I am a lay judge but keep doing what you have been doing all year. Make sure we converse respectfully and professionally throughout and make sure we rebuff the other team's arguments while providing further and relevant support of our own. Good luck!

I am a parent judge. If you are going to talk fast, please enunciate and speak coherently so I can best understand. Be respectful and do not interrupt each other, debate is a learning experience and I do not want things to become heated in the round.

Things I look for:

good evidence, impacts, carrying your arguments throughout the round, being respectful, making best use of crossfire while being respectful, and a case around quantitative data and analysis tends to work best.

Please note: Your speaker scores will reflect your speech skills, in the sense of respect, voice enunciation, and quality of argument.

I am a parent judge and judged mostly PF since 2020 including some TOC bid tournaments this year. But please strike me if you don’t want deal with lay judge

1) I am OK with above average speed but please don’t speak too fast

2) Key points clear and well supported

3) Make good and logical arguments

4) Be respectful to your opponents and try to not interrupt too much during crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

My background: Former attorney

What I look for in a Debate: Strong oral presentation, balance of evidence, analysis, application to the resolution and logic. Respectful sportsmanship. Prefer no spreading.

1. Experience: I have done three years of PF and extemp. I can deal with most spreading in PF; I was a second speaker.

2. Framework: If you don't say anything else, I'll assume cost/benefit. I won't like anything abusive though.

3. Extensions: I'll weigh whatever is extended through to final focus. But don't just extend, tell me why your argument is more important.

4. Evidence: I prefer authors and dates. If the evidence is self explanatory, then that's fine; it can speak for itself. If it isn't clear, then you need to link it to the resolution. I'm fine with paraphrased evidence, as long as its not abusive/misleading, and its used to sum up some non-text evidence or long essay.

5. Cross: I don't flow this, but I pay attention to what is said. It's important for clarifying what is happening.

6. Defense: extend it in summary; however, in summary, narrow it down to a few responses, not a shotgun approach.

7. Theory: In PF, I don't think we should have theory unless an abuse happens. Public forum is about the arguments, not who can argue theory that doesn't apply to the resolution, but I'm not going to vote against you for reading theory.
I honestly don't care that much about disclosure. My circuit doesn't do it.

8. Analysis and evidence: I like analysis. Not all arguments need to be based on some prewritten evidence or block if you can explain it well. However, if your analysis and response is based on something that a debater wouldn't know, then you need a card, or explain it really well.

9. Sign posting and road maps: please sign post, I can deal without road maps, but if your speech is, or will be, all over the place, then please do an off time road map.

10. I've seen tricks on some other paradigms. I don't know what that is. Take that as you will.

11. Other stuff: I don't have cards or authors memorized. Tell me something beyond just the author's name in round if you're referring to a card. I don't like underdeveloped arguments, but I understand if you tried something and it fell through. Just don't put out something you know won't work for the sake of a shotgun approach to responding to arguments. You win based on persuasion, not on saying words really fast and hoping something sticks.

12. I swear this is the last thing: Debate is about communication, so do your best not to be really dry. I prefer some humor.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent-personally.

TOC Specific Items

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

The speed of Delivery: Medium Speed-and clarity tends to win out more then the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either-But Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

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

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

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?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

Hi everyone, good luck today. One thing I like to see is loud speakers and clear points.

I debated L&D when I was in HS in the last millennium and now am enjoying judging. I am most comfortable with LD but enjoy public forum, policy and parli as well.

- I appreciate good speaking ability- the oral presentation should enhance the message, and not be just reading your speech.

- I prefer to see sound logic and critical analysis over a rush of minimal responses. If you can't respond reasonably to everything, prioritize and defend the top priorities that should decide the debate. I will decide the debate based on weighing, and that critical things are responded to, and in how the weighing ties into the value criterion. I'd prefer to see a win on good logic vs technicalities.

- LD: Whether you win or lose the value debate, I expect you to successfully defend how you meet the value criterion or debate goal in your weighing.

- Signpost and make sure you take the time to properly and clearly represent evidence - clearly tag it and make clear what is the quoted evidence versus your own argument.

- Finally, be kind, civil, and professional. Disagree with your opponent but refrain from disparaging.

Thank you for engaging in this important activity and I look forward to hearing your case!

Hi,

I am a collegiate (treat me like a parent judge) debater who specializes in all things impromptu (BP, Impromptu Speaking, Extempt, IPDA) who is here to judge! I normally judge middle schoolers so this will be a little different, but I have a few guidelines I like my debaters to follow:
-Speak clearly. You can speak as fast as you want, but if it isn't clear I can't flow it, so please make sure to speak clearly.

