Hello Public Forum debaters!

Here is a little bit of information about me to help you in round:

(If any of the below terms are unfamiliar to you please ask me before round)

Experience

-Four years competing in Public Forum

-Two years judging Public Forum

-ISD Trained Debater

-PF Equality Summit Workshop attendee

-Well versed in debate terminology

-Well versed in theoretical arguments

-Well versed in technical arguments

-Well versed in truth arguments

-Well versed in Kritique style arguments

(All this to say anything goes as long as it is within the rules of the tournament)

Judge Preferences

- Spreading is ok, but please understand that I can’t evaluate what I can’t understand.

-I will be flowing round. I will request your flows at the end of the round as well to help me think through your win conditions.

-Truth vs Tech… Either is a winning strategy if you convince me in summary/final focus

-Be yourself - I want to see YOU debate, not your captains, coaches, or advisors. Try to be yourself and run arguments you understand well (arguments YOU wrote)

-Constructives - I as long I you are being coherent you are doing a good job

-Rebuttal - I want you to respond to as many arguments as you can, but prioritize off of truth and impacts. If something goes unresponded to it may not be the deciding factor of the round if you are winning the truth and tech elsewhere.

-Summary - Bring forward the FACTS of the round (anything that can help your side)

-Final Focus - Summarize the world in which YOU Win the round. Tell me why I should vote for you. (be sure you only talk about things brought up in summary)

-Crossfire - Have a productive, polite, and above all kind conversation. I won’t vote off crossfire, you need to bring up things that happen in crossfire in main speeches.

-Speaker Points - I will always defer to tournament rules on speaker points. In the absence of clear rules baseline speaks is 28 if fully comprehensible. I will dock points for incomprehensibility and for rude behavior. You will gain points for polite behavior and strong performance.

-This goes without saying - DO NOT base your arguments or behavior in racist, sexist, homophobic, ect thinking. This will impact how you are evaluated.

-Also goes without saying - Be polite nice people. Do not contribute to debate toxicity!

I look forward to judging your round!

Hi,

I am a judge who enjoys a good debate based on logical reasoning supported by evidence. Here are a couple things I like/do not like as a judge:

- I do not like spreading, and will only vote on a contention if it is carried throughout the entire round.

- Please be respectful, and do not yell, passion can be expressed in other ways.

With that said, I am looking forward to listening to your arguments. Good luck!!

PF for four years now

Here are some of the things I like to see in rounds:

1. If you want me to vote on an argument, explain it clearly in summary and final focus.

2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you're the second speaking team, defend any arguments you want to extend in second rebuttal.

3. Collapse. Please don't extend more than 1 (maybe 2) arguments in summary. It's better to clearly explain 1 contention than to speed through 3.

4. Weigh. Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.

Other Stuff:

1. I'm probably listening during cross but not flowing it. If something happens, bring it up in your next speech.

2. Don't Steal Prep.

3. Be nice and have fun!

For email chains/evidence exchange: chancey.asher@gmail.com

I am a lay parent judge. I am looking at Contentions, Rebuttals, Extend, Impact, Weighing. Also, I am looking at your links - if you are trying to link to an impact of 8 billion lives lost because whatever this debate is about will lead to global thermonuclear war and the end of humanity, I PROBABLY won't buy it.

What is your impact, and why is it greater than your opponent's impact?

I also love clean rounds. I start to lose focus when a round gets bogged down in technical disputes.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I have experience in PF debate of all levels (as a debater myself) so feel free to speak at a speed that is faster than what you would normally do for parent judges. Slight caveat, while I do flow this isn’t an excuse to speak so fast you need to take 5 quick breaths in 25 seconds nor is it an excuse to believe that I will flow your arguments for you. I understand the need to collapse arguments and evidence but if you do, at least make reference to that the fact you stated that evidence (either in Summary or Final Focus). Overall, I value strong Rebuttals and 2nd Cross Fires more than anything else. Usually I weigh on clashing impacts that still remain at the end of the debate.

