mishra! I am a sophomore at UF and studying Industrial & Systems Engineering. I debated a little bit in high school so I have some experience with LD and PF. 

Please add me on the email chain: roshni.mishra@ufl.edu. Please send constructives at a minimum.

General judging: 

• No assumptions: if something isn't true, explain why
• Extend your argument throughout the speeches, if it is mentioned once and not built on, I will disregard it 
• Please let me know any issues with presented evidence, I will evaluate that at the end of the round 
• I don't have much experience with theory so make sure it is explained clearly to get consideration 
• Reading cards > paraphrasing 
• Cross fire is important for speaker points!

I will judge on the following points

1. Clear argument.  If complex they can be elaborated.
2. Speak at a comfortable pace where I can understand you 
3. Logical arguments will be desired

Hi, everyone! My name is Gabriela Montes and I competed in Duo. Now I know this is surprising for someone who is judging pf, but my school was short on judges due to some complications. You can assume that I will be one of the most lay judges you’ll see today. And with that, I’ll break down a few concerns I have.

Please don’t spread. In all honesty, I barely know what the term means. 

Skip the jargon!! This will make it so much more complicated for me and you both! You can still make your arguments and impacts without having to fall into complicated language.

Make sure you are creating arguments that flow pretty linearly and make sure you tell me where your points of contention in the debate are.

If you do this, we can be on the same page and it won’t be a boatload of confusion.

Thank you guys so much and good luck!

Hi friends! My name is Rhea Nandwani. (she/her) I am a sophomore at UF studying psychology, criminology, and sociology. I competed on the national circuit for 5 years and coached for my high school's debate team last year.

With that being said, here are a few things I like as a flow judge:

• first and foremost, please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. don't be sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, xenophobic, racist, ableist, etc. If you are, I will drop you and tank your speaks. this is a zero-tolerance policy.

• as an extension of the first bullet point, you must read trigger warnings for any sensitive arguments related to identity, mental health, or structural violence. this is basic human decency. If not, I will evaluate tw theory- this is the only time I’ll invite theory. For non-graphic arguments, you just need to read a TW. For graphic arguments, you need a TW and an opt out. Opt out through anonymous google forms.

• I do not believe that theory or non-topical kritiks belong in Public Forum. Please do not run it with me as a judge. I will, however, always evaluate topical frameworks/ks. Again, tw theory is fine to run with me when there has been a violation. You can also read IVIs with me.

• make sure everything you want me to vote on is in summary or final focus. tell me why you are winning.

• please implicate and weigh turns

• please collapse

• I would like to see all the evidence shared in round. I will only consider it in my decision, however, if you tell me to in your speeches.

• I can handle speed, but if you spread I can't promise that I will catch everything you say; send docs for accessibility purposes if you are speaking over 950 words in 4 minutes.

• weighing is the key to winning rounds. please interact with your opponents' weighing.

• second rebuttal must frontline.

• defense is sticky for the first speaking team (just extend it/talk about it in final)

• postround me all you want. I want to answer your questions so that I can be a better judge

• i am never going to factor cross into my decision. if something significant happens in cross, please point it out to me in a speech if you want me to consider it in my decision. lowkey probably gonna be on my phone during cross.

• i default to first speaking team absent weighing or any path to the ballot

• I think speaker points based on presentation are stupid. I will never evaluate speaker points based on how 'well'/loud you speak or how 'clear' you are. What you are wearing/how you look does not matter to me either. Literally, in round, feel free to take off your blazer/heels/tie. Be yourself. Instead, I will evaluate speaker points based on strategic decisions made in round and quality of responses/arguments.

• please let me know if there is absolutely anything I can do to make debate a safer/more fun/more educational experience for you. I am happy to talk to you before/after rounds to support you in any way I can. Debate is scary and hard at times, but talking about it can make a difference. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns at rheavnandwani@gmail.com

• Lastly, I know it is difficult, but TRY to HAVE FUN! At the end of the day, this is just a debate round. Your intelligence or worth is not dictated by your success at tournaments. In addition, regardless of your records at tournaments, you are learning and growing just through the time you put into preparing topics. You are doing great!

• i would love it if you include a reference to music artists or tv shows hehe

• Good luck:) you got this:)

I have been judging for several years now. I don't disclose. I am okay with spreading as long as can understand your arguments. I will not give you the win if you are rude or disrespectful.

If you concede I will take it as your acceptance to defeat. My favorite parts of PF are the crossfires so bring it.

If judging LD I will give the win to the best candidate regardless of my personal opinions since LD is about who did the best job to convince me of their points.

When judging speech events I am critical of not just your tone, but your entire performance. Emotion, range and ability to make your feelings encapsulated me in your piece.

In Congress, delivery, ability to argue and defend your bill is crucial. I need not only to understand but see your rationale behind your points.

