I'm a parent lay judge. It is extremely important to me that you not be offensive.

Signpost & be clear.

As I am navigating this journey with you please no spreading - If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25 speaks. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

Weigh, weigh, weigh! I appreciate more implications to your weighing than just numbers.

Good luck!

I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

I flow arguments. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. I prize the ability to think on one's feet and deliver a cogent response. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

Aside from making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory or K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

hi debaters!

Email: eha2123@columbia.edu

General: Please be KIND!

I didn't do high school debate but I've done a lot of college APDA.

Here are just some guidelines to win my ballot:

1. If you can explain your point very well, I will vote on it. The explanation matters more than the argument content o as long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2-Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument. If anything it will hurt your case! Please be considerate.

3. ALWAYS Weigh between arguments. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds. ( literally, tell me exactly why I should vote for you)!

Remember to have fun!!! We are all here to grow, argue, and learn. I know debate could be extremely stressful but try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! Also, be generous to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive.

If you have any other questions, let me know.

Hello, I am a new judge. Try not to talk too fast, thank you.

In public forum debate, i will prioritize the student's cappability in creating further analysis in regards to the fact and material that they deliver to the speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know step by step process as how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttal and responses are better to not one liner and have deeper reason. I expect a debate where student can cite factual and scientific resources such as journal or papers.

I appreciate when contentions are clearly laid out. Debaters are encouraged to speak with clarity and at a steady pace. Respect for one another during the duration of the debate is also valued.

I'm a parent judge. Please do not spread or use excessive debate jargon. Speak slowly, focusing on clarity and quality of argument over quantity. Keep your delivery organized and oriented toward a first-time listener.

Support assertions with evidence, providing context or relevance as necessary. Beyond making your case, please respond directly to your opponent's arguments. Highlight areas of contrast and points you believe to be particularly favorable to your cause. Passionate engagement is fine, but please take care to be civil and respectful.

Present a clear summation of key points made (and not made), and why your side should prevail.

Finally, I'm not interested in Theory arguments.

Thank you.

Hi! - My name is Davey Biviano and I do PF for Regis. If you have any questions please let me know before the round and I will 100% happily answer them.

My thoughts:

- i'm chill with speed but don't be crazy

- nothing except case is sticky - you don’t have to extend a ton of case just say extend this c1 super quick linkchain and please read the impact

- no new offense in 2nd sum.

- 2nd reb. must frontline

- COLLAPSE

- weigh please - if I get little/no weighing i default to magnitude b/c probability has to be implicated to make sense

- i vote off of the flow

- if you’re funny or clever or make a really intelligent response you will get very high speaks

- PLEASE implicate responses

- be nice! have fun!

PROG. (THEORY, ETC.) MAKES ME SAD

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for 4 years, NDT and CEDA octofinalist, and 2021 CEDA Top Speaker. Started by doing traditional policy args, moved to Kritical things, and ended as a performance debater with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). started debate in college as a novice and worked my way to Varsity so I do have a pretty good understanding of each division. Also, I'm a black woman if that wasn't obvious or you didn't know lol

I’m here for the petty and I stay for the petty I will vote on the petty but there is a difference between petty and mean I won't vote on mean it makes me very uncomfortable

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is first and foremost a game, but it’s full of real people and real consequences so we should keep that in mind as we play even though it’s a game that definitely has real-life implications for a lot of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate and yes they are about the debate so I would pay attention to it my face will often let you know when I vibing and when I’m confused

Speaker points: --- totally subjective I try and start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person’s performance in a debate ---- in the debate, it becomes a trend to ask for higher speaks which is fine but if your gonna do that you best not suck or I will automatically give you a 28.3, also I feel like you need a justification for asking for those speaks outside of a speaker award --- I try to be nice and fair here

Speed: Don’t risk clarity over speed I’m not straining my ear to make sense of mus

Dont go far when the debate is over I tend to know my decision when the debate ends

If you are gonna email questions later pls let me know so I can keep my flows I often throw them away I wanna be to help but its hard for me to answer your questions after the fact if I don't have my flows

K's:

Debated a lot of K's, read a lot of K’s as a debater I don’t know every K in existence but with a thorough explanation and well execution, I will probably be fine.