About myself- I'm currently an ophthalmic technician and mom, but was a wildlife biologist before parenthood. This is my third year judging public forum. I appreciate factual evidence and well supported arguments. Please remain respectful while debating, and speak clearly.

Hi, I'm a parent and this is my second year judging debate. In high school I did speech and went to nationals in extemp. But I did not do debate.

I appreciate signposting.

Because public forum debate is meant to be substantive and understandable to laypeople, I do not look favorably on debate jargon or technical/progressive arguments.

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

PF Paradigm:

Lots of this is explaining how to debate. That's mostly so you know that I know how to debate, I assume you'll know most of this stuff pre-round.

TL;DR:

- NEW UPDATES: if you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- Relatively standard flow and tabs judge who votes for the team that extends and the "biggest" impact(s) (it is up to you to WEIGH so I know your impact is the biggest).

- Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well.

- Collapse early and explain warrants – bad extensions (i.e. you say “extend this author” without re-explaining or extend part of your link chain) don't fly with me unless the round is so fast you have to. If you are concise enough that I have to flow at breakneck speed and you still don't have time to extend your case, I'll cut you some slack.

- Terminal defense is a prerequisite to weighing. If your opponents show your argument is bogus, I don't care anymore that it had good magnitude.

- Progressive debate is good but it might make intervention more likely. WISCONSIN CIRCUIT: Disclo and paraphrasing are not norms on the Wisconsin circuit, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since the Wisconsin circuit has much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- On that note: my opinions about debate shift a lot. Don't hang your hat on something I say in my paradigm – cite my paradigm in-round to guarantee I care.

- I am a proud hack for evidence ethics.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- Speed is fine -- send doc for over 250wpm. I'm bad at flowing off docs and don't like doing it. See above -- I'll dock your speaks for it.

- If you are in a JV, novice, or middle school division, tell me your favorite animal for an extra speaker point to show me you've read my paradigm carefully. Skip to the section for middle school and JV competitors; the stuff there is more relevant to you.

You can honestly stop reading here and you'll probably be able to adapt.

Case/Framing/Theory:

- Non-util frameworks should be introduced or implied (i.e. you run racism so it's pretty clearly not straight util) in case. Util can be introduced in either rebuttal.

- Unless an explicit argument is made countering my paradigm, you do not have to respond to any of first case (this INCLUDES theory and framework) in second case.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). If a framework is proposed by your opponents, you don't have to say "util" in rebuttal to refute it – as long as you say why your opponents' framework sucks, I will default to util if you're right. Likewise, if someone reads paraphrasing theory on you, you don't have to read a counterinterp that you may paraphrase. If you prove their interp is bogus, then I assume that debaters may paraphrase. I am aware that this is an unorthodox standard for responding to theory. If I were debating a round, I would explicitly propose a framework or counterinterp. However, I think saying "you didn't propose an alternative, so I had to default to the other team even though the link-level defense was good" is intervention.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. I likely won't though; I could only see it happening if for instance you run a really weird meme interp because you know the other team won't know how to respond (i.e. "Interpretation: debaters must flap their arms and fly to rounds instead of walking"). Disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. are all fair game, except for the exceptions listed at the top of the TL;DR.

- Quality>quantity.

- (This is my bias, just so you know) Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

Rebuttal:

- Number responses in rebuttal – it's good practice. I need to know if you're grouping responses/contentions.

- Weighing should start in rebuttal and get extended through the round. If your weighing is in more speeches than your opponents' weighing, I will default to it absent good metaweighing.

- Meta-weighing should start as soon as you've heard the other team weigh (bonus if you anticipate how your opponents are going to weigh and metaweigh before they even get the chance to weigh).

- I don't evaluate non-comparative weighing.

- Weigh disads when they are presented (in rebuttal). I default to on-case arguments over disads aren't weighed.

- Frontline in second rebuttal. I don't evaluate new frontlines in second summary. Don't tell me what your case is in first rebuttal unless you cross-apply it.

- Don't read a new contention in second rebuttal. I'll dislike you if you read a new contention in first rebuttal.

