For LD:

No spreading, please. I am not an experienced debater, but I have judged several LD events. I am familiar with keeping a flow, and will take notes. I tend to favor more offensive arguments (make your points strong) as opposed to defensive arguments (negating your opponents points). You still need both, but I tend to rely more on offensive points. Please be respectful of each other, and best of luck to both sides.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* I did PF for 4 years and am a Poli Sci/Phil major at Youngstown State University

My decision usually takes the path of least resistance. Give me a clear picture of where and why I'm voting for you. If I have to use mental gymnastics to find a reason to sign my ballot in your favor, it's not a good sign.

I prefer a handful of fleshed out, well warranted points /responses, rather than many surface level arguments in all speeches, but especially rebuttal.

I prefer that 2nd rebuttal frontline against 1st rebuttal to help increase clash.

I prefer you weigh your arguments against you opponent's arguments at all levels. Don't just tell me your impact is bigger. Tell me why your link is more probable and unique than your opponents, and then tell me why your impact is more important. This is just a guideline of areas I enjoy seeing debaters weigh, so feel free to make analysis as you see fit, just make sure it's meaningful. However, weighing only on scope and magnitude is boring. I thoroughly enjoy seeing debaters do better than this.

Summary doesn't have to extend defense that wasn't responded to.

I enjoy polite, well paced cx, be aggressive, but not rude.

Spread at your own risk. I'm ok at flowing, but there's no guarantee I get it all down.

I appreciate consistent signposting (if you do want to go fast, this is necessary). Don't just say "on their first contention" and read a bunch of unnumbered responses. Please tell me what part of the argument you're responding to. Telling me that your response is a delink/turn/mitigation etc, allows me to make a note on my flow and makes it less likely that the arg gets lost in the shuffle.

All of these are just preferences. Obviously, I can't make you follow them, but I'll have a hard time voting for you if you don't.

*Optional*

I like it when debaters are clever and make me laugh. Don't be a jerk, but injecting some humor that makes my day a bit better is a good way to stand out. Obviously I won't vote off of it, but it's still nice and I might give you more speaks.

First, speed is not what makes flowing hard, its poor organization. I really do not care how fast you speak as long as you are structured. Signposting is super important, just make sure your structure is made clear.

Off-time roadmaps are fine, it helps everyone in the room organize.

A mixture of logic and evidence is important. Don't make any unwarranted claims throughout the round, and try not to spread either. Throwing evidence around is not the best sign of a skilled debater. Tell my why you are winning each point, and why you deserve the vote.

For CX, try not to go in circles and waste time. There's a big difference between good clash and just eating up the clock. Also, don't be too cut-throat. Aggressive yet civil.

Be sure to leave time to frontline on both sides, but especially in the second rebuttal. It really helps your side of the flow if you circle back and defend.

Finally, I should probably clarify that while I don't have a judging history on tabroom, I have been judging and coaching debate in Ohio since graduating in '18.

I am a parent judge, please speak clearly, slowly if possible, and emphasize the key reasons.

Please do not interrupt when your competing colleague(s) is(are) speaking.

When you quote with numeric data, please be slow to tell clearly with naming properly a correct source.

For all Debate Events:

I am what you would consider a "lay" parent judge. Please do not spread or talk super fast, talk clearly and slowly or else I won't be able to write down your arguments. Also, I enjoy good clash between teams, but please always be respectful and polite to your opponents as this is an educational activity. Finally, for PF, I do encourage, but don't require, for the 2nd speaking team's rebuttal to refute the points made in the first team's rebuttal. For speaker points, I start each debater at 25, and then based off of the quality and delivery of speeches, I will either raise or lower this score. I usually give both members of a PF team the same speaking score. I will rarely give a 30 and I will only give this score if outstanding and superior speech delivery and persuasion tactics are shown.

For all Speech Events:

Have good understanding of the material. Speak clearly and coherently. Very thorough and understandable presentation of the material.

I am a lay judge, and I prefer quality over quantity.