-Be respectful to each other. Try and be kind during cross ex and please be respectful of my decision when it comes to round end. I try and take in all facts of the encounter but sometimes I do make mistakes. If you have a true issue I would be glad to discuss it but my decision is final.

-Have fun!

PF:

Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card and it stops once you finish reading.

I don't flow Crossfire, you shouldn't make any new arguments in it. That being said, it's a great time to clarify your case and poke holes in your opponent's case, use it to set up an argument.

Good rounds come down to the final focus, don't drop an impact before/during FF and expect me to vote on it. Make sure to weigh your impacts in sum or at least in FF (heck, why not both?) Don't just tell me why your case is good, tell me why it's better than your opponent's case.

Make sure to Signpost! Road maps are good too, but Signposting is more important to me. Slow Down for tags! If nothing else, it will give you better speaks.

I don't care for paraphrasing. I won't automatically vote you down for it, but if your opponent can explain why I should vote you down you better believe I will. Same goes for misrepresenting evidence, if your opponent asks me to call for a card and it clearly says the opposite of what you said/highlighted that's abusive and you'll likely lose the round because of it.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LD: never done it, never judged it. I can probably flow a top speed of 4-5 on a 10 scale. But make tags clear/slower.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stuff I like: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Stuff I don't like:

1. Raising your voice (within reason) to make a point - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Raising your voice at your opponent

2. Using gestures/movement to keep me engaged - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Using gestures when your partner/opponent is speaking

3. Unique case ideas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Having a unique case that sucks. Put in the time to make it good

4. Eye contact with me - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - looking at your opponent during cross (look at me)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Silver Bowl tournament only: dissing Kanye in your FF will get you an automatic 30 speaks.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

Hello, this is Shen.

I prefer to see that the debaters back their opinions/arguments with evidence and civility. Speaking clearly to the point is more important than speaking fast.

Have fun.

Hi! I'm a fairly inexperienced parent judge, but here are some of the things you should note:

- Please don't talk too fast, otherwise I won't be able to flow it and I might not be able to judge it. - If there's anything said in final focus that wasn't mentioned in summary, I will not be taking it into account. - Be respectful during crossfire. Speaker points will be docked if you talk over others during CX. No statement questions as well. - Good arguments, good rebuttals, and good analysis of assertions will help you win. Good luck!

Experience: In high school I competed in Colorado in PF, LD, BQ, Value, World Schools, Congress, and Extemp (debate and speech). I qualified to both nationals and state twice. I'm now a freshman at GWU in DC.

All events:

• If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask.
• If you have a specific part of the round you want feedback on, just let me know before or after the round.

Debate:

• I'm a flow judge.
• Speed is fine, but try not to spread, I don't enjoy it.
• I'll be timing you, but please time yourselves and your opponents as well, it just helps everything run more smoothly.
• Signpost!!
• PLEASE WEIGH!
• I'm not a fan of trigger theory, K's, or other progressive arguments.
• I'm familiar with the majority of y'all's topics right now, but still explain stuff if it needs to be explained (for the sake of me and your opponents).

Speech:

• I competed primarily in debate events in high school, so I don't have as much experience with speech, but I'll still do my best to provide meaningful feedback.
• I'm slightly biased towards funny pieces, but I obviously won't knock off points if yours is depressing, serious, etc.

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

I am a parent judge with no previous debate experience. I will be weighing points against points.

I do enjoy jokes during the debate, the goal is to have fun. I will not tolerate any misbehavior; everyone must be kind and polite to everyone else.

Background: I graduated from Franklin & Marshall College in 2022 with a degree in Government and Women's Gender & Sexuality Studies and I now work for the Human Rights Campaign in their legal department. I graduated from Gig Harbor High School in 2018 where I competed in Public Forum for four years and qualified for state and TOC. In college, I competed for my school's Mock Trial team and qualified for several national level tournaments. All this to say, I understand the fundamentals of how debates are structured and likely have a general understanding of the topic itself.

Style Preferences: I don't have a stylistic preference do whatever works best for you and speed is completely fine as long as you are still articulate. I care more about the arguments you are making than the speaking style you choose to use. Explain to me why what you are saying matters and what impacts it has. I won't do the work of impacting something out for you, that's your job. Overall just be articulate and explain things to me. Off-time road maps are fine as long as they're concise, you tell me in advance, and make it clear when the roadmap ends. Crossfire is a place to have arguments, but I will not tolerate abusive or overly aggressive behavior. If you think you've crossed the line, you probably have. If this behavior happens I will dock speaker points however I feel is appropriate and I have a low tolerance for it just for your knowledge.

Flow/CX: I will flow the round, but make sure you are sign-posting so I know where things are supposed to be. I won't do the work of extending arguments for you, meaning if you want something extended or your opponent dropped something tell me. I won't flow crossfire, but I am paying attention. If you think a critical argument is won bring it up in your next speech to get it on my flow.

