Speech:

Debate:

I have some competitive experience in lay debate, though not much. I'm the judge you'll definitely complain about if you're a tech-heavy debater. Spreading is definitely a no-go. I won't vote entirely on fluency because that's not how debate works, but if you're talking so fast I can't understand your case, I won't be able to tell if you're making better arguments. If it's possible, cut the debate jargon down as much as you can and focus on the meat of the argument. I will flow, so again, speak slowly so I have time to follow along and write.

Congress:

I competed in extemp for 6 years (3 in high school, 3 in college) along with doing Congress and some PF in HS and have since coached pretty much every speech event and world schools debate for the past 2 years. For reference, I'm a school-affiliated judge but work at a government contracting company doing work for the Marine Corps, so be warned that national security is my niche area of expertise.

WORLDS: I specifically look for students who use this style of debate to persuade (read: talk at a normal pace. Worlds was created to counter the trend of debates turning technical, and I'm going to try and uphold that as best I can).

PF: I look for logical consistency of arguments and general plausibility. Do not run Ks or anything else wild with me. I will not be persuaded by arguments like "because we use the word 'the' that means the world will end in nuclear war so vote pro" which I have seen run. Also, I can handle speed so long as you work up to it but I tend to deduct a few tenths of a speaker point for excessive speed since PF was never designed to be a technical debate event and I feel like that's going against the event standard as written by the NSDA. But if you want to spread then I will not automatically preclude you from winning the round and I will be perfectly capable of following along.

BOTH: Show me you care about your arguments, and show me why I should vote for you. I see plenty of debates where there's clash, but tell me why your side comes out on top at the end of the day. If both sides have the same position some clash will get declared a wash, and there's never a wash in debate because one side always does a better job fulfilling the value or criterion or impact better than the other side. Just saying you're winning an argument does not make it true, show me why you're winning and trace the progress of that clash for me. I do flow, but I'm not a fan of teams saying "extend contention ___" and then providing no reason why I should do that. Again, tell me why the opponent's response or lack thereof is sufficient to warrant extending something.

Other than that, have fun! I definitely notice when students are enjoying themselves and tend to give an extra style point (or speaker points in speech and PF) or two for that.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

hi, its Shannon Ehrmann's debater writing this paradigm to make it easier for people to pref

Quick prefs:

1 - Larp

Strike/Pref Low - Everything else

understands larp, probably best if you go slow i.e. lay

can definitely understand if you go quicker i.e. spread, just slow down on the taglines, when switching flows, and pls pls add analytics on the email chain if you can

but overall just go slow - thats your best bet to get the ballot

make logical arguments, extend warrants clearly, truth ov tech,

email chain: shannon.ehrmann@apsb.org

Good luck!

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

My name's Adelle, I debated policy for NYU in novice, jv and open divisions running mostly performance and k args. I was a speech kid in high school, so when I came to college I decided to see how the other half lives.

Preferences: I don't love voting on existential scenarios. Your framework should check throughout your arguments, I think perfcon is a voter. If you run theory don't just rattle off your blocks, contextualize. When extending ev, don't just read, engage: dates, author credentials, sources are all meaningful and can help immensely in a close round.

Speaker Points: Fluency and engaging speaking style are key here. I appreciate personality! You can spread, but be mindful about your enunciation and speed - I should still be able to understand every word you are saying.

PF/LD: Don't be shifty with evidence, have sources downloaded before the round and ready to share if prompted.

Above all, be respectful. Debate is a game but in round we still implicate ourselves in the rhetoric we use and the arguments we make.

My email is adelle.fernando@gmail.com if you would like to include me in the email chain or if you have any questions.

PF
Public forum debate is for the PUBLIC. So I expect debate that is accessible and inclusive to all audiences. 

The speaking rate can be moderate to moderately fast; however, I don’t think you serve yourself well or the community going any quicker than that. 

All arguments must be made by summary, or I will not be able to evaluate them in the final focus.