PF Paradigm (If I'm judging a different event, may the debate gods have mercy on your soul):

Stats to make you trust me as a judge and not read the paradigm:

• Often ranked #1 in Ohio and top 20 nationally in PF.
• Several speaker awards.
• Quarterfinals at NCFL, Stanford, and UK. 4 bids to TOC senior year. State semifinalist.
• 2019 NSDA Champion.
• 1550 SAT. IQ 138-145 depending on the test (since my partner Izzy always said judges should have to take an IQ test).
• 4th at Intel ISEF in Biomedical Engineering.
• B.S. in Computer Science from Carnegie Mellon University.
• Seen over 1000 different movies: tinyurl.com/davidsmovies
• Can perform 100 push-ups in a row.
• Knows a secret technique to tie shoes faster than most people.
• Over 1000 YouTube subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeiGQOP-o8zt_xXh0A4hR9w
• 2-time ISD scavenger hunt champion.

Speaking Style:

This section is just here to scare you into thinking maybe I'm a lay judge. Thanks to Cassie (Team USA '20) I now know that apparently what most people perceive as "passion," I perceive as frantic speaking, that you're not in control or struggling to go fast enough or something. As someone with probably medically-diagnosable control issues, I find calm, collected speaking much more persuasive. I like to see debaters remain steady in the face of challenge rather than get worked up.

So as my friends know, my reading comprehension is not the best. I took a practice ACT and got 36,36,35,27 because I got through like 2 of the 4 reading passages and guessed for the rest. One of the reasons for this is that I'm hit or miss with words longer than 8 letters. Sometimes I can understand them, and sometimes I can't. So while you think gigantic words might make you look smart, there's a nonzero chance I misunderstand your argument. Similarly, don't offer to send me a speech doc because I won't be able to read it anyway.

Logistical stuff:

I do not have a seating preference. Anyone incompetent to the level that they can't tell who's pro and who's con if they're not sitting in specific chairs shouldn't be judging. I’ll pass on the handshake since I’ve gotten sick on trips way too much.

If you get there before me, do the coin flip. I expect you to come to round preflowed and will deduct ten seconds of prep if you aren’t.

No dress code. Debate naked for all I care. My tie choked me constantly, and I can only assume heels are way worse, so I'm not going to torture you. That's what my RFD is for.

No off-time road maps needed. Just tell me where you’re starting and then signpost. Time yourselves. If time ends, and a question has been asked, answer it, but there better not be any commas. Humor is appreciated.

Not sure why this isn’t universal (NCFL), but if you call evidence, the prep time begins when you start reading the evidence. If it takes more than one minute to find evidence, then I’ll start deducting prep unless you want to just drop the card.

I will disclose if both debaters are okay with it. As a judge, my job is to give you feedback to help you improve, and that's better done in person so you can ask me questions. If the tournament doesn’t allow, find me after the round.

I’ll probably be responsive if you pay attention. I’ll likely nod if I understand something - doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with it, so don’t get any ideas.

Wear sunglasses in round for +0.5 speaks. There's a nonzero chance I wear them whilst judging. I will not go lower than a 25, and for me “good” is 28 and “great” is 29. Any team I think will bid will probably get 30s since speaks are inflated now, and I don’t want to be the reason you get a screw.

In my personal opinion, asking to take a second or two of prep to tell your partner a quick cross question or the last name of a card they need to run is stupid. I probably can’t even start the timer before you cease prep, so it’s a waste of my finger energy. Here’s my deal: I understand that when people finish speaking, you sometimes need to take a second or two to finish writing down what they said. I understand debaters are somehow constantly thirsty and need to be chugging water every five seconds. When a speech ends, I will mentally count ten seconds. After that, I expect the next speech to start and will ask you if you’re ready. Don’t ask me - I am. If you’re not, I’ll start docking prep.

How I evaluate rounds:

Flow judge. I begin with weighing. Which argument am I convinced is the most important? Who am I convinced wins this argument? The answer to those two questions decides my ballot. Answer these questions best and you win. Pretty simple.

...but of course it never ends up being that simple. If no one weighs, I do a tally. If both teams weigh but the weighing is unresolved, I’m kind of at a crossroads. Sometimes the weighing is clear and I know which argument matters, but I don’t know who won that argument because people read two pieces of evidence that say the exact opposite. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but if there’s work that isn’t done, I have to do it. This is the circumstance under which I will call evidence - to resolve something that wasn’t resolved.

Want to make my decision easy? If you and your opponent read opposing evidence, tell me why to prefer yours. Is the author more credible? Is the study more recent or more comprehensive of all factors? If you outweigh on scope and your opponent outweighs on magnitude, tell me why scope matters more.