I am looking for clear speeches with refutations. No REHASH. Eye contact and fluency is important. Strong argumentation and good use of evidence.

Hello and good luck debaters!

My name is Amy Pennock, I am a Certified Fraud Examiner and CFO/Business owner, parent of three girls who argue a lot, and Elected Official/School Board Member in Seminole County.

I appreciate debaters who:

-have fun

-are respectful to their opponent(s)

-have good/respectful body language

-make eye contact

-speak at a good pace (no spreading)

-don't use filler words (um, uh....... for example)

-debate but don't argue

-are confident but not arrogant

-keep your own time (I will as well)

-come prepared

-don't yell at their opponents or judges

-mistakes happen, have fun with your recovery

Enjoy the journey, it's much more fun than the destination!

I mostly did PF in HS.

email: just_mar25@yahoo.com

read bolded for a quick rundown if you're unwilling to go through the whole paradigm.

1. Truth>Tech. That being said, I will not prescribe my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance/bad faith arguments. If the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me.

2. On Speed/Spreading - Speed is fine but it must be purposeful. Speed is not purposeful if you're unclear and lack diction (I will yell 'clear' or 'louder' if I struggle but if I need to keep doing that I'm going to nuke your speaks). Speed is not purposeful if all you're doing is introducing blippy arguments in hopes that one makes it across and wins you the round (you could literally just read more cards on legitimate arguments to strengthen your links instead of the blips). Speed is not purposeful if you're actively disenfranchising the other team by spreading (you do NOT need to spread versus a novice team, just out-debate them). Just because I might have your case doesn't mean it's all on my flow, I am not as familiar as you are with your own literature. If you're incomprehensible all you're doing is making me uninterested.

3. On Ks - Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my understandings of terms of art/common terms from your authors, whose viewpoints I am likely unfamiliar with. Just because you're running doesn't a K doesn't mean you don't have to DEBATE and explain why you're winning on the K flow. Yeah if the K goes unresponded then its a winning argument but if you don't extend/explain to me why the K wins (aff or neg) beyond "they had no response to the K" then presume I drop the K. Extend the K.

4. On Weighing - Rhetoric impacts are bad arguments. Explain/Weigh why your impacts are impactful. Don't just tell me 'poverty bad', explain why poverty is bad and what poverty actually causes. You can't outweigh on "Scope". There is no implication to what "Scope" means unless you give it context. Impact calculus takes into account Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe. Implicate what your advocacy has in terms of contextualized warranting versus just yelling out "scope" and praying it works out (it won't).

5. On Evidence Sharing - Just use an e-mail chain/Speechdrop. Please don't be the reason the tournament is running 30min-1hr longer than needed. I'm not saying you have to send over your cases (PF), I know that the norm on that is still being established (in PF) but no judge wants to watch you stand awkwardly over someone's shoulder while waiting for a card, just send it electronically and that way judges can have it too if it becomes a point of contention. If a card you called out for is miscut/misleading and this is enough to win you the round TELL ME THIS. TELL ME TO READ THE CARD BEFORE I MAKE MY DECISION BECAUSE IT TURNS THE ROUND. Don't get mad at me after the round because you didn't explicitly tell me to read a card.

6. On New Arguments - I try my hardest to give debaters as much agency as possible to actually debate. That being said, DO NOT introduce new arguments in the last speech of the debate, I will - at best - ignore them or - at worst - vote you down if the team after you argues that the introduction is a voting issue (fairness/time, etc.) This happens enough that it needs its own section.

7. On Framework - I will default to a utilitarian framework to weigh unless given an alternative by either team. In terms of defaulting to utilitarianism, unless a team in the round offers an alternative framework then this is generally what people would end up arguing under anyway (I literally don't trust teams to weigh appropriately so I'll just save us all the time and say this in my paradigm to at the very least mentally prepare you to weigh in some capacity). You can lose the framework debate and still win the round. Winning framework does not inherently mean you win the round. It is entirely possible to lose (or concede) the framework debate and still win. Framework is about who operates better under that given paradigm.

8. On Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire. If anything happens during Cross that you feel is relevant to winning then refer to it in your next speech so it is on paper. This doesn't mean saying something like "In Cross they said Nukes aren't real so they lose C2." I want you to tell me the other team conceded the link on C2 so I can put it on my flow (SIGNPOST WHERE THE RELEVANT CROSS INTERACTION SHOULD/WOULD BE ON MY FLOW). Aff always gets first question. Why are we doing the whole "may I have first question" song and dance still?

9. On Extensions - Summary and Final Focus should be aligned - whatever you extend in Final Focus should also have been present in Summary. I don't believe defense is sticky. You should still extend defense on an argument unless the other sides explicitly kicks out.

10. On Tricks - Don't. Deliberate attempts to subvert clash by lying, misleading, hiding arguments, being unethical will be poorly received. What're you trying to prove by doing this? That you can't win a round by actually debating? I'll nuke your speaks since I believe this actually "kills debate". To be clear, a funny tagline is funny and okay, but you know when something is a pun and when something is deliberately misleading.