I prefer debate to be polite. Be nice to all competitors. Using offensive language of any kind, including but not limited to racist/sexist/ableist, will result in low speaker points and an automatic loss.

I judge arguments based on the order they are presented. I will go from top to bottom of the flow at the end of the round to make my decision. Please address the speeches that came before in the round, and make sure you are responding to the other team. 

Evidence is significant to me. I want you to include the author/organization and date. Feel free to email me and competitors to start a chain. 

Ultimately, have fun. Keep it entertaining. And keep it debate!

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

General Judging Philosophy

• Speed: I'm usually okay with speed, so I'm okay with you spreading, but you need to articulate. I will yell, "Clear!" as necessary, but not repeatedly.
• Flowing: I have no problem with this, but it would be helpful if you emphasized your tag lines so that I can clearly delineate your arguments. Also, it helps if you pause between the end of your card and the beginning of your own analysis so that I know where your source's words end and yours begin.
• Topicality: I will accept topicality arguments only if there's (1) clear abuse established and (2) it's presented as a clear RFD in the 2NR in Policy or the NR in LD.
• Kritiks: I hate kritiks. Please don't run them.
• Research Burden: I despise the argument that, because it's hard to do research, you shouldn't be expected to be prepared on the AFF case. It's a waste of my time and your opponent's. You will lose if you seriously push this argument.
• Rebuttals: The 2NR and 2AR in Policy, the NR and 2AR in LD, and the Final Focuses in PF need to have clearly delineated voting issues.
• Off-Case/Disadvantages: These are fine only if they are presented clearly and are related directly to the topic and/or AFF case; I will not necessarily accept them as prima facie voters.
• Jargon: Shouldn't be an issue, but it might behoove you to lay our your argument with as little as possible.
• Cross-Ex/Crossfire: Please use cross-examination time to set yourself up for arguments in future speeches, and not to make stump speeches of your own. Please also avoid using prep time before cross-examination. I will not penalize you for failing to do these things, but you will make me much happier if you do.

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy

• Criteria: Stock issues. The AFF needs to identify: (1) inherency, or, that a problem exists in the status quo; (2) significance, or, that the problem inherent in the status quo warrants action by the United States federal government; (3) solvency, or, that the proposed plan solves the significantly inherent problem; and, (4) desirability, or, that the proposed plan is the most desirable means of solving the significantly inherent problem. The NEG may attack any and/or all of these, but need only win one in order to win the round.

L-D Judging Philosophy

• Criteria: Framework. The AFF needs to define key terms in the resolution and have a clearly established, well-warranted framework, with contentions that advance that framework, in order to win. If the AFF shows that its framework best encapsulates the issues implicated by the resolution - more so than the NEG's counter-value - then the AFF wins the debate.

PF Judging Philosophy

I was around when Public Forum was first invented, and perhaps it is for that reason that I consider myself an "old school" PF judge. I don't even feel like I should have to spell out a PF judging philosophy.

I frown on the use of a Policy/LD style framework in PF cases. Ultimately, my PF judging philosophy is similar to the question that the NFL proposes that judges use in evaluating PF rounds: "If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?" Historically, I have found that the answer to that question typically rests on one argument that is primarily contested throughout the debate.

Basically, treat the round as PF was intended: communicate your arguments in a manner persuasive to the non-specialist or "citizen judge," i.e. a member of an American jury. If you think that you could persuade a lay judge with your case, then you'll persuade me.

Student Congress Judging Philosophy

Again, this is an event for which I don't feel as though a judging philosophy should be necessary. This is a mixed speech and debate event, and I therefore place equal emphasis on the speech and debate portions of the event.

In terms of the speech aspects, I am looking for, e.g., eye contact, facial expressions, body language, variation of tone and pitch - really, all of the hallmarks of a good orator.

