My Background:

- Am a practicing lawyer with 33 years of litigation experience

- That said, am a parent judge who started judging when our younger son began debating as a freshman in high school

- Have judged Public Forum and Speech many, many times for the past 6 years

- Have judged Lincoln Douglas a few times over the years

What I expect from debaters:

- Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot stress this enough. If you speak too quickly and I can't follow you, you will not be helping your team.

- Persuade me with arguments that are supported by evidence. Evidence should be presented with full citations and explained clearly. Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive.

- Tell me why I should vote for your side by explaining with particularity why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't. Focus me on the important issues in your favor.

- Be respectful of everyone who is participating in your debate - your opponents, your partner, the judge. Consider your tone, your conduct, and your words.

- Do not assume that I understand acronyms or phrases that are peculiar to the topic but not necessarily in common use in the English language. Take the time to define them.

MICHAEL KEANE PARADIGM

Background:

- A litigator in trial and appellate courts in New York since 1988, I have also taught legal writing and argumentation, and designed and judged moot court competitions.

- I have judged Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Policy Debate (and Speech) since 2014 in New York City, New York State, out-of-State Invitational and National Tournaments.

Debaters:

1. Speak clearly: debaters cannot be credited points for arguments that are not clear.

- To enhance clarity, avoid talking so fast that you cannot be understood, and thus present an incomprehensible argument that fails to score points for your team.

- To enhance clarity, avoid jargon that judges may not understand and that you may misapply, and thus present a confused argument that fails to score points for your team.

- To enhance clarity, avoid "spreading," which usually sacrifices quality for quantity, and thus present a disjointed argument that fails to score points for your team.

2. Provide support for arguments: try to provide identifiable authority for assertions made, with citation to both author and publication (and show appreciation for the relative reliability of different sources).

3. Demonstrate that you have listened to the arguments of you opponents by responding to and pointing out the flaws in those arguments, in addition to promoting your own arguments.

4. Show respect for your opponents and teammates.

5. Have fun.

I've judged since 2014.

Logic is as important as evidence.

Evidence is essential. I will ask for cards if I'm unsure about the evidence supporting a claim or whether the evidence has been used properly. I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources: What's the source? Who is the author? Don't say that a newspaper (e.g., Washington Post) is the author. That's where the article was published. Don't just say an institution (e.g., Harvard) is the author. That's where the author works. The author is a person. Say who she/he is. If you think her background is important (e.g., former Secretary of State), you can say so.

Announce a weighing mechanism, especially in summary and final focus. Which arguments are most important? If you don't give me a weighing mechanism, I will be forced to give the win to the side whose arguments flow through. I'd much rather give the win to the side with the best arguments on the most important issues. Tell me what's most important and why

Avoid spreading. Focus on your most important arguments. Engage the other side on those arguments. If the other side raises less important issues, explain why and then return to the most important arguments.

LD PARADIGM FOR RIDGE

General things:

• Ignore my pf paradigm. My desire to not be annoying is more important to me than my personal views on debate, so where possible, I'll stick to LD community norms rather than impose my own pfey preferences on you. 
• I am an ex pfer who hasn't judged LD before.
• This means that I'm not going to be able to understand your top speed. I'm somewhere between a typical pfer and a typical lder in my ability to understand speed. In my experience, when debaters are spreading extemporaneous arguments I can usually understand them. The speed at which lders tend to read prewritten stuff and cards though is probably out of my league. Basically, you don't need to treat me like a parent judge but don't go at your top speed and I'll say clear as many times as necessary. Err on the side of slowness. SLOW DOWN ON TAGS.
• This also means that clear explanations are important. You are way more likely to win a round by picking one argument to collapse to and explaining its structure and implications for me very clearly than you are to win off a bunch of blippy extensions.
• Do weighing and explicit argument comparison for me. Write my ballot. Otherwise, I'm going to have to do the argument comparison myself and since I'm not experienced with LD you probably won't like the results.