11. Don't be rude - Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you. There are more important things in life than winning while also being mean to other human beings. We're all trying to partake in something that we enjoy/makes us happy. Don't be the reason someone has a terrible day.

Hi! My name is Deacon Prideaux and I am a current undergraduate student at the University of Florida. In high school, while I never participated in debate events, I did judge a handful of elementary, middle, and high school PF and Congress. I've always really enjoyed judging these events and think that forensics is incredibly important in today's day and age.

For both events, your job is to convince me why your argument is the strongest and why I should vote for you. In regards to Public Forum, I'm looking for strong argumentation with recent and evidence to support it, powerful, vibrant clash, and most importantly... confidence. Confidence will help show me that you feel as if you know what you are talking about and care about the topic. I want to be able to noticeably see that you are confident in your cases - whether or not you get that Pro or Con case that you thought would be stronger in round. Remember to have fun as well! Your round is your time to get your opinion out there and shine. 

I debated for 3 years 2017-2020 at Cypress Bay High School in South Florida, now a sophomore at Florida International University.

-Weigh weigh weigh, SIGNPOST, time yourself, and a narrative makes things easier for me.

-Crossfire only matters to me if it is mentioned in your speech

-Speak at a humanly pace, I can only flow so fast

-Number your responses in your rebuttal so it’s easier for me to flow and understand what to extend and what not

-Arguments that are not responded to are considered conceded

-If it is in your final focus, it should have been in summary as well

- I won’t call for evidence unless it is called out in a speech in round

- I need your weighing to be warranted, do not throw just throw around jargon

- If you’re mean, or degrading or rude during the round, you will lose speaker points 

- Have fun, make the round entertaining if possible and if you have any questions you can ask me before the start of the round.

I’m a professional in the payments field and have over twenty years of experience presenting cases for executive decisions and public speaking in general.

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. I expect a respectful debate - always. The rolling of eyes, repeatedly interrupting and sarcasm will not sit well. Provide clear evidence and stay on topic. I appreciate strong organization and emotion when it is appropriate. Send copy of cards to email: karene.raymer@outlook.com.

Hello hello! I’m Peyton Redmyer, she/her (but I go by Marty). I am a junior studying music performance and education at the University of Florida. I was a PF debater in high school for four years and I absolutely loved it! I’m pretty simple. Be a kind person and debate your best and you will do well with me! Good luck!

- Judging Style: I judge off of impacts (numerical 'impacts' of what would happen if I voted or did not vote for your resolution. For example: lives, money, food access, etc). Impact calculus is tasty. I never like to say never, but if you don’t give an impact to an argument, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll vote for it. Signposting and/or roadmaps(telling me ahead of time or as you speak what order in which you will be addressing things in your speech. For example: "I'll first be going over my team's case in order, then my opponent's case in order, and then my opponent's comments on our case.")are also highly encouraged. I like to see clear extension, LOVE to see plenty of evidence, and I don't flow during crossfire (so if you need me to know something said in a crossx, repeat it in a speech). I need warrants for cards, and if you tell me for have your speeches to 'extend LastName '22' I will freak out. Nothing bugs me more. Extend arguments, not authors. If it's not worth your time to actually tell me what's in the card or explain to me what it does, you probably don't need to be extending it and are wasting your breath. Lastly, I do not weigh new arguments made late in round. Summary and Final Focus are for paring down your argument and making it as clear and strong as possible. Not only is bringing up new arguments late in round abusive, but it's also just flat-out bad debating. You will lose lots and lots of speaks for it.

- Etiquette: I don’t care if you wear slippers or take your jacket off or what have you. The only thing I’m a stickler about in debate is how you treat your fellow debaters (this includes your partner!!). I was a debater too, so I understand how much work you all have put in and how important these rounds are to you. That absolutely, 100%, does not give you an excuse to be nasty. I understand a little bit of talking over each other and the like, but if you’re making the round hostile it’s very, very unlikely you will win a round I’m judging. The goal of debate is to persuade the judge(s) to your side. If you make people hate you, you’re not going to persuade anyone. This especially applies to any sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. rhetoric. So be reasonable, or I will probably give you some embarassingly low speaker points and you will probably lose the round.

*NOTE: I have tourettes! It's so mild that you most likely will not notice it, but if you see me jerk my head or make odd noises/exclamations, that is why!

I heard you the first time. Please don’t repeat the same thing over and over. I promise my ears work. Really, they do!

And don’t make new arguments in your summary or final focus, you silly goose!

Specifics (If You Need Them):

• Ks - I don’t love Ks, but if your K is reasonable and you can support it, I will vote off of it. (Very rarely do I find that they're reasonable though. Just saying, it's probably in your best interest to argue the resolution). It’s up to your opponents to truly knock down a K. Just know that if you do run a K, you’re starting on your back foot with me.