- My impression of SOL v probability v clarity: SOL = your links have more defense than ours. Prob = your links are inherently less probable for generally accepted reasons. Clarity = the effect of affirming or negating we show is either more easy to isolate from other factors or more easy to quantify compared to your arguments. Probability weighing absolutely exists in debate. The content of your weighing is more important than the buzzword.

- Link weighing is awesome. Teams tend to only do it when it's obvious they have to. Do it anyway.

Summary/FF:

- Summary/FF should mirror each other.

- Sticky defense doesn't apply with the three-minute summary unless you are concise and still don't have time for defense.

- Repeat your impacts in summ/FF unless the round is legit so fast you don't have time.

- The "voter vs line-by-line" distinction is dumb. Just tell me what I need to know in FF and jump around as little as possible.

- Don't say "extend the Caldararu evidence" without telling me what Caldararu says. I try to flow author names and usually fail.

- Don't extend too much. 1 clean link chain with weighing is enough to win a round.

Other:

- If no offense ends up on the flow at the end of the round, or if making a decision based on tech is impossible for some reason, I default to an entirely lay paradigm and vote on truth. If your opponents are running like 5+ voters and making the round impossibly messy, I could be receptive an appeal to presumption. Make me like you enough for me to presume for you.

- Some wise words from my coach Ben Morris: "I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments"

- I will look at evidence if I think that it would be a good idea. That's not intervention.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- American-impacts-first weighing is meh, but if it isn't warranted then it can come across as racist and it usually is racist. "Social contract" stuff isn't good enough for America-first.

- Most prerequisite and timeframe weighing in PF is trash. I tend to prefer good weighing to trash weighing even though how it's done matters the most. Good prerequisite weighing is amazing and I love it. If you like to read disads and weigh them in rebuttal you better do it well or else you'll get an unhappy judge.

Evidence Ethics: Don’t misrepresent evidence. I do not care whether or not you paraphrase. Just do it well – it's not that hard and most teams paraphrase well.

When you read evidence, say the author name (always), and the date and publication if they matter. Read the date if there is a reasonable chance either team will claim recency matters. Otherwise, read it if you feel like it. Read the publication if it is an exceptionally good or bad source. If you want to explain your evidence just to be safe, that's probably a good idea.

Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..."

If both teams have warrants, the team with better empirics wins the link over the team with better warrants, unless the legitimacy of the warrants is explicitly weighed in the round. If one argument has a card and another doesn't, I don't automatically default to the card.

If you can't produce a card that's called for, you should be really apologetic.

I weigh analysis backed up by evidence over analysis not backed up with evidence if you beef up the credibility of the person who wrote the card. If you don't, I default to the better weighed warrant. Ways to do this well (not a complete list): your source is a professor, your source is a really good journalist who got a Pulitzer Prize or something, or your source has some type of firsthand experience with the topic. Ways to do this badly: "uhh, our guy wrote for ______ so I guess he must have some qualification even though I don't know what it is".

If I call a card and it's misrepresented, I drop you with low speaks. Non-negotiable.

On the flip side, if your opponents misrepresent evidence, you get high speaks even if you really sucked. I don't believe teams should face any negative consequences from performing badly against teams that, by misrepresenting evidence, have a structural advantage. Point out miscut cards in email chains even after the round; it may sway my vote.

Be able to pull up cut cards that you read in a speech. Don’t paraphrase an entire article into a sentence. If you have URLs at the bottom of your case for your evidence, that's bad but I'll deal with it if you know the exact paragraph you paraphrased or quoted without searching endlessly and wasting time. If I call a card, I don't need the full article, but I'm not one of those judges who drops teams for showing the wrong one and being cranky.

Speaker Points:

Varsity Scale:

- 30 = I sincerely learned something from you and feel gratitude towards you as a result.

- 29 = you went into the round with a plan and it worked.

- 28 = no egregious strategic mistakes

- 27 = a few egregious mistakes

- 26 = very major mistakes

- 20-25 = I will explain why you got a 20-25 in my RFD

Non-Varsity Scale:

- 30 = I sincerely learned something from you and feel gratitude towards you as a result. Next time go to varsity.