I have a larger threshold for the K because I expect you to explain the linked story and the alternative with warrants so don't assume that just because I know the theory means you don't have to put in the work for the ballot. Links should be contextualized to the aff - please don't restate your tags and author but pull lines from 1ac/2ac. I would also warn against just running a K because you think I'm only a K debater (it’s obvious and annoys me just do what you do best)

I like performative links, not personal attacks. With performative links, just make sure to give a warranted analysis as to why I should vote on it and what the impact is.

K aff's:

Love them is one of my favorite parts of the debate I enjoy the creativity of these!! I do prefer K aff's to be in the direction of the topic or make some attempt to include a discussion of the resolution, but if you are not, then at least give me a warranted explanation as to why you have chosen that route. Those that are on the topic of the resolution, have a clear impact and solvency story. Many times, debaters will get so caught up in the negative arguments that they lose sight of what is important...their aff! So, make sure to keep a storyline going throughout the entirety of the debate.

When you get into FWK/T debates, extend and explain your counter-interpretation. What is your model and why is it good? That plus impact turns = an easy ballot from me.

I think a lot of K teams assume reading your aff is good in debate is gonna do something very big on K aff’s having a reason on why their aff in the debate is good.

FWK/T:

It's a strategy that is read against K aff's, it's a strategy tbh I enjoy and am more sympathetic to than most would think. My personal outlook - debate is a game but it has real impacts that can help or harm certain individuals. While it is a competitive strategy, I do not think it is an excuse to not engage the affirmative because most of the time, your lack of engagement is what the aff will use to link turn the performance of reading fwk.

PSA - fairness is not an impact... at best, it’s an internal link. Unless the aff has no justification for their aff, then you got a good chance of getting my ballot by reading fairness. I find it most compelling when you prove in round abuse.

I think a TVA is a must. No, it does not need to solve the entirety of the aff because that is neg ground, but it should be able to solve the main impacts they go for. Lastly, defend your model of debate and explain why it would be better for the debate community writ large. If you are only focusing on one round, then explain why that is better.

Das/ CPs:

Lmao these are things that exist in debate too…

Das I would say make sure you have a clear and warranted link story and awesome impact calc.

And CP’s I’m open to all CPs kinda think of CPs in the context of having a net benefit and how does the CP solve the aff? It's also nice if your CP is competitive...

Theory:

I think theory is procedural make sure you explain very clearly and slowly what the violation is and why that matters...if you are going to go for theory, I expect the 2n or 2a to spend a good amount of time on it which means not just 30 sec or 1 min.

Policy Affs v K:

Engage the K!Too many times policy teams just write over the K with their fwk thinking that is the only work they have to do but it's just like debating a DA or CP. Do the link work and the more specific answers you have to the alt, the better position you are in. Don't just say Perm DB or Perm aff then alt, but really explain what that means and looks like in the world of the aff. I think you do need fwk to get to weigh your aff but that is all the fwk will get you which means don't forget to extend your aff and the impact story. A really good way to engage the K is to prove how the plan not only outweighs but resolves the specific impacts.

How to get better speaker points with me

Be nice, be funny, be personable

Organized docs and speeches

Mention Scandal/Olivia Pope whom I love in your speech I will bump your speaks like .4

Ohhh and for the black folks ask for speaker points and ye shall receive lol I might not be able to always give you the ballot, but I can give you a 30

A 2NR/2AR with judge instruction is literally the freakin best thing ever

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

I am in my first year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I guess I did some PF

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

Leland High school 2021

Cornell college '25

Debated for 4 years for Leland, did ok. Mostly under the code "Leland FS" for those who want to stalk

Paradigm Stolen from Karsen Wahal:

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

Please time yourselves.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

Hi, my name is Leo and I’m a junior at Brown University. I did PF for four years in high school and have been doing APDA for 2 years in college.

Weighing is #1, if you don’t weigh (well) it will be hard for you to win the round. However, don’t just say “this argument outweighs on magnitude,” explain why it specifically outweighs your opponent’s ballots.

Warrants are also very important, if there are two conflicting pieces of evidence I will decide based on warrants.

Be nice to each other, if you’re rude you will lose speaker points.

I don’t have much experience with theory but you can still run it, just explain what you are doing clearly.

Hello!