• Framework- I like framework sometimes. At least more often than Ks. Make sure you can support it and that it's reasonable.

• Grace Periods - I’ll give you five seconds. Please don’t abuse your time. You’re not going to be able to shove much more into an argument in five seconds or less - the grace is really just designed to let you finish your sentence. If you don’t get to all you wanted to say by then - tough. Abusing time bugs me. (This also applies to prep time. I will be timing you). ((That being said, please please please don't set a timer for your opponent that rings when it ends. Don't start aggressively pointing at your time if they go over, etc. etc. I will know if they go over. I consider all of these things very rude and unprofessional, and I will dock speaks for them.))

• Calling Cards - Reading your opponents cards costs prep time. Time starts when you start reading the card, stops when you stop reading it. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card that was asked for, you either have the option to drop it or start taking from your prep time. I will only call cards at the end of the round if the card was (1) highly contested or (2) a debater requests for me to look at a specific card. Beyond that, figuring out card stuff is y’all’s job.

• Frontlining - I’ll acknowledge frontlining if it actually has relevance to you or your opponents’ case. If it doesn't - please don’t tell me over and over that your opponent hasn’t responded to your frontline argument(s). I do not care and it will lose you points. It needs to be incredibly clear to me what the frontline applies to and why it’s necessary, or I will ignore it (and probably roll my eyes a lot).

• Low-Point Wins - Aren’t something I do.

• Spreading - Don't, please. (If you want more explanation on this, ask me in round. I am flexible on a lot of things if I'm given a reason to be.)

• Fancy Definitions - By this I mean using hyper-specific terms for characteristics of the debate (e.g. Burden of Rejoinder). Please speak in more plain terms whenever possible. If you use a term that I would only know if I attended a debate camp or went to a private school, I will most likely understand what you mean, but what's most important is that your opponent may not understand what you mean. I think progressive style debate has many positive attributes, but I think it's also absolutely something that can disenfranchise debaters with fewer resources. If a fancy definition is not absolutely necessary to use, please speak in general terms.
• Theory- Boooooooooooooo.
• Speech Docs - I should be able to get everything I need from what you are audibly saying. The only thing I will be reading is my own flow and MAYBE cards if I am asked to read them. Do not send me your speech. I do not want it (and I think that asking for it of your opponent is unreasonable unless for disability purposes).
• Tricks - Please don't.

TL;DR: Be respectful, don't use overly-complicated debate jargon, and do your best!

I competed in PF for 4 years and was PF captain, so don't feel like you have to dumb anything down for me. I skew towards a  traditional PF style, so don't run egregiously progressive arguments (like Ks). Make sure to explain to me why what you're saying matters, otherwise it's just word soup. Also, by summary you should be narrowing down your arguments to the links, and contentions that you want to frontline. Remember, impact weighing wins rounds. If you're a 1st speaker, don't leave your 2nd speaker hanging to do all of it in final focus. I know judges can make or break the debate tournament experience, so I hope to be one of the good ones. 

+speaker points if you compliment my mustache. 

hi hi im soph i debated w ransom everglades for 4 years on the nat circuit. now i am a sophomore at emory and coach:)

preflow before round cuz as soon as everyone is there im starting

my emails are sophia.r9234@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

pls add both emails to the email chain (I prefer email chains to docs) and send speech docs w/ cut cards

(i don't know why this is formatted weirdly tab just does it idk)

1. debate stuff

1. i will vote off the flow

2. tech > truth but don’t say anything ridiculous and this doesnt apply if it makes the round unsafe

3. start weighing in rebuttal if possible and keep it consistent

4. COMPARATIVE WEIGHING don’t just say “scope”

5. PLEASE WEIGH ANYTHING OFFENSIVE (THIS INCLUDES TURNS)

6. no new weighing in final, no offensive overviews starting at first summary but i dont rly like it in 2nd reb either