If allowed by the tournament and time permits, I will disclose at the end and explain my RFD. I'll write more specific comments on your ballot for individual speakers as well as any thoughts I might have on the arguments you have made.

If you have any further questions or need clarification on anything feel free to ask before the round starts!

I am a former PF debater of 3 years at Puyallup HS. I enjoy the speed and back-and-forth of public forum and always enjoy a good cross X. I think cross is important so I typically use it on my final ballot and decision. That being said, be COURTEOUS during cross, let your opponent speak, I won't flow if you are talking over each other.

Help me, help you, and don't jump around. Do your best to let everyone know where you are on the flow so that I can understand and use your arguments in my decisions. If I can't understand what you're referring to, it likely won't end up on my flow.

I know it is still hard competing online, I understand it well so if something happens (technical difficulty, etc) just let me know and I'm more than happy to give you a second.

Please be kind to each other, I won't tolerate any personal disrespect on either team or any kind of discriminatory speech.

I'm just happy to be back judging debate so just do your best and I'll always have positive feedback for you and enjoy your round!

Hello Debaters!

This isn't a paradigm so much as some context. I was a PF and LD debater circa 2001-2005, and have judged irregularly since. Assume I am entering the round unfamiliar with the topic. I am, in general, a flow judge. Please signpost as you go. I don't flow cross-x, but may take notes. If you're using things established in cross as part of your argument, they should also appear in the summary. Your speed does not bother me as long as it is clear and well articulated, good speaking is part of the skill of debate. Be civil. And, always feel free to ask questions before we begin.

See you in the round,

Evan

Respect is very important attribute for me. I expect the teams to respect each other.

I keep tab on the flow & time on my own. I would like to see each team use the time appropriately.

I would prefer if the debaters spoke clearly at a reasonable speed rather than rushing.

Hi,

I am a parent judge for Saratoga High School. I don't have much experience judging.Make sure you speak clearly and slowly enough so that I can actually evaluate your argument. I will try my best to keep up with the flow. There could be some arguments that I may not catch the first time. Please make sure you explain in such a way so that someone who does not do debate can understand the arguments.

Thank you

Have fun Debating!

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: pkasibhatla4@gmail.com

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrued the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

I am an interp coach and have recently started judging PF and LD debate. I prefer traditional rounds and will vote based on who simplifies the main ideas.

5 years judging PF—4 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions), 3 times at Nationals

I coach only Public Forum.

I am a high school English teacher full time. I also tutor middle school students in debate and speech as well as teach at a University in the evenings on top of coaching for my school.

Speed is fine with me.

I prefer big picture summaries

Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.

Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.

I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.

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? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.

Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.

Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.

Off time roadmaps: Don't care.

My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.

I have been judging debate since high school, and have judged outrounds at a number of tournaments. I favour substance over style as I believe that rewarding style disadvantages ESL competitors, and I encourage all debaters to engage with other teams. I judge hollistically and tend not to be too picky about the organization of speeches, provided that they are clear and logical. I encourage debaters to structure their speeches in the way that they feel will best present their arguments.

About me: (He/Him Pronouns) First-year law student at UW. I debated PF for 3 years on local and national circuits. I now do coaching for EPS.

If you have questions about the round or my RFD, just email me at: rjl2000@uw.edu Or, text me at 253-683-1929

About round: SHOW UP TO THE ROUND ASAP AND I WILL BE HAPPY AND MORE LIKELY TO GIVE GOOD SPEAKS

speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Please do not full on spread though it's annoying.

I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If you want to bring something up in final focus, it should be extended in summary as well.

If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Throughout the round, confidence, humor, and aggression are good, while rudeness, bigotry, and general meanness are not. If you think that your attempt at the first category will be interpreted as the second category, error on the side of caution.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

I would prefer no theory/progressive argumentation. If you do decide to run something like that, it better be very important and not just an attempt to get an easy W over people that don't know what's going on.

Specific speech stuff: This is what I would LIKE to see in a high-quality round. Do your best to do these things, but I obviously don't expect all of this from novice debaters.

For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet. This goes for both rebuttals, but numbering your responses if there are multiple will help me stay organized on the flow

For 2nd rebuttal: Frontline!!!! if you don't mention the main arguments against your case, it'll probably be considered dropped.

Summary: Same thing as second rebuttal in the sense you should be bringing up the main arguments from the previous speech and refuting them. Anything that you don't want your opponent to be able to say "They dropped our __ in summary" should be mentioned

if you want to bring up something in FF, it must be brought up in summary

Collapsing is a good way to ensure you are able to extend all the defense you need and still get offense.