For the debate aspects, I understand the purpose and nature of constructive, refutation/rebuttal, extension, and crystallization speeches, and expect you to fulfill your intended purpose(s). As noted in my "General" comments above, speakers best use their questioning time to set themselves up for a future speech, and not to make stump speeches or score points of their own.

For presiding officers, I truly appreciate how difficult this role is, so an able performance is guaranteed a spot on my rankings. In determining where on my ballot, I measure the P.O.'s value in the round against the contribution of the speaker to the round; if the P.O.'s value outweighs that of the given speaker, then I rank the P.O. higher than that speaker.

Basically, there's nothing here that you should surprise you if you read other judges' Student Congress paradigms. If you know how this event is supposed to work, and conduct yourself accordingly, then I'm sure you'll be fine as far as I'm concerned.

About Me

_____Professional Experience_____

• Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York, New York
  Principal Appellate Court Attorney, November 2021 - Present
  Senior Appellate Court Attorney, May 2018 - November 2021
• Hausman & Pendzick, Harrison, New York
  Associate, February 2015 - May 2018
  Law Clerk, December 2014 - February 2015

_____Education_____

• Juris Doctor, 2014, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, New York
  Concentrations in Constitutional Law & Rights, General Litigation, and Criminal Law & Procedure
• Bachelor of Arts cum laude, 2011 Florida Atlantic University, Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, Jupiter, Florida
  Concentrations in Law & Society and Spanish
• High School & International Baccalaureate Diplomas, Eastside High School, Gainesville, Florida

_____Debate Background_____

__________Professionally__________

• Professional Speech & Debate Association (Professional Division)
• Prepared Debate - First Place (Season 3, Qualifier 1)
• Spontaneous Debate - Fourth Place (Season 3, Qualifier 1), Third Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1 and 3; Season 2, Qualifier 3), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 2 and 5, and Championship; Season 2, Qualifier 1 and 4), and First Place (Season 1, Qualifier 4; Season 2, Qualifier 2 and 5, and Championship)
• Prepared Speech - Third Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1 and 2, and Championship; Season 2, Championship), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 3, 4, and 5), and First Place (Season 2, Qualifier 2, 3, 4, and 5)
• Spontaneous Speech - Third Place (Season 1, Championship; Season 3, Qualifier 1), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; Season 2, Qualifier 3), and First Place (Season 2, Qualifier 1, 4 and 5, and Championship)
• Prepared Acting - Third Place (Season 1, Qualifier 4, and Championship; Season 2, Qualifier 1), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifier 3; Season 2, Qualifier 2, and Championship) and First Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 2 and 5)
• Toastmasters International - District 46
• Goodwill Toastmasters Club (Rotary-Toastmasters Alliance) (member since March 1, 2022; Vice President Education, July 2022 - June 2023): Presentation Mastery Level 3
• La Voz Latina Toastmasters Club (Bilingual English/Spanish Club) (member since July 1, 2022)
• Advanced Debaters Toastmasters Club (advanced Toastmasters Club, specializing in debate) (member since July 1, 2022)

__________Law School__________

• Competitions Editor (2013-2014), Moot Court Honor Society (2012-2014), Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, New York

_______________Moot Court_______________

• Quarterfinalist and Second Place Brief, Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York, March 2014
• Second Place, Appellate Lawyers Association National Moot Court Competition, Chicago, Illinois, November 2013
• Second Place and Second Place Oralist, Appellate Lawyers Association National Moot Court Competition, Chicago, Illinois, November 2012

__________College__________

• Founder and President (2007-2011), Debate Team, Florida Atlantic University, Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, Jupiter, Florida

_______________Parliamentary Debate_______________

• Semifinalist and Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, February 2011
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, January 2011
• Champion and 5th Place Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2010
• Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida, February 2010
• Semifinalist and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, January 2010
• State Champion and State Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, Florida, February 2009
• Octafinalist and National Champion Speaker, Novice National Championship, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, March 2008
• Runner-Up and Runner-Up Speaker, DSR-TKA National Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, March 2008
• Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, February 2008
• Runner-Up Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2007

