Email Chain please!! saverabaloch85@gmail.com

I did policy debate in high school

Run the arguments that you are most comfortable with.

tech>truth

Give me an off-time road map before you begin speaking so that I know the order to flow.

PLEASE slow down when you are reading tags for new cards, this makes it easier for me to flow.

If you are disrespectful throughout the round I will weigh that into my decision

Policy/PF/LD- I have not researched the topics so please make an effort to define terms that may be unfamiliar.

Current parliamentary debater for Duquesne University. No strict preferences, I will judge the round based on which team presents the more convincing arguments.

I take a typical hypothesis testing judging stance; the neg should use every possible reasonable argument to test the aff thoroughly on multiple fronts. I support all manners of arguments in the rounds. While I promote the use of K arguments and affs, they must be clearly defined and developed for me to base my vote on them. Likewise, I prefer not to be presented with unreasonable or superfluous topicality and debate theory arguments, but I do believe they have their place and can be a voting issue as long as they do not take away from the substance of the debate and do not take over your speech time. A dropped contention is a major voting issue for me. Every argument presented on either side should be routinely and concisely addressed.

You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.

Email chain, please! jhollihan18@gmail.com

he/him

Policy:

I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales. Most of my 1ACs were soft left and I usually went for DA + case or the Cap K in the 2NR.

Please try not to spread or at the very least, SLOW DOWN. I have not debated competitively since high school and have become more numb to spreading; I've also become more ideologically opposed to it. If you are going at top speed, odds are I might miss something you say and you don't want that to happen. I try not to look at the speech doc, but that may depend on the speed at which you read. Try to go slower than you normally would. If you are zipping through your theory/T blocks, I will assume that you have not read this and I will be annoyed.

PF/LD:

I find myself judging very similar debates halfway through a resolution cycle. However, please don't assume I know the ins and outs or the trends of a given topic (e.g., acronyms, legislation/litigation, key arguments/data).

As a debater with a policy background, I really dislike evidence sharing norms in PF and LD. Why are we not just sharing the speech docs? Since email chains are not the community norms, you should have ALL of your evidence ready to go (though, an email chain would always be appreciated). Wasting 5-10 minutes to find one piece of evidence is not only frustrating for me, it can also hold up the tournament.

Please speak clearly and maintain an easy pace.

Please avoid interrupting unnecessarily and keep the debate civil.

Enjoy and Happy Debating!!

I favor a traditional judging style.

spalagani007@gmail.com

debated PF all of high school. tech > truth, tabula rasa

do whatever you want and I'll adapt to it. if I can't then I'll let you know

please call a TKO if you think you're winning everything. if I agree, the round automatically ends and you get a win with 30 speaks. if you're wrong, you'll lose with 15 speaks.

for personal entertainment:

+1 Speaks:

• spin when you read a turn

30 Speaks:

• speak a different language fluently for 10 seconds in any speech
• have a paper-only round with no laptops or evidence
• win with friv theory

I am the President of the Duquesne debate team and am primarily a Parli debater, but compete in some speech events and LD when possible. For debate, essentially just be persuasive. Use logic and reasoning to back up any statistics and don’t be rude to each other during cross.

flow judge; debated pf for 4 years

PF preferences:

General Round Info:

• I value warrants more than evidence (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to card your responses, however); every response and argument should have a warrant behind it.
• All turns should be weighed because they are independent reasons to vote for you.
• I will keep track of time, but I'm not too strict. You can go 5-10 seconds overtime in order to finish your last sentence.
• I'll only call for evidence if you tell me to AND if I think it's important to making my decision.
• Time your speeches! I'll time them too, but this helps you know what to cut out/add and how fast you should be speaking.

Case:

• Don't spread
• No friv theory, theory and progressive arguments are fine but I won't know how to evaluate them.
• I'm tech > truth. Even if what you say is blatantly false, but your opponents don't respond to it, it's considered true for the round.
• If you are running potentially sensitive arguments, please include a trigger warning.

Crossfire:

• Be respectful but also assertive.
• Any concessions in crossfire are binding
• Any concessions in cross must be brought up in speech in order for me to flow it
• When the time runs out, whoever is speaking can finish their thought (max 5-10 seconds more).

Rebuttal:

• Make sure to signpost and try to weigh as well.
• 2nd rebuttal should frontline and collapse.

Summary:

• Weighing is especially important in this speech (You should do the work for me in your speeches so I don't have to intervene).
• Make sure to be organized throughout the speech. You can do this by signposting as well as having a structure to your speech. Offtime roadmaps are encouraged.
• No new responses in 2nd summary.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Please extend your case.

Final Focus:

• Everything said in FF should have been in summary.
• Make sure to extend case and focus on weighing. (Look to the summary section for more specific information.)

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.