FF: Voters! tell me where to vote! extend some defense if you want, but this speech should mostly be about the places you are winning on the flow and why

weighing is also good

Things that are bad and you should not do:

CALL FOR EVIDENCE/TAKE PREP BEFORE BOTH TEAMS HAVE READ THEIR CASES1! (ex: taking prep as second speaking team before you read your case) super abusive, try-hard, and annoying. If you do this, the max speaker points you can earn is 26. (yes that is arbitrary, too bad.)

Do that really annoying thing that happens in debate where you just keep restating your argument and then saying that refutes your opponents' argument. In rebuttal, your arguments should have warrents. In later speeches, you should explain to me WHY your argument is better than theirs.

Not signpost

overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.

if you have any further questions please ask.

I am a new judge. If you do better in providing relevant points that connect to the topic and providing proofs and credible data to support them, you have my vote.

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am looking for clear and well-paced speech, structural narration and well labelled claims and warrants.

I am a parent judge. I have judged roughly 40 rounds in the last 18 months and I did policy debate in college.

I would consider myself a flow judge and you should expect that I will vote on the flow. I expect clear links as well as impacts, one without the other doesn't mean much. I expect to see debate on both the links and the impacts.

I prefer it when you can explain your arguments in some context. If you just read cards and don't tell how they tie to together, that's likely not to be compelling. Reading me a random set of arguments that aren't really anchored in your case or your opponent's case or reading them in a random order so I don't know what you're arguing against may leave you in a spot where I can't put them in context and, thus, you don't get much value out of them.

Tell me a story in final focus about why you won and about how I should interpret the flow and the weigh the impacts. Repeating your impacts without explaining anything about probability or timeline doesn't have the same impact as explaining why and how your links and impacts outweigh.

I don't mind speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow you. Frameworks are fine as long as they're not abusive and I'm open to theory, although I am likely woefully inexperienced in judging it.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, but just enough so that I have idea what parts of the flow I need to have in front of me.

I'm a parent judge. It's my first time PF judge. I did couple speech judges in past two years. Some things you can do that will help me:

1. Please speak slowly and clearly.
2. Speech organization: Clarity and structure are helpful, explain your contentions and impacts with clear links.
3. Short off-time roadmaps are ok.
4. Tell me why you win the round, like highlight impact calc/weighing impacts in Summary and Final Focus.

Information about my way of Judging:

• I am a novice to judging although I have went through some information about this topic and watched a few videos.
• Please keep your arguments clear and consistent.
• I appreciate logic and evidence in your rebuttal.

Hello debaters! I am a parent judge, but I have some experience with PF judging. Keep in mind that I am not a tech judge, I don’t value spreading, don’t talk extremely fast. I will be flowing in every speech, so dropped points are going to weigh very high. Please signpost, it makes everything much cleaner. Terminology is not my strong suit and if you say something like “that’s wrong because Mendel 18 delinks” and move on, that’s not something which would effectively do much for your side. Reconstructions are also important!Logical constructive and rebuttals will be impactful to me, and in final focus tell me why your impacts outweigh but don’t read outrageous impacts just because no one’s going to respond to it. Good luck!

Umich Debate, Seaholm

Adamdebatedocs@gmail.com

Qualifications:

College PF National Champion (on a new circ, but the title is welcome nonetheless)

Coach(ed) some solid TOC teams etc etc yadda yadda

6 years of comp experience (PF + a year of college Policy), 3 years of coaching

Specs:

TLDR: K is fine if you know what you're talking about and the link is crazy, Theory is good, T is good, egregious speed is bad, analytics are fine (esp on theory), cheating is bad, fiat debates are cool, tricks are stupid, defense is sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard

T:

please read more T pleeeeeease read debatability and education as offense pleeeeeeeease idk why half of pf still only reads defensive T--non-t teams should loseee (unless they're reading a ROTB)

K stuff:

Can prob follow rhetoric stuff or usage of non-high theory ideologies. Alts matter! If you don't wanna read an alt, repurpose your shell to be normal LBL stuff

Have a generally higher threshold for PF K links (lower for rhetoric/ideology case links, higher for "topic bad" ones since the PF res interps & thereby the cases are p universal and performance is kinda taboo--be fr you probably read a stock aff too lol)

Ballot Piks are swag and good please read them against annoying high theory stuff or easily correctable things (I.E. saying "terrorist" etc)

If you don't know what they're saying, go for T and fairness lol

Theory:

WRITING "EMAIL US OR WE AUTOMEET" ON YOUR WIKI USUALLY DOESN'T MEAN YOU AUTOMEET LOL (I'll prob buy this on super nitpicky disclo shells if you're generally good about disclo but not if your wiki is completely blank)

Always down to vote for Disclo (not cringe nitpicky disclo tho), Paraphrasing, Speed (!!!!!!!!), friv bad, Word count, debate good impact turns, etc. Less familiar with ROTB shells (kinda don't think these mesh in PF as well as y'all think), not persuaded at all by round reports but feel free to try

I default to yes RVIs unless convinced otherwise (meaning I'll default to it if you don't read no RVIS in the shell). If the round ends with no coverage on it (unlikely, obviously), I'll probably default to reasonability good because topic education is cool and infinite regression is probably true.