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES

• A vanilla plan, counterplan, DA debate is probably the style of argument that I'm most comfortable with, so larp to your heart's content. I'm more than happy to vote for other arguments but these are going to be the easiest arguments for me to evaluate.
• I think condo bad is probably true but my preference for avoiding intervention means I'm willing to let this debate unfold on its own.
• Slow down for plan texts.
• In pf, I think most politics DAs are stupid so I'm probably going to find politics DAs stupid in LD too. My threshold for treating responses to these DAs as terminal defense is probably going to be really low. 
• Oddly enough, the type of argument that I'm second most comfortable evaluating is theory and T. IGNORE MY PF PARADIGM, the pf community is way different and thus the way I would evaluate theory in a pf round is really different. 
• Types of theory that I don't like: frivolous theory to pick up a round against a less experienced opponent, random spikes which didn't have clear implications when they were first read.
• I really like disclosure, I'll be receptive to disclosure theory unless its against a clearly way less experienced opponent.
• SLOW DOWN ON STANDARDS AND INTERPS
• You need to clearly check for abuse in cross.
• I default drop the argument and reasonability, but these are just defaults, not preferences. 
• On topicality, I default drop the argument as well.
• I'm willing to vote off an RVI especially if I think the initial shell was stupid. Just be very clear with your abuse story, tell me what you could have done had you not been forced to waste time on theory. 
• Framework: I have a decent understanding of super vanilla philosophy like Kant, Rawls, etc. Denser philosophy might be tougher for me, so just slow down and be clear with your explanations. Apply the framework to your arguments for me, don't make me try and do that myself.
• Kritikal stuff: Most post fiat Ks should be fine for me to handle. I'll vote for a pre fiat K if it's explained clearly to me, but I won't be super familiar with this type of argument. 
• I'm vaguely familiar with some popular authors like Baudrillard and Wilderson, but I haven't really had experience with them in a debate context so clear explanations are important. Simpler things like security Ks should be fine for me. I'm probably never going to understand Deleuze so just don't even bother.
• Probably the most important thing when running something kritikal is a clear explanation of any ROTB arguments. Tell me what decision I'm making and why. 
• My only other personal preference is that I'd really prefer it if your alt was more developed than "reject the aff". If that's your alt, you need to be very clear about why rejecting the aff matters and why I'm voting for the K. 
• I default theory before K.
• If your favorite Kanye album is Graduation, I'll be able to tell and I'll drop you. 
• Don't wear fedoras.

PF PARADIGM

Short Version:

• I'm a flow judge
• If it's not in summary I'm not voting on it
• You are more likely to win if you collapse to a single well warranted argument than if you try to win off a bunch of blippy extensions
• Weigh your arguments with explicit comparisons and warrants that are more developed than "lives are the most important".

Long Version:

Random things:

• I did PF for 3 years on the circuit and would like to think I was fairly decent. I currently dabble in NPDA parli so I have some experience with more progressive arguments.
• I can handle speed except for the fastest spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast or not enunciating.
• If you're funny I'll like you
• It's almost 2k17 people, match your belts with your shoes, don't wear fedoras, and can we PLEASE stop with the black shirts. This isn't a voting issue for me, just a personal plea.
• If your favorite Kanye album is Graduation, I'll be able to tell and I'll drop you. 

Interventionism:

• I am very tab in most cases. I am willing to evaluate any argument and will generally buy what you say until told otherwise. The burden is on your opponent to respond to your arguments. That said, if an argument blatantly has no logical flow, I won't evaluate it.
• I am very not tab when it comes to evidence. If I am familiar with the card you're reading and I think you're misrepresenting it, I will call for it and be very unhappy. 
• If you are inconsistent about what your evidence says, I will call for it at the end of the round.
• If your opponents tell me to call for your evidence, I will call for it at the end of the round.
• I am very interventionist when it comes to theory. I will explain this more later. 

Round Flow:

Case:

• Please make sure your framework is actually doing something in the round and is warranted. Please number and structure things.

Rebuttal:

• Logic is way more important than reading me a bunch of cards. Explain how your arguments are interacting with your opponent's case. If you're reading a card, it should serve a purpose like providing empirical evidence of something you've argued will logically happen.
• If you are doing something weird or are reading overviews that you want to be flowed in a specific place, please do give me an off time roadmap
• I really like overviews when they're done well. I like good terminal defense and case turns to be labeled as such and read as an overview.
• I really like it when you give me and overview that lays out a weighing mechanism that you'll use throughout the round, as long as the weighing mechanism is well warranted. 
• If you like reading very offensive, borderline disadvantage style overviews, be careful. I think this is ok in first rebuttal, but not ok in second rebuttal because it abuses the fact that first speaking team has a ton to cover already in summary with way less prep time.
• Weighing. Do it. This is more than just "lives are the more important than anything else" and "our number is bigger than their number". Give me susbstantial reasons why one type of impact matters more than the other.
• Please label turns as such or I will not evaluate them as offense.
• Please don't label defensive arguments as turns, or I will be annoyed and dock speaker points.

Summary: 

• I like summaries that are structured around voters. These should ideally then carry over into final focus.
• Please please please collapse in summary, don't try and extend every argument.
• Don't extend through ink.  
• I like overviews in summary, preferably the same ones that were in rebuttal though you can and should drop the ones that aren't relevant to your current strat. 
• Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not. Both summaries have an obligation to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

Crossx

• I will write down things that I think might be important to the round that happen in cross, but I won't treat them as part of the flow. If you want me to vote off of something that happened in cross, you need to extend it into a speech.
• Don't be mean or overly aggressive. Let your opponent speak. Your speaks will not be pretty otherwise.

Final Focus

• Give me very specific voters that were brought up in summary. These should provide the structure of your speech. Do not try and address every argument in the round. Instead, explain how the specific voter you've picked interacts with the big issues in the round and why it wins you the round. Weighing is crucial.
• Voters should be more specific than just contention tags.  
• Second FF needs to extend defense on the voters read in first FF. 
• First FF should also extend defense on the voters brought up in second summary. If second summary didn't specify voters and instead just kind of rambled on about the round, I'm more lenient about this and you don't have to worry as much about extending defense. 