- 29.5 = You went into the round with a plan, and it worked. Next time go to varsity.

- 29 = no egregious strategic mistakes. Next time go to varsity.

- 28.5 = a few mistakes

- 25-28 = major mistakes

- 20-25 = I will explain why you got a 20-25 in my RFD

Ways to get 20-25 (not a complete list if I think of something else): rudeness, very intentional or potentially intentional racism/sexism/etc, or implying that your opponents suck.

Speed: I can handle a decent level of PF speed. However, speed is a tool that must be correctly. Don’t speed through a speech and end up with time remaining or end up going over arguments you already told me again. Don’t speed through a speech so you can say “like” after every word instead of being concise. If you go too fast, which you probably won’t (since I can tolerate a normal level of speed), I’ll say “clear." Also, if you speak fast, you may risk my not fully understanding the warranting behind an argument, which you wouldn’t like. It is a risk that is sometimes worth taking, though. Go at the speed that you need to present a narrative and cover the flow.

Cross: Cross shows me if you did your due diligence prepping. It also gives you ground in later speeches, if you want to cite a concession or logical flaw that was exposed in cross. I don’t flow cross.

Not "directly" debate-related:

Fairness > Education > Winning the round. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked.

I’m a cis white male – that means I might not catch something discriminatory. If I didn’t catch something, let me know at any point (e.g. not necessarily in the time constraints of a speech if you don't want). There are no frivolous requirements here (e.g. I don't need a theory shell to vote on an out-of-round action in this situation). You'll probably get a W30 if what you're saying makes remote sense. If I notice a male debater talking down to a female debater in cross, I'll try to butt in and point it out. I probably am not the best at dealing with sexism/racism/etc, but I do my best. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- Keep the tournament running as fast as possible. That means you should enter and unpack before I get to the room. Plop yourself down in any chair that looks satisfactory to you – I do not care where you sit. I don't need to watch you flip a coin unless you want to meet me before picking your side (I sometimes like to meet a judge to get a sense of what to pick in a flip).

- The idea of debaters wearing uncomfortable formal clothes to impress me as a judge pains me (although it does make me feel powerful), so take off your tie or whatever if it's uncomfortable. You can debate in a t-shirt in front of me. I believe that uncomfortable clothes make people worse debaters.

- Have preflows done (not the end of the world if you don’t, but a good practice).

- The one exception – I probably will take a long time to write my RFD. So hang tight.

- I flow on my computer. I have been told by friends that I press the keys down hard when I type. This makes noise. Deal with it.

- I disclose my decision.

- Roadmaps are fine. Short roadmaps project confidence.

- Thanks to Ben Morris for this idea: if you say "3-2-1" to start a speech, I may say "blastoff," and you will have to deal with it. Nobody starts a conversation by saying "3-2-1 hello," so don't start your speech with "3-2-1 we affirm."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as “rooters” or "nuclear" as "nook-you-ler" I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant partner.

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

Middle School/Novice:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

PF:

• I like seeing logical arguments with clear lines of reasoning. I should require no background knowledge to follow you through your speech.
• New, creative arguments are highly encouraged to be mixed in as long as they are well supported
• Ad hominem will not be tolerated
• Debate theory, if applied, should still tie back to the resolution
• NO SPEED DEBATING - Your job is to communicate your argument to me in a way I can understand. If I have to be emailed a copy of your speech just to know what you're saying then you haven't done your job.
• Presentation is important. PF tends to get a pass on that but as the saying goes "it's not what you say, it's how you say it."

English Teacher at J.R. Masterman School. What I look for is a strong argumentative presence and addressing the other team's responses in detailed, impassioned rebuttals.

I was a PF debater (JR Masterman 2018-22)and personally I feel like the most important thing about debate is having fun.

Loop me into the email chains rkeenan413@gmail.com

I won't read evidence unless I'm specifically asked to look at it or it is a major decider in the round.

Respect/safety.

I do not tolerate any rudeness, sexism, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. If I sense this it will reflect poorly on you (speaks, dropped, etc.)