Don't run silly stuff like dinosaurs or formal clothes unless your links are actually good or you know the other team from camp or smthn. I want to see more perfcon shells read in pf.

Fairness, Edu and Inclusion are typically internal links into participation/debate space good, not sure why people run them as voters

Weighing:

Weighing debates are generally boring but link ins are really really cool. Do stuff like postdating, meta-study, thumpers, etc

Tricks:

Booo BAD go AWAY

Fun stuff:

I adore non-stock cases and run them exclusively in college (shoutout Kai Cowin for pmo 5 years ago)--read p much whatever you want, idc how dumb it is

Ethics:

Rules exist, but I sometimes wish that we'd all be a little flexible for the sake of having a good round--you'll win if you prove a violation, but you'll probably get boring speaks if the violation is miniscule. If your ethics challenge fails, you lose.

Topic Edu:

I'm sorry man, but these really nuanced yet poorly explained (perchance a result of the former) IR topic args are so difficult to follow. Yes, I am an awesome coach. No, I do not know every single argument on every topic. I'm generally not one to enjoy those surface level debates surrounding infinitely complex geopolitical conflict or IR, but maybe I'm being irrational.

Evidence:

In the new age of "tech" blippy PF, i find myself frequently just flowing taglines and never even glancing at the actual card text unless told otherwise--to be honest, I think I'm ok with that. Don't powertag everything tho

Spikes:

These aren't as good as you think, no preference tho (Update: fine, they're good sometimes)

Analytics:

Gotta be honest man, the kid who reads 10 cards beats the kid who reads 10 genius analytics every time (incoming "BOOOOOOOO"). I am not the judge who rewards you for intuitive analytics UNLESS they're dropped or only responded to with other, worse analytics. Analytics are cool and stuff + I coached a kid who won states on basically analytics alone, but I can't see many scenarios where I vote on an analytic over a card

Counterplans:

No! Unless it's an alt or a counterinterp

Speed:

Fine with most PF speeds, NO SPREADING UNLESS YOU SEND ME LITERALLY EVERY SPEECH DOC--I'm a lover of urgent speaking (around 60% of spreading speed). Please send everyone your speech docs if speed could realistically be a concern. Do a 10 second blip of what your speed sounds like before round starts if you're worried that you'll be too fast to me. I went to, like, one college policy tournament, so It probably won't be worse than that.

Cheating:

Please don't.

Cutting:

Cut your cards. PLEASE! Example

Not cutting your cards is cheating if you send someone unhighlighted ev and they have to burn prep sifting through the article for your blip

+0.5 speaks if you make a garfield, whiplash or dilbert reference

Random, Discombobulated Notes:

1. Don't drop stuff please--it makes the round less fun

2. DO OVS

3. Please make an email chain with constructive disclosures--I won't drop you for not doing so, but disclosure is objectively good

4. Don't try a TKO (one time a team accidentally pasted a TKO into their speech doc and when they got to it said "uhhhhhh skip that" which I thought was funny)

5. Numbering responses is a power move

6. Dropped turns become untouchable voters in the same way a contention is

7. Please engage in tech debate (LBL, not-ethos oriented, assume I understand high concepts fairly well), I'm not a lay judge and I don't enjoy slow, lay rounds. Like, yeah I can judge lay stuff--I just don't like it

8. Please indicate new sheets for off-case args in your roadmap

9. 2R has to frontline--don't devote all 2R time to the opp case, I will stop flowing your later speeches

10. I don't flow or listen intently (tbh) during CX

11. The outrage surrounding extinction impacting is funny--I literally don't care, run whatever impact scenarios you want. I usually pref magnitude>probability as a voter

12. I love co-op links

13. You should ideally be reading Cases with CUT cards (Example) I won't innately drop you for this, but i'm extremely open to voting on a paraphrasing shell.