_______________NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate (not the same as high school L-D!)_______________

• Champion and Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, February 2011
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2010
• Champion, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida, February 2010
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, Florida February 2009

__________High School__________

• Captain (2006-2007), Webmaster (2005-2007), PowerPoint Producer (2004-2006), Forensics (Speech & Debate) Team, Eastside High School, Gainesville, Florida

_______________Student Congress (selected)_______________

• Finalist, National Catholic Forensic League Grand National Championship, Houston, Texas, May 2007
• Fifth Place, Florida Forensic League Varsity State Championship, Niceville High School, Niceville, Florida, March 2007
• Second Place, Crestian Classic, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, January 2007
• Seventh Place and Best Preliminary Presiding Officer, Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, October 2006
• Fourth Place, Winter Springs Invitational, Winter Springs, Florida, September 2006
• Semifinalist, Florida Forensic League Varsity State Championship, Western High School, Davie, Florida, March 2006

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a matter that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.

3. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.

4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.

6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.

7. Please do not run a topical case. Please speak to the resolution.

Be kind, rewind.

Flow judge- arguments, contentions, delivery

Speed - normal/ slightly fast

Show me how well you know this topic

I competed in Extemp, Info/Oratory, and Congress in high school.

During a Congress round, I focus on structure of argument, presence in the round, and style of presentation.

I prefer a clearly laid out argument, separated into points, starting with tags, and using reputable sources to back your claims. If the chamber can't follow the links of your argument, I can't give your speech a high rank and your fellow members will probably call you out in questioning.

I do also pay attention to your presence in the round. This doesn't mean I flat out prefer people who ask the most questions. I do prefer those who demonstrate, during the questioning period or crystallization speeches, that they are actively listening and finding the flaws or nuances of the chamber's arguments. If you give one of the first few speeches, I expect you to set up the debate for that bill. Speeches after that should really not repeat arguments, unless they are clashing or adding significant info, as this makes the round no fun for everyone. Know your parli pro if you're going to use it!

Finally, I look at the way you deliver your speech. This doesn't mean you have to stand up and do interp, but I do think you should play the part of a congressperson. I like to put it this way: Would this be a speech you'd see on CSPAN or was it closer to a slowed down recitation of a PF case? You should speak more formal than conversational, and at a reasonable face, while in session.

I have judged in several regional and national tournaments. I would love to see good constructive arguments to advance the debate with clear evidence and compelling impacts. Be respectful in the chamber and have healthy competition. I will drop you for any rude and snarky comments. Have fun!

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

My paradigm for judging is fairly straightforward. First and foremost, I am looking for clarity and accessibility in an argument. In other words, I much rather here a debater more deeply develop their own argument in more detail rather than throw out obscure evidence or sources in order to make themselves look more knowledgeable about a subject than they actually are. In my experience, resorting to such tactics is too frequently for the sake of manipulating appearances rather than pursuing the truth in their topic. Therefore, it should be no surprise that I highly value a debater's ability to respond directly and impactfully to the argument posed by their opposition. I generally view a reluctance to do so as concession.

I have been a coach and judge since 2008. I have judged at numerous circuit tournaments. While my strengths are on the speech side, I have been judging LD and PF since 2008, and am familiar with both traditional and contemporary formatting of cases. Basically, I want to hear concrete, logically connected arguments, with solid warrants. I do my best to come into round tabula rasa, and do not consider either side "burdened" with a particular case that they need to make. I have no issues with speed, as long as I can flow; if I cannot flow your arguments, you cannot win, simple as that.

Tim Lynch is currently serving his sixth year as the Assistant Speech Coach of the Summit High School Forensics Team in New Jersey. As a competitor, Tim was a three-time National Qualifier as well as an Award of Excellence and Rising Star Award Winner. As an educator and professional actor, Tim has established a proven track record of coaching students to the national final stage.

tl;dr: I coach speech primarily and when needed, I judge debate; I don't mind speed and tech, but I should be able to follow the argument without reading along. Evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

You can share cases with me, please go ahead. I may not read the case along with you as you present it, but will use it as a reference.