7. please collapse

8. extend links, not just a tagline with an impact

1. saying “extend tariko ‘21” is also not a link extension

9. signpost, especially in rebuttal, if i don’t know where you are i can’t flow

10. SIGN MY BALLOT FOR ME. tell me what i’m voting for and why. also tell me why i’m not voting for your opponents

11. if there’s no offense i’ll presume for the side that lost the coin flip

12. defense isnt sticky

13. you should have cut cards

1. if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to

14. I'm down w ks and paraphrase theory (shoutout jdog) but technically i never actually RAN a K or initiated theory i just know how they work so take that as u will - that being said I coach 3 K teams and understand how they should be run but in like a watered down pf way so run whatever u want but send rhetoric
15. with that being said- I have a very LOW threshold to feel bad if a team is in varsity and upset about hitting a varsity argument when there is a novice and/or JV division. if you are in varsity, be prepared to hit theory and potentially a K. simply saying "pf is for the public" and/or "I don't know how to answer this" probably wont win my ballot unless there is no nov division and you are clearly a nov. if that is the case-L25 for the team reading varsity stuff on novs, otherwise if you are volunteering to be in varsity nothing is off limits
16. I'm not the best w tricks but I can try
17. if you genuinely think I made a mistake you can postround but not aggressively pls <3
18. im not gonna flow cross so just say it in a speech
19. I don't hack for or against anyone so if you know me, that isn't going to influence my decision and I would be a waste of a strike
20. the only caveat to the thing above is if you are known to be problematic to like an egregious point (i.e having a national news article referencing being publicly antisemitic or saying racist, homophobic, or sexist things) then strike me lol. i cant like separate the art from the artist or whatever. ill down u.

1. speaking stuff

1. send speech docs even if you go slow and send all cut cards

2. i’m ok with speed as long as i can understand you, but i would still send the text to be safe

3. have fun, make jokes, but dont force it cuz thats weird

4. do not give speeches in crossfire, it’s so annoying

5. speaks

1. i start at a 28.5 ish (ill adjust based on how good the round is)

2. I'm a college student who flies to tourneys so if you give me paper that will make me very happy and likely to boost your speaks it will also make my rfd better cuz I don't like laptop flows

3. -.5 speaks for “starting with an off time road map”

4. -1 speaks if you miscut/misconstrue/lie about evidence

5. +1 speaks if you make me laugh

6. please don’t call me judge im literally 18 (you can just not say judge but if you NEED to address me specifically just call me soph i guess)

7. you will get high speaks if you and your partner have good energy together (i wont dock you speaks if you dont cuz you have enough problems at that point)

8. i’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric

9. i’ll drop you w 25s if you say anything offensive

10. at any camp/single pool tourney- if you read a k/theory on novs and it is obvious that they are novs prior to initiating i will drop you with 25s

I served on the Varsity Debate Team at Lake Mary High School for 4 years. This will be my first time judging at a debate tournament and I am honored that it will be for Florida’s preeminent honor society, Florida Blue Key. My preferred form of debating is Public Forum.

Hi, everyone, my name is Camila Ruiz and I'm a third year at UF! I've debated in Public Forum since the beginning of my Freshman year in high school. My judging style is fairly relaxed, but I highly suggest that you do not spread throughout the round. Quality over quantity is appreciated. I will keep a vigorous flow, but if the speech is incoherent, then I cannot flow! That being said, please provide clarity and be as articulate as possible throughout your speech. Extreme speed, excessive use of jargon, and lack of civility could possibly cost you the round - so please be mindful.

During Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent - be courteous and respectful throughout the round. Discourtesy will result in a reduction of speaker points. I do not generally flow during crossfires, so if you make an additional argument or your opponent concedes an argument during the time allotted, you must say it in your speech in order for me to count it.

Body language, eye contact, and enunciation make a huge difference to your argument when presenting, so please be mindful of that during your round.

If there is anything you would like me to know about you, or anything I should accommodate, feel free to let me know before the round!

Good luck everyone, I'm super proud of you:)

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Loans Topic

I see this as an analogue to a lot of previous econ topics. Like UBI there might be a lot of link debates. If I have two competing economic warrants (moral hazard will happen because x and won't happen because y) I need to know why your warrant is more intuitive or true. By definition that's hard to do analytically so I think the best way to resolve economic debates is empirics. Compare studies, methodologies, sources. Break the clash on why your evidence is better. Remember post-dating works much better when you explain why their evidence is outdated vs just saying it's less recent.

I think it's silly that judges don't own up to having federal student loans. I voted basically 50/50 at Mineapple at the topic despite having them so no bias either way. I will never intervene but just know it hurts my soul when I hear "the SAVE plan isn't even live until next year" when I'm literally in the SAVE program right now lol. Y'all are cutting a lot of extinction cards and don't even know the basics of IDR, PSLF, and SAVE...

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

I am Parent judge, I am new at this. I work as an Office Manager, I have an MBA.

Here is what I like for Debate:

Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.

PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.

Please be professional to each other., and respect boundaries.

Please speak at a normal pace. If you are fast I will not be able to understand you and flow properly.

I have very simple demands when it comes to judging:

1. Speak concisely and at a reasonable tempo; if I do not understand what you're saying, I unfortunately cannot give you credit for saying it.
2. Be respectful to the opposing team throughout the debate and especially during crossfire.
3. Stay on time; I will not be timing throughout the debate, so it is your responsibility to hold the other team accountable either verbally or by letting your timer play aloud.

I vote solely based on the strength of your arguments and rebuttals to aforementioned arguments. I have only judged twice before this so I may occassionally need assisstance in running the round. I am excited to see what both teams have up their sleeves. Thank you for reading and good luck!