14. (Not for locals) if both you and your opp agree before round that you wanna debate a different res/do something funny like a full-analytics round, I may oblige

15. Don't call something a "turn" if it isn't one!!

16. Saying no to disclosure is bad ethics

17 (super important). If someone calls for a card and you send them a hyperlink I'm not evaluating the evidence at all. CUT. YOUR. CARDSSSSSSSSSSSS (see example cutting link above)

I debated Public Forum for 2 years and briefly debated policy for one year while in high school. I also competed in oratory for a year and have had some experience with expository. That being said, while speech skills are still important within a public forum round, I will look towards arguments and debate skill when weighing a round. As far as speed goes I am okay with any speed and will be able to understand you as long as you are clear, however, make sure if you are going to talk fast that you are clear while doing so.

For what I like to see in a round, I would like a good clear round with well presented arguments and clash from both teams. I believe clear organization is important to a good round and will make it much simpler for debaters as well as me as a judge to follow what is going on. The Final Focus and Summary are the two most important pieces of a round to me and I would like to see main arguments presented and impacts weighed against each others. During FF I would like to see voters presented clearly as well. I like to see what arguments are left at the end of the round from each team.

I am okay with any type of argument as long as you have the evidence to support it and can clearly communicate the information you would like to present. Assume that I as a judge know nothing about the topic beforehand.

TECH >>>> TRUTH

Debated PF at Park City for 4 years (2019-22) mainly for nat circuit but local too.

Idk the resolutions that well so explain them but you should do that anyway. Extend throughout the round pls.

Speed is fine, send me the speech doc tho and add me to the email chain: mobrienpc2004@gmail.com

Sign posts are important so I can stay organized, don't stand up before your speech and give me an "off-time roadmap" just say the order of your speech.

I don't evaluate cross at all, if something important happens bring it up in the next speech.

Policy: I know a little bit of policy stuff, you can run anything as long as it's explained well. I ran k's in pf so I know how they work pretty well. CP's and DA's are cool as long as they're not confusing. Theory is fine too. Disclosure is necessary for policy, if you don't disclose I'll dock 1 speaker point.

PF: K debate and theory is more fun than stock args but I won't count it against you if your case is stock. I don't believe in frameworks for PF unless you're running something progressive or interesting. CBA is standard so I'll default to that. Weighing is very important but explain why I should weigh the round in one way and don't just say "we save a million people" and expect me to care without explaining why that matters. Disclosure is good but not necessary.

Run anything you want as long as it's not racist, homophobic, xenophobic... If it is I'll just drop you.

Note: If you run progressive args poorly I just won't evaluate it and that would be kinda embarrassing.

Ask if you have questions

Hi, my name is Christine Pyle

I am a coach and participated in debate in school many years ago.

Fast talking(spreading) is fine, however clarity is key.

Signposting is preferred - organization helps not only me but you

If you are utilizing impacts to enhance your case, follow through with those impacts in your case to the end of the debate.

I'm looking for good case structure, compelling arguments, good use of crossfire, and that arguments with weight are flowing through to the end.

Experience: I have sat in and judged multiple debate rounds since graduating. I have also competed in Public Forum for 2 years prior to graduating High School.

Speaking:Speak as fast as you want but it might be better to speak coherently and clearly so both I and the opponents can understand the arguments.

MISC:

1)If evidence/arguments clash, you need to explain why I should value your evidence over the opponents. Properly weigh/impact evidence out.

2) Remember to extend in final focus and not just summary. If arguments are not stated in final focus, I will not count them.

3)Be respectful!

What must you do to win? :

In order for your arguments/side to win, you must properly extend and impact evidence. Follow these two rules and you will win my ballot. Good luck and remember to have fun!

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - cool

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

I'm comfortable with various approaches, cases, and theories so long as you can defend it.

I take detailed notes (flow) during the debate. I do not flow cross examinations. If seeing a specific piece of evidence is relevant to the decision, I will ask for it. Please try to use all of the time allocated to you.

Logical arguments, strength of link chains, and "thinking on your feet" are important. Evidence should help support these arguments and the quality of evidence matters. Please extend arguments through the debate.

You can spread or "go fast", but I have found that Novice and Junior Varsity achieve marginal results. Speed is only an issue when words become very garbled and unintelligible. I would suggest going with a style that is comfortable for you.

Politeness and courtesy are important.

Debate is as much about learning as it is about winning.

•Speed: I’m comfortable with faster than conversational speed and if you’re too fast, I’ll hold up my pen high to indicate that I’ve stopped flowing.

•Organization: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me to flow your arguments. Tags are helpful. I’m good with off-time roadmaps.

•Extend your arguments: Please no surprises late in the debate. .

•Policy style arguments: I’m not a Policy judge. Make sure you explain your terms if you choose to go this route. I will not vote for arguments I don’t understand.

•Common decency:

Respect your judge. Respect your partner. Respect your opponent.

Avoid name-calling (EX: saying your opponent or an argument is stupid). That’s rude and also lazy debating.

Avoid yelling matches in crossfire.