Want to make my decision really easy? Tell a clear story. If you have the stronger narrative, I’ll probably find a way to vote for you in close rounds that could go either way. PF is fundamentally a persuasion event - if you convince me your side is true, you’ll probably win the round. That being said, if you’re as persuasive as Gandhi, but you’re losing every argument, you won’t win my ballot - that’s just how I decide rounds that are tied and would otherwise force me to do work like call evidence, which I don’t want to do.

Technical stuff:

I will vote off of disads if explained well. I will vote off of theory if you convince me there is legitimate abuse. If you convince me you’re trying to get a cheap win, you won’t. I will not vote for disclosure theory under any circumstances no matter how well you run it (so opposing team, feel free to ignore it). Responding to something on the spot is a part of PF, and preparing everything before the round is bad. The one exception to this philosophy is if one side has a hearing disability, in which case of course being able to see the case is good for education. I will not evaluate a kritik unless their case is blatantly racist/sexist/ableist/whatever. No non-topical K affs and no "fundamental assumption" garbage.

I require turns and disads to be responded to in second rebuttal. In other words, the rebuttal speech must respond to all offense on the flow at that point in the round. Defense can be responded to in summary if you'd like, but then I'll accept new responses to those in first final focus and won't accept new responses to those in second final focus. Defense from rebuttal to first FF is fine but should be in summary if frontlined in second rebuttal. I expect a warrant and weighed impact in both summary and final focus for the argument you want me to vote off of.

Speed? Go crazy. I can handle 250/minute no problem (I’d prefer if case is slower). Beyond that, I’ll miss author names and might ask you after the speech (since that’s how you’re going to extend things). I won't ask for a speech doc, so in the unlikely event you can go faster than I can handle, RIP you.

I’m logic >>>>>> evidence. You can win my ballot without reading a single card. I care about ideas, not authors. I will not evaluate a card without a warrant. The warrant can be either in the card or made analytically by you. Only evidence > logic if both teams have rock solid logic but one has evidence. Real world examples are another tiebreaker.

I’m tech > truth with one caveat - the stupider an argument gets, the lower my response threshold gets. If your opponents run an argument that army ants are going to overthrow the Romanian government and take over the world, a response of “that’s unlikely” is probably good enough. That said, a response has to exist. If your opponents say Iron Man is engaged to Thor, and you don’t respond, I guess we have a wedding to go to.

If you disagree with any of these philosophies and believe I should be judging the round differently, tell me in a speech and warrant it. I'm very open to creativity. For example, if you think the specifics of an issue dictate that I should be evidence > logic or think I should not require frontlining in second rebuttal, and your reasoning is sound (and not well responded-to), I'll oblige.

TL; RABWAS (Too long; read anyway, but want a summary):

I know what I’m doing. Tell me where to vote, why I’m voting there and not somewhere else, and why you’re winning that argument. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I am a previous PF debater, so I value logic and clarity in arguments (no long link chains) and no spreading.

Public Forum: Please do not speak so quickly that it impairs my ability to hear and understand your arguments. It is not to your benefit. I am okay with you tracking your own time but my time is the official one. I understand the need to request someone else's evidence in limited circumstances, but it should not happen every round. I believe it is a waste of time unless you honestly believe that someone made up a source/stat. Please be gracious to all competitors and judges.

This is my second year as a PF judge. I am unable to appropriately judge those arguments which I cannot understand; therefore, if you spread, you will lose. I expect that you will have downloaded your evidence before round, and that difficulty finding evidence will be minimal. While I understand that things can sometimes get heated, arguments should be presented professionally, and interruptions should be minimal and done respectfully. I absolutely will not tolerate “power moves”, kritiks, bullying or rudeness. If you cannot win on the strength of your arguments, you will not win.

I prefer to be persuaded by logic and facts. I enjoy humor, properly deployed. I do not like disrespectful behavior (e.g. “eye rolling,” too much interrupting, etc.) I enjoy vigorous debate in Crossfire. I DESPISE “spreading,” because it is silly and pointless in the real world. If a lawyer were to “spread” in a courtroom, the judge would call the closest psychiatric facility to have him/her locked up.

Public Forum: As a PF judge, I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Lincoln Douglas: As a LD judge, I am more of a traditional judge and prefer that the debate come down to one of the framework rather than contentions. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. My flow is greater than your flow. I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards, it can be a time suck and you may end up using all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I have is the official time. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

Congress: As a Congress judge, I like to hear clear and supported evidence in order to make an opinion about the legislation being debated. I enjoy hearing passionate speakers who care about their constituents. Decorum is important to me as well, while I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points.

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for this year.