I am also inviting you and your coach (please, obtain their permission first) to email me for anything you need. I would be happy to clarify my RFD, to answer any questions about my paradigm, or even if you feel unsafe in a round, I will do everything in my power to help you.

On to the good stuff:

________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? One that is clear. "I have a card" is not clear, nor is it persuasive. Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence!

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! I am not anti-speed, but speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. Speed for argument depth is great, but I recommend signaling or slowing down to make the tags and theories clear so I can write them down. I am not a silent judge. I will say something in between speeches if I cannot understand you, but if I cannot write down your argument in the flow, then guess what? The other person wins because I could hear them. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Traditional or Progressive? I'll be honest, I have leaned towards more traditional when it comes to LD in the past, but the past few years I have become more inclined to some fun progressive debates. I do believe that LD at its core is a value debate. If you are going to run a progressive case, be sure it still fits the idea of a value debate on THIS resolution, not the one you wish NSDA voted for, but THIS resolution.

5. To K or Not to K? Why not? Challenge the system, make the debate interesting and captivating, BUT also remember what I said in number 4. This is a value debate and should ultimately be about the resolution at hand. If you want to run a K about how your opponent's shoes are unlaced; therefore, they are unprofessional, I really think you could do better.

6. Finally, be kind. The worse thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off and while it will not affect what I vote on, it will affect how much attention I can give you.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.

Individual Events Paradigm:

I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging public forum. Please speak at an understandable pace and remember to have fun!

17+ years as competitor and coach in Texas and New Jersey

Spreading - I am fine with spreading as long as you can be understood. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it's to deliver as much material as possible within the time limit. Articulation and enunciation are key. If you aren't doing vocal warm-ups before the round, you probably aren't ready to spread.

Case sharing - I do not give my email for case sharing. Unless there is something specifically mentioned in the debate that I need to read, my job is not to read your case to understand it. You should deliver your case in a manner that is comprehensible without having to be read. That is the art of debate; this isn't just about reading, it's about presentation.

Sportsmanship - Part of being a good debater includes the time when you are not speaking. Be aware the round starts the minute you enter the room. Carry yourself with professionalism and respect.

I am a parent judge but I have judged PF a few times. Please be slow and take your time in explaining arguments. I do take notes but I don't flow, so it's important you tell me if opponents miss arguments.

I need you to clearly resolve clash and explain your arguments from the resolution to impact in both summary and final focus. I value weighing, practical impacts, and proper attire. A fancy tie will go far. If you don't do that, and I reach the end of the debate still not understanding the argument, and lamenting your choice in neckware, I will not intervene in your favor, and you will lose. You can find me post round for fashion advice.

Updated during Harvard Westlake 2019 because my previous paradigm was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

TLDR because you could be reading a more interesting NYT article or somthng:

· I’m not a former debater.

· I’m not a current debater either, although I am often mistaken for one.

· I’ve been teaching high school English and coaching Speech and Debate at Quarry Lane for the past three years.

· Debate is a safe space. I won’t tolerate anyone that violates this. No exceptions.

· My former student Allen Abbott said it best: Debate is still problematic in many ways. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

· Convince me why I should vote for you and you can win. It’s that simple.

· My email is eshah@quarrylane.org. Start an email chain.

· Extra kudos to those who wear Northwestern merch. Go Wildcats!

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.

Bozho, Rachel ndezhnekas. Bodewadmi ndaw, Shishibeni ndbendagwes. Gkendasgemgek emikchewiyan. Hi, my name is Rachel, I am Citizen band Potawatomi and I work at the CPN department of education.