Hello. I am a parent judge.

• Be clear
• Explain your evidence
• Provide clear linkchains
• Be respectful, especially during CX
• Weigh impacts

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

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

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

I have coached and judged debate for 19 years.

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

Hello. I am a parent judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand and digest your points and arguments. With that said, please don't throw around evidence, instead give solid reasoning for all your points.

I am influenced by data and credible evidence supporting your positions with good reasoning as well.

I would like to see respect shown on both sides of the debate. Talking over each other in the crossfire is not the best way to get your point across.

Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!

Hello, my name is Qibin

This is my second year and fifth tournament judging, I am a lay judge.

A few preferences:

1) Please don't rush/speak too fast

2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite

3) Please signpost clearly so I know what arguments you are addressing

4) Please weigh in summary and final focus

5) Please have clear extensions of your arguments so I can understand them better.

Let's have a fun and educational round!

I flow

Please signpost

Do not be rude to your opponents. Crossfire should remain respectful, even if you do need to cut your opponent(s) off. There should be no yelling

Please tell me WHY I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important? Do they happen sooner, with a higher probability? Do they impact more people? Do the weighing for me in summary and FF to make it clear why you win

Make a pop culture (music, TV, anime, etc...) reference for extra speaker points :)) Debate should be fun, so make some jokes in round and everybody can have a good laugh

I'll listen to pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted with solid evidence. I love funny cases!!

I am a parent judge and have judged a few tournaments this year.

I would highly prefer that you speak clearly than quickly. I like when teams use a structured framework for their arguments. I will vote for the team that best responds to the other team's arguments while at the same time clarifying their own arguments.

Comparison and direct weighing of arguments will make it much easier to make my decision. With that being said, please refrain from using too much technical jargon without being able to explain it first.

Good luck to all teams!

Be organized: Clarity and structure are important and it helps me understand the overall approach. Prefer a few well-connected arguments over a bag of assorted arguments.

Be novel: The more original a point, the harder it is to put together a solid refutation for it. Try to find unexpected riffs on the main argument.

Fast but not too fast: I can listen at 1.5x-2.0x for most conversations but if you're making a key point, especially if it's subtle, slow down a bit to make sure I catch it. I'll signal you with a slow-down motion if I can't keep up.

Keep track of the board: Often a key point from one side just gets missed by the other side. Finding new arguments is great, but make sure you refute the arguments on the table.

Don't be lazy: Be respectful. Avoid fallacies, including ad hominems and emotional appeals.

1. Your arguments should have quantifiable impacts if you want to win; qualitative impacts will not be sufficient in most cases

2. I I cannot hear or compile your argument(s), I might not be able to judge it for correctness or completeness. Therefore, do not spread

3. Use logic to win your argument, pathos will not work with me

Hello Debaters!

I was a PF debater in high school much like many of you. Below are some of the basic things I look for in a good debate round and some things I wish to avoid seeing.

Things I look for:

The top thing I look for when weighing a debate is the evidence and the weight of said evidence. Give me hard numbers for things that have impact. Saying "a lot" or "many" is subjective and I will be a bit more harsh on the impact of evidence that does not include some sort of number when applicable. For example, if you're going to say that something is harming people, give me a number of people hurt to work with. The other half of evidence is the freshness of it. If there are two conflicting statements being made, I will most likely go with the statement that is backed by more recent evidence if the two are reasonably similar in credibility. If you can show me that your evidence is more credible AND recent, you are in a strong position.

Another thing I would love to see is the clear explanation of unique or specific terms. If the general person would not know what something means, assume I don't either as I would like to fully understand any and all things that you say. If there is a term I do not understand, I will not be able to judge anything based on relative information that relies on that term.

Finally, give me clear indications of when new contentions are going to be stated. This can easily be done by stating "Contention 1... Contention 2..." so on, so forth. I will listen closely regardless, but the easier you make it to follow along, the easier it will be to figure out your contentions.

Things I want to avoid:

Some things I wish to avoid are spreading, aggression of any form, and all types of disrespect to anyone.

For spreading, if I can't write down what you said due to how fast you spoke, I will not be able to use it to the same degree of if I was able to write it down.

For aggression, just use common sense and know when you are being rude or overly pushy. I love seeing passionate debates, but there is a point when it gets aggressive and uncomfortable.

Lastly, please do not disrespect your opponents in any way. While it will not affect who won the round (unless it does become overtly negative), please avoid any sort of action that can be perceived as disrespectful. This includes laughing at speakers for any reason. Again, my decision will not be affected by it in most cases, but be aware that I will mark down significant speaker points for it.