My name is Krishma and I am current a freshman debater and I have experience judging parli (college and high school) and very little experience judging PF and LD. In my brief PF and LD judging experience, one thing I encountered a lot was spreading. PLEASE, I encourage you to not spread in rounds I am judging. I prefer quality>quantity (and I really cannot decipher words when debaters speak that fast).

Any unethical content (racism, homophobia, etc.) results in automatic loss and low speaks. It is important to be respectful in rounds and I will be upholding this strictly.

Also I am not familiar with tech words. So unless I can infer what you are talking ab in rounds, I would not waste time using very particular debate jargon.

I'm an electrical engineer and currently am Global Director of Safety Services at Schneider Electric

Email: sfarshadh@gmail.com

General:

1. I'm a lay judge (considering the evidence in each debate in a reasonable and common sense manner to reach a decision )

2. Don't be offensive. Respect your opponent.

3. Signpost & be clear.

4. No spreading - If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge.

Remember - Speech & Debate is about having fun!

Good luck!

Hi! I'm a sophomore at Yale. I was a 4-year high school PFer who also judged novice and JV frequently (probably more than I debated).

I flow thoroughly, and what I've got down for summary and FF almost exclusively determines the content of my ballot. So, please, extend your claims, warrants, IMPACTS, and most crucial cards if you want them counted, and don't drop your opponent's responses.

Also, if you're going to spread, just make sure that your opponents can handle the speed you're going at.

I will read evidence if it is crucial to the round, incredibly dubious, or if a team asks me to.

Nothing peeves me more than condescension and rudeness. Other than this, I have no esoteric preferences, but feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Thanks!

I am a flow parent/lay judge who prefers clarity over speed.

Please avoid spreading so that I do not miss an argument or response.

I appreciate respectful disagreement and appreciate when you are being directly comparative with your opponent's arguments to demonstrate how you are winning the round.

Keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible.

I expect the debaters to present evidence in their arguments and will only look at it if there is a conflict.

I am not particularly supportive of theory arguments and would prefer you stick to the topic at hand.

Although an experienced PF judge, I am also an LD judge.

I can best understand arguments when people speak slowly and clearly.

Hello! My name's Kai-Shan Kwek-Rupp, and I'm a debater with Regis High School. I've been debating for four years.

My philosophy of public forum debate is as follows:

1. Let's dissect the word "Public Forum":

- Forum: The word "forum" refers to a public meeting space for individuals to congregate with one another. In the modern day, it refers more loosely to a meeting place of people online.

- Public: PF should be a form of debate accessible to everyone. There are two major implications of this concept. First, PF should be understandable to anyone you pass by on the street. Second, your goal is not to produce the most technically "perfect" speech or case, but to polish your rhetoric and be convincing to the judge!

Therefore, speaking extremely quickly, while it may be impressive, does not actually reflect rhetorical or articulative skill on the part of the debater. Similarly, you should not run any arguments that wouldn't be intuitive to my 78-year-old grandfather.

2. Argumentation:

- A debate is won on the basis of who proves that their impacts are the most important in the round. Thus, weighing is of utmost important, particularly in the back half of the round. Weigh early and frequently!

- That being said, if you do not successfully defend your argument in the rebuttal and summary, you don't have access to your impacts.

- I want to see clash in the round. Interacting with your opponents' arguments is of the essence of debate. If you only discuss your own arguments, I'm going to have a tough time voting for you.

- Generally, I like to see teams collapse on a single argument. Choose the argument that is most important to the round, and focus on just that argument and its specifics.

3. Courtesy:

- Be! Kind! I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other type of discrimination. Ad hominem is also frowned upon.

- Crossfire is a time for clarification, not for attacking you opponent or their case. You can do that in a speech!

Most of all, have fun! Debate is a learning experience, and your goal should be to sharpen your skills rather than just win. Good luck!

+2 speaks for a (recognizable) Borat reference

Please speak coherently. I will be looking for the most significant arguments and then logical responses. I look for good and thoughtful delivery.

Parent Judge

For virtual tournaments:
> Please remember to check and verify your video and audio connections and feeds with all participants and judges before you begin.

>BE ON TIME.

Hello,

I am a lay judge. My professional background is in theater, but I have many a passing fancy in a myriad of political topics, local, domestic, and international.