Pronouns: Ask, if you're curious. Otherwise call me judge or Rachel or Watson. Ask for others' pronouns in-round or default to they/them. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

I've been coaching and competing in LD and policy since 2008. I started in middle school. In college, I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I got my master's from Penn, and I coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain add me: r.erinwatson@gmail.com  (Catholic League tournaments don't usually have chains but DON'T add me if you do. It's against the rules.) 

Email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc. Also feel free to contact me at my day job if you would like to talk about going to college, debating in college, or translating your speech and debate experience into a college application essay!

Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

NFCL top level edit- In LD I do absolutely love trad debate so please don't go full circuit thinking that's how you'll get my ballot. All the big picture points below still apply! 

Brief guide to getting my ballot (if you have 1 minute before round read the bolded on this list):

1. Be kind. Show empathy. Everyone in round is human, we are not debate robots, and it’s alright to bring your personality with you into the room. And this is #1 for a reason, kindness and recognizing our mutual humanity is the most important part of being a member of the debate community.

2. Read arguments and debate in a style that you enjoy. I like judging good rounds, and your round is almost always better if you like your argument and know it well. I have voted for poetry, and I have voted for politics DA.

3. Have a claim, warrant, and impact for every argument. I know 1ARs are hard, but you can be fast and efficient without being blippy. Don't be blippy!

4. Clash. Engagement with the other side's arguments and ideas is the one thing that makes this not a speech event. Not all arguments clash automatically! You must produce it in round.

5. Weigh all the impacts. Compare the impacts on the different sheets of paper and tell me why even if the other team’s argument is 100% true, I should still vote for you. Do this even if you and your opponent have completely different styles (i.e. trad v progressive LD, kritikal or policy based args, etc.). Don’t make me weigh things for you, chances are you won’t like the result. I am like most judges and I vastly prefer rounds where debaters tell me how to evaluate and how to write my RFD.

6. Focus on offense and framing (meaning how I should weigh or evaluate the round, or the debate's BIG question). In my head, there’s almost always a chance that the plan/alt/CP will solve. Terminal defense might be useful, and you probably can win that in front of me, but I’m much more comfortable voting for offense than defense or muddy techy stuff somewhere deep in the line-by-line.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.

Affs:

Run what you know and what you're prepped for. I will vote for almost anything.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

AC UNDERVIEWS/THEORY (LD): Saying you get to have an RVI is not the same thing as having one... If you want one you have to tell me what the threshold is for making something an RVI and why that means I should vote on it, don't just say you get to have one. Sorry policy kids but you don't get an RVI, esp not on T.

Counterplans/Kritiks:

I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a K of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need competition and a net benefit, and k debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

My K experience has mostly been with identity arguments; I know critical race theory- including afropess and set col best. I read and keep up with indigenous scholarship because I am Potawatomi (Citizen band). Yes, I am legally a citizen of this sovereign nation. Yes, I hate authenticity testing. This means I'm probably more willing to listen to speaking for others/commodification/etc. claims about why non-indigenous folks reading set col is bad than other judges might be. That Evans 15 card is probably also true of indigenous lit, sure, but Evans was very specifically speaking about afropessimism and white afropessimists.

Baudrillard, Foucault, Delueze, high theory abstract stuff, aren't my strong suit so develop good, clear, consistent explanations about your K/alt so my ballot can be clean.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions. I try really hard to write long, detailed ballots, because I believe that even with a lengthy RFD after the round having a record is good for debaters and coaches! And also, no judge is perfect. But if you think I'm wrong, DON'T do the postrounding thing with me. Email me when you are back in school if you're still mad on Monday.

This is my 3rd year directing a team. I am primarily a speech coach. I'm looking for clear, persuasive tone.

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I value comprehensive arguments and reasoning as well substantial evidence.

I don't flow cross but I'm very much listening.

I will not insert myself into the round, meaning if I don't buy something but your opponent doesn't bring it up it will not affect you. However, you will see it on my ballot.

I have no problem with framework debate.

Think big, think critically.

Thank you

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.