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 10 years. Out of all of the events, I’ve judged LD the most because getting LD judges is not as easy as other events.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have a plethora of experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes it doesn't make sense, so truth over tech is definitely my stance although I mostly stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that benefits the debate/educational event. I do believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning strategy and to learning overall, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says.

So, to review - I DO NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote...the things I've been the least convinced of have been among tricks and skep, but even those I've still accepted if argued well enough.

I can handle speed or spreading pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate the students that don't take extra ones.

Hi my name is Kaavya Sethumadhavan and Ive judged a couple of debate tournaments in high school. I greatly appreciate if you don’t spread or talk too fact because I want to actually hear the information you are giving me. If you spread I will not be able to understand you and your speaker points will not be great. Be respectful and please do not scream at each other during the round or i will stop the round. Have a great debate and I look forward to hearing your stances. 

I am a tech judge who competed in team debate as a high school student.  I like eye contact, debaters who stand to face me while they speak, and good sportsmanship. 

My name is Casey Siner, and I am one of the Co-Directors for Round Robin here for the Florida Blue Key Tournament. I am also a third-year Materials Science and Engineering major at the University of Florida. As a judge, I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions. Also for every competitor, I expect to see strong public speaking skills, confidence, and determination.

World Schools:

Style: I am looking for dynamic and captivating presentations.

Content: I hope to see thorough arguments with rebuttals to opposing positions

Strategy: I am looking for competitors to adapt to situations presented to them, specifically with intelligent use of POI's.

Add me on the email chain: jsaivarahi@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

GT '25

Competed in Public Forum for 3 years nationally (Harvard, Bluekey, Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, Glenbrooks, Silver TOC) etc. 

I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth, if its obviously not true prove it or tell me I wont assume. 

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows aff.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

4. Dont assume I will believe your weighing unless you explain why it is better than your opponents.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence. I will drop speaks and the argument however the round can still be won off of a different argument. 

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want, if you are going to spread I need to be on the email chain.

- If you aren't clear dont spread. 

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my experience with theory is minimal. Dont trust me to evaluate it entirely. 

- Weigh your theory.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, the funnier, more sarcastic and the more meorable you are the higher your speaks will be.

- I like a good cross fire. The better it is the higher your speaks will be. 

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Add me on the email chain: saihanumanv@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum

Short Version

UF '25

Competed in Public Forum for 3 years nationally (Harvard, Bluekey, Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, Glenbrooks, Silver TOC) etc. 

I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth, if its obviously not true prove it or tell me I wont assume. 

Long Version

Presumption:

- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows aff.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.

4. Dont assume I will believe your weighing unless you explain why it is better than your opponents.

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence. I will drop speaks and the argument however the round can still be won off of a different argument. 

Speed:

- Go as fast as you want, if you are going to spread I need to be on the email chain.

- If you aren't clear dont spread. 

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my experience with theory is minimal. Dont trust me to evaluate it entirely. 

- Weigh your theory.

Other things:

- I think speaks are arbitrary, the funnier, more sarcastic and the more meorable you are the higher your speaks will be.

- I like a good cross fire. The better it is the higher your speaks will be. 

- Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Preflow before the round start time

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Debated for 4 years at Plano West. Graduated 2020. Qualified to the TOC twice.

Chain (though i don't require it unless you intend to spread spread): donovanspall@gmail.com

Feel free to ask any questions not answered here before round

1. Fine with speed. I went pretty fast sometimes. Been a while since I flowed though so maybe don't spread. If I can't understand what you are saying, you should be able to tell based on how much I'm flowing, and you should adjust accordingly. 

2. I technically don't require you to respond to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal, but if they just dropped some damning turns or DAs or a complete delink on the contention you plan to go for in summary/ff, I'd say it's pretty strategic to do so, so I'd strongly encourage it.

3. Carded warrant > uncarded warrant > carded unwarranted empirics. Read warrants me thinks!

4. Don't do new weighing or args in the 2nd FF.

5. Extend in summary, and point out if they didn't.

Theory

I'll evaluate it like any other argument but I lowkey forgot some of the technicals/structure of it by now.

If your opponent miscut a card or something like that, you don't need to read a full shell. You can read it in paragraph form and I will just call for the card after.

I'd prefer if you ask your opponent if they are familiar with theory before your speech, especially if you are reading something jank. In the case that they say no, I will still evaluate it, but I expect it to be read in paragraph form and won't drop the opposition on some technicality. 

Conduct

Will drop you if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Will tank your speaks if you are unnecessarily rude.

In general, if you are demolishing your opponent and the levels of experience/skill are clearly unequal on each side...please calm down. You probably already won the round, so you don't need to yell at them in crossfire or spread another hundred reasons why you won.

If both teams are of similar skill I don't mind a little sass in crossfire, but obviously don't be an ass.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- please include on all evidence exchanges.