Fiat:

• I grant Neg pretty much 0 fiat. I think this is the intention of the vague "no counterplans in pf" rule that people bring up all the time.
• This means that if you're negating a normative resolution, I think you are restricted to defending the status quo.
• if you're running some sort of alternative solvency on neg, you need to prove to me that this alternative will occur in the status quo, but that the affirmative advocacy is preventing the alternative from happening or trading off with it in some other way.
• I grant the aff the weakest fiat possible. You can fiat that the resolution will happen, but beyond that, you're pretty much restricted to defending what would most likely happen in the real world given the conditions set by resolution. This means you can't fiat out of political conditions like backlash, political capital, cutgo, etc.
• Also, this means that your advocacy should be a likely implementation of the resolution in the real world. If the resolution says we should send ground troops to Iraq, you can't fiat that this means we should send troops to only one specific village in Iraq because realistically, this isn't how a ground intervention in Iraq would go.  

Theory:(this section is really long and probably irrelevant to most rounds, so ignore it unless you're planning on running theory. tl dr, make reasonable, well warranted arguments and don't be annoying)

• I think theory is a very important and useful tool to decide how debate should work given that the rules for PF are pretty minimalist and norms are changing all the time. 
• I don't think theory is new to PF. What people in PF call framework is more often than not an argument about topicality or how the round should work. The teams that ran these arguments the most successully often used theoretical justifications to warrant their arguments.
• That said, I reallly DO NOT like theory as it is currently used sometimes in other formats of debate: as a strategy to win rounds, especially against less experienced opponents who might not be as familiar with norms regarding theory.
• Theory should never be your strat. You should go into the round with a legitimate way to win and then run theory if there is a legitimate need for it to check abuse or clarify something in a round.
• Given those beliefs, here's how I think theory should function.
• You don't need to have an explicit shell structure, but your theoretical arguments about what is or isn't acceptable should still be justified by a standard like predictability or equality of ground with a link to a voter like fairness or education even if you don't necessarily use all the jargon.
• When it comes to topicality, I tend to prefer arguments that go back to the resolution and focus on how the resolution would realistically be interpreted by an educated citizen. Weird squirrelly interps of the resolution that are justified because they are marignally more fair are not my favorite. 
• You need to very clearly check for abuse in crossfire.
• I am not tab when it comes to theory. If I think your interpretation is dumb, that your opponents meet your interpretation, or that you didn't actually check for the abuse, I will not vote on theory.
• I evaluate under reasonability. This is not a preference, this is what I will do. I think competing interps leads to a race to the bottom where people try and win rounds by reading marginally better interps than their opponents, which eventually kills any real chance of a substantive debate especially given the short speech times of PF.
• You need to make a very strong argument about severity of abuse to get me to buy drop the debater arguments. If I think your opponents are being intentionally abusive and understand what's happening, I'm more likely to buy these types of arguments. If they just seem confused and don't really get the theoretical implications of what they're running, I'll probably just drop the argument.
• Responses to theory don't necessarily need to follow some sort of structure, but if they do that's also cool. As with everything, just be logical and warrant your arguments. 
• I can be convinced to vote on an RVI, though I doubt this will ever come up in a PF round. 

I am a senior at Spence Highschool in New York city. I enjoy light humor and tasteful saracsm during rounds, mainly because of my somehwat religious upbringing. Please weigh effectivley. Please be nice, NO fighting.  

Good luck and say hi to me if you see me in person! I promise I don't bite and I love meeting my fans!

Best, Fiona 

I do not have any particular preferences in judging Public Forum Debate. I ask that all students keep their own time both for speeches and prep time

I did PF for 4 years at Byram Hills. My paradigm's pretty simple:

- Collapse and weigh at the end of the round. If you want me to vote on an argument please do the work for me and tell me why. Do not try to extend everything.

- Any and all offense you want me to consider needs to be in BOTH summary and final focus, including turns. That being said, DON'T extend through ink.

- No, I don't require defense in summary, but I strongly suggest it, especially for second speaking teams. I would also really prefer extensions of defense in first summary IF the second rebuttal frontlines case.

- On that note, I think it's probably strategic for second speaking teams to frontline in rebuttal, but I don't require it.

- I won't call for evidence unless it's been contested in the round and I'm told to call for it, so if your opponents miscut something TELL ME and I will call for it.

- Roadmaps aren't necessary. Definitely sign post though.

- Speed is fine, but please don't spread - clarity is a requirement for me to be able to judge.

- I am old and never debated progressive arguments myself, so if you want to run Theory or Ks you need to explain them really well. If these types of arguments are run properly in front of me and not adequately responded to, I will vote for them. That being said, I don't want to hear a full T shell, and Ks need a role of the ballot argument.

Be nice! Have fun! Talk pretty!

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.