General things that win my vote:

Be willing to concede points of contention if it means you can focus on more impactful portions of the debate. While small wins are important and add up, if you can show me that you win the debate off of something that is bigger than the other points combined, you probably have won the round. I look for quality over quantity. Having more contentions or small victories does not mean you have won the round. Focus on points that are significantly impactful within the topic.

Show me you won! Summary should be used to reinforce your own ideas and expose weaknesses in the opponents' contentions that were uncovered during crossfire and anything leading up to it. I will not make connections for you unless you state why I should care about things that were brought up. In a similar fashion, Final Focus should be used to show me why you won. Give me the big picture and leave me without a doubt that my vote should go towards you. I consider these two speeches to be the most vital parts of the debate when making my decision. As a side note, do not bring up new information in final focus. I will not include it in my decision making and it will not have any affect.

Final notes:

I will give out speaker points in a fair and equitable manner. Points will be based on the above things mentioned and how you compare to the other speakers during that round.

I am here to help you have a fun and constructive time so please feel free to ask me questions about anything related to me or my paradigms before the round begins.

Best of luck everyone!

Hello, I am a lay judge. I've judged several PF tournaments before and late out-rounds, so I'm not totally new, but please treat me like you would treat your average lay.

Before the round starts, make sure I am 100% clear about who is who and their position.

For extemp, please restate what the topic is before the speech. Also I do not know speech times and I'll probably be looking at a screenshot of the format on my phone so I would really appreciate it if you guys timed yourselves.

I learned how to flow less than 48 hours ago so if you see me "flowing", expect it to be bad.

Please SPEAK SLOW and DO NOT USE DEBATE JARGON, as I will most likely not understand it. I don't vote on perceptual dominance or anything but if you talk slower and clearly, I'll be able to understand what you're saying. If I don't understand you then I won't vote for you.

If you dump 50 responses I will remember none. I would prefer if you could just overexplain a couple points and make them really clear to me.

Do not make this an evidence debate. at that point I will have no idea who won and who lost because I don't know how to call for evidence.

Tell me which arguments you are addressing (signpost) and make the back half of the round as clear as possible for me. As a matter of fact, just make everything as clear as possible to me.

Interact with your opponent's responses instead of restating your evidence. Despite my limited abilities as a judge, I am still able to tell when you are just saying the same thing over and over again.

Be kind to each other and have fun.

About my written RFDs: I apologize in advance, they are not going to be great and by that I mean I will probably write something along the lines of "I voted for the team that gave the better arguments". i don't disclose

I am currently a Policy Debater at Gonzaga University and am in my junior year

TLDR

Yes email chain - tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Time yourself and time your opponents

I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable

Impact calc wins rounds

speed is fine but outside of policy it's cringe

Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)

I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent

T

I tend to look at T stuff through a lens that is sympathetic to the neg

That said I think a lot of counter interps are pretty limiting and unconvincing/self serving

I am a big fan of going heavy on T against affs that are aggressively untopical regardless of their big scary 2ac blocks

FW

Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool

Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool

I lean neg on framework. That said if a K aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively

Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity

Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework

K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good

Theory

Theory is good.

If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument

If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate

I tend to lean aff on condo stuff but not by much

Will vote on perf con

Dont read your theory args at 2 million wpm

Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in

K

Kritiks are cool - big fan of going for the K

Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case D I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)

Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesn tmake it better - these are different things

I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)

CP

CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.

2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit

DA

DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic

UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading

Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy

PF

I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.

Will vote on theory

Cool with K stuff

LD

Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!

Feel free to email me with any questions tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Debate how you want to debate, and I will evaluate your arguments to the best of my ability.

important: have fun. yay.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and explain all your arguments. If you use any abbreviations or acronyms specific to the topic please explain them.

I do not like when people mischaracterize their evidence. If the opponent realizes this - then tell me and I would seriously consider for it as an ethical violation.

Speaker points:

26 - below average

27 - average

28 - better than average

29 - get into elimination rounds

30 - one of the best debaters at the tournament.

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. Please speak at slower pace and articulate clearly.

1. MOST IMPORTANT THING:

Speak concisely. I will not flow your case or information if I cannot understand it. Additionally, teams that spread or speak too fast will automatically not be eligible for a high speaker score. If you want to win or get good speaks, make sure you speech in a way that allows me to actually hear your information.

2.

I will not flow anything that isn't extended into summary for voting. If you want me to consider it, make sure you talk about it in summary. Additionally, I will allow first summary to have some frontline if it's short (under a minute) and generally is not completely new information for fairness.

3.

I would recommend that you think about what you want to focus on in final focus. FF is not summary part 2 it is intended for debaters to focus on things that really matter. If you do decide to use FF as summary part 2 it won't really hurt your speaker score or your debate flows in any real way but remember that all of the cracked teams collapse.