I'm am a parent judge and this is my first year judging. I will be taking notes so please talk at a speed that makes it possible for me to get everything that you think is important. I tend to value a little explanation of the "why this matters" to go along with the "what" of the evidence you present. I also value politeness, so please be respectful to your opponents - a good back and forth as opposed to an escalation of interruptions.

I've been judging for the past 3 years on the local level (Western PA).

My judge paradigm is limited only by what I can understand, because I don't really have any preferences concerning how students should debate or how the round should play out. If you take sufficient time explain your arguments then you can do whatever your want. Speed is fine as long as I can flow (can follow the slower end of what is considered "spreading" but not ridiculous speeds). Still debaters should preference clarity over speed. If a point is especially important, slow down. Succinct, clear points in the voting issues helps me complete the flow (or absence of flow).

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

Hey, just wanted to say this is my first time back judging since COVID began, so I don't have any experience on this topic in-round, you could consider me casually knowledgeable about this topic, as it is adjacent to many of my interests, but some details you think may be base topic knowledge I might not have been exposed to yet.

Below is my paradigm from 2020, i doubt my preferences have changed much from then. But I will say that if you try to run politics shells, or international relations scenarios, I will not be able to help myself from simply just believing your authors are getting paid to talk out their asses. I genuinely don't think accurate predictions can be made in those realms in this current context, so as a judge I will very begrudgingly listen and look visibly upset if you put me through these arguments. You're gambling on me if you choose to run an argument like that, im not just gonna give you want cause you happen to have a card from this morning or whatever.

I will not shake your hand after the round. I mean no disrespect but y'all keep getting me sick. Just think about how many hands you've shaken by round 5, and how many hands your opponents have shaken. Its unsettling. (Yes this part is unedited from 2020, i was right that we are all disgusting)

I debated throughout high school and have been judging since (four years). I studied History and Philosophy of Science, and Sociology at Pitt. I've competed in and judged national break rounds. I'm experienced in running and evaluating traditional or critical arguments. Feel safe to run whatever arguments and frameworks you wish, but I am not without some preferences.

I would prefer to see unique arguments in the round, things like politics disads or the states counterplan are run in the same exact way so often it becomes horrible to sit through and often ends the same. However, I would strongly prefer you running your generics that you know well over poorly running something you aren't used to. On a similar point, in the past I've seen a lot of rounds ruined by trying to run four or five off case arguments at a sub-par level. I would much rather see a directed, thought-out, and well-debated round, and I think it would serve you best strategically as well. At the end of the day, you know your files and many of your opponents better than I do.

The arguments I have a bias towards are low magnitude - high probability affs that address structural violence and I typically prefer those frameworks and how they affect the debate. K's are probably going to win impact and link debates on me a little more than some other judges because I find a lot of their claims to be true, thus I think one of the best ways to defend against them is on the framework flow, an alt debate, or having a critical edge of your own. But again, stick with what you know, these are debates you could easily lose through inexperience.

EMAIL: nickpweb@gmail.com

This is Parth, here's some tips for my dad as a judge:

1. Speak slowly and explain your arguments well. He's a pretty easy person to read, so it'll be pretty obvious if he doesn't understand your argument. Signpost so that he knows what you're talking about. He'll take notes, but he's not going to be flowing.

2. Don't run tech arguments. He won't intervene, but he is most likely not going to vote off your 17 card link chain into thermonuclear war.

3. Weigh. Tell him why your argument matters more; he's a lot more likely to vote for the debater that writes out his ballot for him.

4. Be respectful. It probably won't affect the decision unless you're a massive jerk, but good speaks are always nice to have.

5. He's a pretty well informed guy, so don't bring up not-that-logical points without backing it up with evidence.

Overall, just make smart arguments, while maintaining a good presentation, and make his decision as easy as possible.

I am a parent judge -I will write down what i think is important, but if you go too fast, I might not catch what you say and miss things -I will try to be fair, but explain what you say - if I don't understand something I wont vote off it -Emphasize what you think is important to the round and why it is important -Rudeness is not tolerated and be nice to your opponents

I am a fairly new lay judge. Please use normal speaking voice and speed; if you're going real fast, it's hard for me to follow your arguments. If I can't even follow your words, I'll indicate with my hand to slow down. Please try not to interrupt or talk over each other.

Roadmaps are great, and definitely use summary and especially final focus to tell me what you think you absolutely want me to consider most.

Have fun kindly!