It is key that everyone is comfortable in debate, I think trigger warnings are important to the round, if you think your case may or may not need a trigger warning, run one. If I feel as though there should have been one and there was not it will hurt your round. In addition, if you feel uncomfortable mid-round please feel free to stop/pause the round and we will go from there.

Debate is fun and is supposed to be a safe space for you, I want to ensure that.

Speech preferences:

-Collapse!! It is easier for me and you if you do this.

-Please weigh in your earlier speeches in addition to rebuttals and frontlines.

- I can handle and understand speed but if you know you're going to spread please send me the speech doc.

Crossfire:

I will not flow cross, so if something important comes up bring it up in speech.

Feel free to make jokes and be laid back in cross. Make it entertaining and have fun with it.

Progressive debate

I love progressive debate, I might not understand all theories or K's but please if you want to run them go for it.

Extra speaker points:

+1 if you can incorporate Bladee (song title/lyrics) into your speech

I’m a parent volunteer judge in the third year. I had great two years and was very impressed how talented and knowledgeable the students were. I am looking forward another fruitful year.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. Please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Public Forum

Decorum: Be respectful to your opponent. Any racism, sexism, etc., will not be tolerated.

Content Warnings: If you are reading a case regarding sexual assault, human trafficking, mental health, etc. I’d like you to have a content warning before the round starts.

Timing: I’ll be watching the time but don’t rely on me to keep it for you.

Off- time roadmaps: No preference.

Summary: Don’t introduce new arguments after first summary.

Warrants: Especially in novice PF, explain why your card supports your case. No matter how explicit your card may be, flesh it out to explain why this supports your contention. I really don’t like spreading.

Final Focus: I take into consideration things said during FF, but don’t simply yell over your opponent. Talking fast and speaking loudly does not equate in a good argument.

Email: adamlieb24@gmail.com

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

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

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

I expect all competitors to be respectful to each other with good understanding of the format and order of debate. I would appreciate competitors would turn on the camera while speaking.

As a judge, I believe clarity in reasoning, solid rationale and quality of evidence, and showing respect to your peers are hallmarks of good debates and speech. So take a breath, slow down, and put your best foot forward. Learn and enjoy your experience!

Moving past the many specific definitions, I would say this about criteria: logic, facts, evidence, and clear delivery seem to be the stronger approaches to prevailing in a debate. A sound argument with some relevant evidence may often be more convincing, versus many words, however articulately spoken.

While the articulate may have a seeming advantage, quality & logic of the argument, together with some examples & evidence, might be the stronger approach.

Advice that may assist some people: Where it is possible, try to speak clearly and loudly. Older Judges, with perhaps poorer hearing, will appreciate the effort. Thank you for participating!

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

TLDR:

-- I have been updating this and will probably keep updating this to Saturday, make sure to double check

-- I will drop you if I think you're being seriously inequitable with malicious intentions.

-- Default to speaker position/team if you don't know your opponent's pronouns (ie, the first neg speaker told us this, aff tries to tell you that, etc).

-- I prefer cards with warranting, and warranting over cards w/o warranting.

-- College debater with no HS debate experience

-- Tabula rasa (I won't fill in warranting, impacting, and weighing for you)

-- Don't communicate with your partner while they're speaking. Whispering/giving notes is fine.

-- Okay with speed, not spreading.

-- Tech over truth

-- Time yourselves.

-- I only evaluate the flow. I don't care about presentation.

-- I know how theory and K's work, but not the norms. Education > Fairness, and tell me the violation and punishment pls <3

-- Have the round that you want to have. Do what you need to do to win.

Hi everyone! I'm Eric Trinh (he/him) and currently a third year APDA (American Parliamentary) debater for Swarthmore College. I also have some experience in BP (British Parliamentary). I have no experience in high school debate (this will be my first ever time judging PF/watching PF, sorry besties), but I have judged a lot in APDA. I'm going to split this in a couple parts: First, my priors as an APDA debater, and some normal paradigm stuff.