----------------------------------

-Former college and HS policy debater (2004-2012 combined). Experience with all kinds of policy styles, but my endpoint was K/performance. I'm old now and judge more PF/LD rounds because of the local circuit.

- Open to most arguments and styles. I'm mostly tech-focused, but still believe winning large-scale theses can shift how I think about nitty-gritty points of contestation. My mental process when judging usually looks like this:

1. What framework am I using to evaluate arguments? Does that framework limit out or prioritize anything important? (Frequently this just defaults to cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetical policy proposal and is not a big feature of the debate)
2. What impacts are reasonably in the game and with what strength of a link/solvency?
3. What outweighs?

-I have a hard time voting for something I cannot confidently verbalize in an RFD and explain why it impacts my ballot, even if it "feels" like that side is winning the issue.

-Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work. I believe if the K has a framework that demands I don't evaluate Aff impacts and the Aff loses framework.... then they don't get to weigh the Aff. Saying "we get to weigh the aff because we get to weigh the aff" is not inherently persuasive given the presence of offense against that stance. The Aff must win framework or in-roads to weigh the Aff. If that's primarily justified by fairness then fairness needs to be impacted out over Neg's justification to exclude.

-K Affs: Like them but think they need to be held to a high standard. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Sure. Go a little slower in a T/theory debate if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-------------------------------------

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

-I come into LD from policy, so you can run traditional case structure or multiple off-case positions that test the Aff. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, K Affs that don't defend the res/a plan, T, Theory, I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like a prioris, NIBs, tricks, etc. that are more well known in LD. The burden remains with the debater to make it into a lucid argument I can grasp and understand as offense.

-It is a hard sell to say 1AR doesn't get theory or new cards. The 1AC should not have disinvest time to theoretically preempt all potential neg strats, methods, etc.

---------------

PUBLIC FORUM

-I reward specificity and nuance of arguments/scenarios (ex: specific democracies backsliding vs general democratic backsliding; specific country proliferation vs generic prolif bad)

-I am not part of the cult of numbers, and you can win a round with high magnitude impacts that do not have numbers in front of me. Numbers help contextualize impacts and risk pathways, but it is not game over because a team has expert analysis that doesn't have explicit quantification.

-K's: I'm fine with it but it's just more difficult to do in PF because of time constraints and the way sides/speaker orders go. You should have a coherent link story, alt, and framework that separates it from just a debate on the topic.

-Theory: Sure. I think the only "weird" thing for me on this is that I don't feel the 2nd speaker is obligated to answer theory introduced by the first constructive. They can and it may help, but I do not treat it as a "dropped" argument.

NOTES ON EVIDENCE - PF

Evidence practices in public forum (and some sections of LD) are atrocious. The fault lies somewhere between debaters and judges refusing to be more aggressive in correction. I default to tournament rules first, and then enforce the NSDA established protocols in the official Unified Manual (specifically pages 29-33) for what’s required in debates in terms of having cards ready for opponents and judges with proper citation. This is not a “personal choice,” even if other judges choose not to enforce it. Here is how I go into the round thinking about evidence norms:

Evidence Theory: I will vote on it. Good theory debating will have a clear interpretation (the NSDA unified manual makes this easy), the violation, and the reason why your interpretation is preferable ("it's in the rules, judge" is sufficient, but higher speaker points for identifying educational standards for why we need your interp's evidence practices). But if you're going to do it you need to be ready to stop the round and stake the ballot on it.

Evidence Sharing/E-mail Chains: The other team is entitled to any and all evidence you claim to read in a speech immediately. Yes, all and immediately. This has nothing to do with if you spread or go slow. Debate is at its best when there is evidence engagement... so why are you so invested in hiding the thing your argument depends on to win legitimacy? I will vote on a well articulated "we called for all ev and they couldn't give it in a reasonable time" theory if they don't provide evidence before a speech AND can't give you ALL evidence when requested after the speech. If you can stake a debate on any piece of evidence you just read it is unreasonable to say that you don't have to send everything cited, especially since they can't predict what you might blow up yet. Don't hold up the round searching. Honestly y'all should be sending it before the speech like policy started doing in 2007 with the dawn of Verbatim - and it's worked great!

Paraphrasing: It is difficult for me to vote on paraphrasing bad theory. The NSDA stance is clear and codified in the Unified Manual and explained in Pilot Rules 2019-20. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but you still have to have evidence paraphrased available in card format for in-round engagement and judge decision making. Do I think paraphrasing is probably bad for debate? Yes - absolutely. But ballot-level debates on whether it's fair or educational seem moot given the NSDA has greenlit it in the same rules that dictate speech times, orders, and other key rules I don't have in-round jurisdiction to contest. Still: hold their feet to the fire on providing the evidence they are paraphrasing!

Debate should be about dialog and not confrontation.  I realize people get excited when stating and reinforcing a point of view, but please let’s keep it civilized.