What I look for:
-Know your audience. As a lay-judge, you can assume I know nothing about the topic on which you're speaking. So, familiarize me, catch me up, inform me, but please address the arguments and your opponents.
-Flow: I will be listening intently to catch that you are attacking the arguments made while staying on track with your own points and stance.
-Style: Are you speaking confidently? with conviction? Are you speaking like you're knowledgeable with the topic? Are you omitting conversational fillers, such as "likes," "uh's," and "um's"
Are you speaking with your hands? Are they distracting instead of emphasizing?
Are you speaking with any camp in your voice? Or upspeak? Consider how that can color your delivery or distract from your message.

*Spreading: don't do it. Your audience needs to be able to follow your arguments and clearly understand you, that can be difficult when they're being talked at instead of talked to like a person.

*Concise: If you can be one thing, be efficient.

Good Morning. I am a parent Judge and have judged only few times. Make sure your arguments are clear so that I can understand and judge accurately. I prefer if you don't spread. All the best.

Parent judge. Please speak clearly. Don't spread.

Prefer well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning, crossfire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Truth>Tech

Arguments need to be extended effectively. Prioritize, and weigh.

Clarity, Evidence, and Courtesy go a long way.

Good luck!

• Some Ground Rules
• Please do not speak quickly. It is important that your points are clearly heard
• Signposting is great. Meaning logically explain your points with clarity. Give points and verbally say "here are my subpoints"..... indicate things...ex: "Subpoint 1 "....."important because...."
• If new points are brought up toward the end of argument (which is not allowed)....and if it is contested.... make sure you are able to point it out in your flow of arguments if you believe the point is NOT a novel argument.

Other than that, good luck to all!! :)

I'm a junior at Regis, and this is my 3rd year debating pf. That means I've probably prepped the topic and have a good understanding of the stock args, especially later in the topic.

I'll definitely flow the round and will use my flow to decide the round. I prefer arguments that are at least somewhat true, but I won't use my personal knowledge/opinions to discredit an argument you're winning in round. I will notice if your breaking debate rules and this will disadvantage you, but it's not enough to automatically lose the round. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal, no new responses in 2nd summary or later, and don't tell me in ff that your opponent dropped an argument that they did deal with.

I care about evidence, but don't spend the whole round debating a single card. If there's evidence clash, I prefer the side that better logically warrants their argument, not the side that just evidence dumps. I will also consider uncarded logical arguments, but they're weak against similarly strong logic + evidence. If I feel a card has become critical to the round (or if I'm just curious) I may call for cards at the end of the round, so don't lie about evidence.

Speed is relatively fine — I'm definitely okay with a 900 word case, but don't go above 1000 and don't excessively spread. Especially if you are going to speak fast, signpost or else I won't be able to flow what you're saying.

Try to be respectful, but I get that cross can become heated and that's fine. I'll pay attention in cross but won't flow, so bring up any important points in later speeches.

Don't run progressive arguments, especially at lower levels — you will almost certainly lose the round, and I will drop you if you run them at a team that obviously doesn't know how to deal with them. Debate the substance of the resolution.

I have experience judging PF, LD, and Speech at national-level tournaments. For PF: I am open to a wide variety of approaches to a topic and try not to intervene in a round unless absolutely necessary. Generally, I encourage debaters to consider quality over quantity, making links between evidence, contentions, and impacts as clear as possible, and to avoid speaking at super-human speed. It is also helpful when debaters consider framework and make a case for what voting issues should be in a round and how the arguments should be weighed. Please be mindful of not speaking over one another during CF.

I did some debate in high school and now judge and debate APDA in college. Please be respectful in rounds. I prefer that you do not spread. I like clear signposting and lots of weighing to make my job easier. Have a great round!

I'm new to judging Public Forum, having judged Speech for the last four years.

I ask that you speak slowly and clearly. Present arguments/points of view that address your position, supported by an adequate amount of evidentiary citations. Please try to be concise and to the point.

Please avoid a rapid delivery of arguments followed by a lot of citations which will make it difficult for me to follow and understand you. You can be firm and forceful in your positions, but not aggressive in your demeanor.

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

I'm new to judging PF and have experience judging one APDA tournament.

I appreciate speakers being respectful towards one another and speak clearly and slowly. Please support your arguments with evidence and evaluate their impacts.

Good luck!