Add me to the email chain: etrinh1@swarthmore.edu

As a disclaimer, this paradigm is a vague sense of how I view debate. There may be times where I deviate from my paradigm (although I probably won't deviate from my defaults). If I deviate from my paradigm and I realize I do, I'll make a note of it.

APDA Priors:

So a couple things you need to know about APDA:

1. APDA doesn't have cards or evidence. We mainly focus on warranting and weighing (this means I probably won't be very good at evaluating evidence debates, but I'll try for y'all)
2. APDA speakers do not spread. They can speak quickly, but they don't spread. With that being said, I won't stop you if you spread, I just think it's a horrible idea to do in front of me.
3. How it is judged is tabula rasa: I look at the flow for the most important weighed issue in the round, I look at the top voter issue that has been weighed properly, and whoever is winning I give it to them. If that's a wash, I move on the next issue (sometimes I look at the voters as a whole, but my current ballots have been leaning towards the first conceptualization rather than this one). This also means that I will do my best to not fill in any warranting, weighing, or impacting for you.
4. Also, speaking of tabula rasa, if there's a point on the flow that's sitting there that's unwarranted or barely warranted and the other team doesn't push back on it at all, I normally don't throw it away and just say it's true for the round.

I HIGHLY recommend that you keep this in mind while you debate in front of me. I will probably be judging PF/LD in the same way.

Debate Stuff:

Great, with that out of the way, let's get into some other stuff that I think also applies to this format:

Firstly, I am tech > truth (if a team says the sky is purple, and it's not properly contested, then the sky is purple for the round). I, however, am more than happy to throw away arguments that I deem to be inequitable.

Judge adaptation is important in debate (which is why i have this silly little paradigm), but also I think judges should do their best to adapt to the round that the debaters want to have. Do what you need to do to win in front of me; I'll live (just don't be inequitable <3).

I'll probably be looking at my computer most of the time (unless I'm trying to read your lips/better hear you if you're speaking faster), so I likely won't see what you're doing. I don't care about style or presentation of your arguments (although obviously good organization is helpful for me; I won't directly deduct/raise speaks for organization). I only care about the logic and the strength of your arguments.

Based on what I can tell of these formats, for me specifically, I prefer evidence with warrants. If not, then I prefer warranting over evidence.

Please time yourselves, although I will also be timing you. When time is over, I won't stop you, but I'll stop flowing. After 30 seconds I'll let you know that you're done.

Please don't communicate with your partner while your partner is speaking. I don't care what you do while y'all aren't speaking as long as you're respectful to everyone (whispering/talking quietly/giving notes/google doc typing/whatever is okay, as long I can still hear the speaker and it isn't distracting to the speaker).

Please give me clear voters; don't make me have to do more work!

Default to speaker position/team if you don't know your opponent's pronouns (ie, the first speaker told us this, aff tries to tell you that, etc). I will drop you if I think you're being seriously inequitable with malicious intent.

I'm going to be honest with you, APDA doesn't have crossfire -- I however will try my best to flow it. i haven't referenced crossfire in my RFD yet though but I promise i pay attention to it

I don't care about what you're wearing when you debate. Feel free to take off your tie or something if you're uncomfortable.

offtime roadmaps are fine, just be quick.

Theory (idk, feel free to scroll on if you're not expecting much theory):

I'm an APDA debater, APDA doesn't have a ton of theory, and I'm not a big theory debater. I do vaguely understand theory, but I don't understand Kritiks as well as I understand general theory. Please handhold me through it, especially for K's -- Give me the standard, violation, punishment, reasons for punishment, and voters plus weighing. I don't know what the normal theory shells are in PF.

Assuming I don't hear some things, I have several defaults -- RVIs don't exist until you tell me it does. Fairness and education are voters, and education > fairness. Most importantly, I understand some judges have default punishments -- I don't have a default punishment. If you don't tell me what I should do in order to punish a team, then I can't do anything with the theory (do I throw away an argument? Do I drop the team? Do I do some other strange punishment? Tell me!).

also dont run speaks theory lol

If you're jv and you've gotten this far, tell me who your favorite fictional character is in your speech and I'll give you an extra speaker point.