Be mindful of your allotted time and articulate your points clearly and concisely.

I like to see eye contact, knowledge of your topic, and interchange between debaters when proving/disproving points.

I am not impressed by debaters repeating the same data points constantly until the allotted time is exhausted or reading a computer screen at 200 miles an hour; rapid speaking is acceptable if it is understandable.

Hello beautiful and handsome competitors,

I am a student at Florida State University (go noles). I debated Public Forum all four years of high school, as well as serving as co-captain of the PF event and team captain of my high school’s team. Essentially, I know my way around a debate round. Especially Public Forum. With that being said, I am new to judging.  I hope to do my best to give you all the feedback I can and make a thoughtful decision on which team won the round. I won’t disclose or give many comments at the end of the round, I will leave it for the ballot.

I am a flow judge, I prefer traditional public forum debate and I don’t want to see progressive PF styles in round. I won’t flow it. I have no issue with spreading, as long as I can hear you. I am hard of hearing, so it would help me a great deal to project your voice and signpost. I want to pick up on everything I can. Help me help you. Walk me through the round in your speeches, and tell me why you have won the round. Weigh your points over your opponents. Always be respectful towards everyone, I won’t tolerate anything less. 

I thoroughly enjoyed debate throughout the years and some of the best memories I made were made in rounds. I see no issue in keeping things lighthearted. I want you guys to have a good time and leave the round feeling good about yourselves. This is a learning experience for everyone. I hope you all have a good tournament and I look forward to meeting you all and watching you debate.

Name: Mike Wascher

School Affiliation: Lake Highland Prep

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 15

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 8

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate coach

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

Speed of Delivery As long as it is clear, speed is not important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Turning point in the debate where the debater should take from the line by line the arguments they envision as being the decision points. Whether it is organized by the same order as the line by line or re-cast in voting issues makes no difference.

Role of the Final Focus Tell me what arguments you win, explain why those arguments, when compared to your opponents arguments, means you win the debate. The comparative work is crucial. If the debaters don’t do it the judge has to do it and that is a door debaters should never leave open.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches While I have no autocratic rule, I would imagine that something you plan to go for would be something that is extended throughout the debate. If argument X is a winner it just seems reasonable to me that it should be included in all speeches.

Topicality Sadly, this argument isn’t advanced much because the time it takes to present it is generally critical time lost on case arguments and the trade off is seldom worth. Having said that, I would vote on a T argument.

Plans Specific plans are, by rule, not allowed. Generic ideas about solving problems necessarily discusses policy options. The general idea of those options is the resolution when were have policy topics.

Kritiks If Public Forum is supposed to be debate about how current events are debated in the real world I find little room for theoretical ideas that are not considered by real world policy makers. If, however, the critical argument has specific links to the topic, (and history suggests that few I’ve heard do) it should not be rejected because it is critical.

Flowing/note-taking I flow the key parts of the argument and sometimes flow authors. I find myself noting dates when they seem to be old (and possible dated). I listen to cross fire and sometimes make notes when I heard something worthwhile.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I value argument and I especially value warrants (which aren’t tag lines) that explain why your claims are persuasive.

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? Not a hard and fast rule with me but I can’t imagine why a winner would be left out.

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? Also not a hard and fast rule with me but strategically it is probably important you get back to some of your case, unless you plan to win offense on turns on your opponents case.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Never!

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. The three things I would like to hear more often in Public Forum debates are:

1) Comparative work. Explain why you win the debate not just win some arguments. You can win every argument you discuss but still not have a better story than your opponent. Take the time to explain why the arguments you win form a better story than your opponent’s offering.

2) Warrants. Claims are not persuasive. Why your claim is true, significant, harmful, etc., make for a persuasive argument. The best claim from the most qualified author is generally useless and it is sad when those “Best” authors write warrants and debaters fail to cut that evidence and read it.

3) Paraphrasing. I recognize that the PF world is at this point. I don’t like it. I believe there are ethical issues when one cites three different authors, for example, and none of the three are working on the same argument but rather writing one line that fits in and is found in a google search. I also find it problematic that some think they can summarize a master’s level work in six words. Paraphrasing opens the world to a lot of potential evil. I read a lot on our topics and do not be the person that is misrepresenting an author by a poor paraphrase. It’s as bad as clipping. Given the power to change the world I would mandate we go back to reading evidence but then again I can’t find enough people, maybe even one other person, willing to give me that power. So we will paraphrase but we will properly represent the evidence.

This is my second year in judging high school speech and debate events. I deliberate on overall presentation of the debaters, both argumentation and delivery. Prefer a clearly comprehensible pace of speech. 

Although I have judged many debates and speeches, I would say I'm a lay judge.  I look at both substance and style in scoring performances. I attach a lot of importance to the internal coherence of your arguments as well as how they are delivered. Good luck!