Villiger 40 Saint Josephs University

2019 — Philadelphia, PA/US

Sudhir Aggarwal Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

James Balsan Paradigm

I have spent the last 30 years in the finance industry (Econ BS and MBA in International Finance) working on diverse projects ranging from carbon credit trading and college 529 plan administration to venture capital investments and merger and acquisition execution. I typically read up on the Resolved to lay the groundwork to quickly understand your contentions.

This is my third year judging PF and I ask for a few simple things to help me in flowing the debate and rewarding your efforts:

1) Clearly highlight your contentions.

2) Define any acronyms / abbreviations the first time you use them.

3) You can speak quickly but please speak clearly.

4) Sign-posting is greatly appreciated to help me flow.

5) Off time road mapping also helps me follow your argument.

I will not disclose decisions but will provide constructive feedback in my RFD on your contentions and each speaker's contribution to the team.

Jackson Blossom Paradigm

I am a teacher-librarian and did not debate in high school but have significant experience with Public Forum judging, as the record indicates. I value the time and energy you have invested in debate, and endeavor to be a thoughtful, attentive judge. Clarity and explanation of sources and their relationship to arguments helps my understanding of decisions through S and FF, particularly as they contribute to a coherent narrative. How do your contentions bind and work together?

Do not assume citation recognition, or how complex link-chains function in your case, defense, etc. You may get it out semantically with last names, phrases or tag-lines, but if you never explained the same or don't try, what does the judge know? I can't evaluate your use of evidence with any depth in good time at the end of a round. Speed and word economy can cram a lot into a case, but if the round feels like card ping pong, uses jargon repeatedly, or is dry as sand, you might lose me with critical points.

A systematic analysis - or a fair attempt at one - feels easier to vote for than slapdash impacts, however gargantuan or terrible. Knowing, engaging and re-evaluating sources is often compelling - particularly an opponent's.

Framework debates have to set up some clash and weighing mechanisms. Invoking the purpose of the format and debating debate usually wastes other opportunities in PF.

Please be expeditious and honest with calls for evidence; pursue clarity and accountability (honesty), but the round must move along. I don't try to flow cross, but I'm listening. Civility goes a long way in life, and makes better judgement easier as you model critical civil discourse. Leaving significant time in speeches, or hogging crossfire is neither flattering or impressive. Alternately, keep trying, even when you feel lost! My written ballots are usually more explanatory than any spoken RFD - to think clearly and better record my evaluation of the round, I may not disclose. Thank you for debating this weekend, and good luck!

Mark Bowerman Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent lay volunteer. I am reasonably experienced at this point in local and national tournaments (70+ rounds).

Here are a few insights on how I judge:

1. Speak at a reasonable, lay-person clip please.

2. Language - I haven't gone to debate camp and I don't hang out on the r/debate boards. I feel like I'm wasting my time when teams are throwing fragmented jargon at one another, like they're in a late-night side conversation. Your goal is not just to win the argument, but to win the audience. Articulate your ideas using real words that real people understand.

3. Be polite and respectful to each other. No condescension. No snark. I'll definitely take some humor, especially if it's self-deprecating, because this would ideally be fun for all of us.

4. I do take notes. I try to flow, but I'm sure not in ways you'd approve of. Let me know where you are in your arguments. I appreciate evidence, and I'll weigh it. I like clear, clean lines of logical thinking. I find that I weigh for plausibility. In other words, if one side is resting on something that has demonstrably happened or is based on past performance, it may tend to outweigh a hypothetical extreme-nightmare-megadeath scenario that I'm hard-pressed to believe will happen.

Extra credit: If you are participating in this debate, you are smart and brave. You are on your way to accomplishing great things. Debate can help develop critical thinking. It helps strengthen the foundation for civic engagement. But Public Forum is by design about the art of persuasion.

Where do the skills you hone in PF exhibit themselves in the adult world? Law...politics...policy...academia.

If you're a lawyer, you need to match wits with others deeply versed in the law. But you likely also need to convince people with little or no understanding of the law that you are right and the other side is wrong.

Same goes with politics. If you can't communicate to the average person effectively, you and your ideas are unlikely to win.

And the weaknesses in policy and academia are found when the ability and willingness to communicate to and persuade the average person is neglected.

High school debaters can too easily immerse themselves in the insular culture of debate. You're best served by focusing more in round on reaching and winning over your audience. Those are the toughest and most needed skills you can develop, in my view.

Tracy Brown Paradigm

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

Andrew Ceonzo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Evan Chyriwski Paradigm

Clear delivery is important. It matters that I can understand what you are presenting. If cases are presented frantically and incoherently, it is difficult for me to appreciate the amount of work you put into your case. More simply, if I can't understand you, I do not want to listen.

I respond well to when teams actively engage with the arguments presented to them and are able to adjust their cases based on the other side's examinations. Crossfires are meant to be dialogues, rather than platforms for one side or the other to restate their speeches. Being able to have a strong presence not only in prepared speeches but in cross demonstrates true skill in this activity. That being said, cross more often than not is unproductive in my view, I don't flow it, just try not to shout at each other.

Extremely disinterested in spreading, unsubstantiated evidence, and unnecessary and distracting rhetoric. There's a difference between being clever and resourceful, and being cheap. Don't be cheap. Debate rounds do operate with a winner/loser, but I'm less interested solely in the drive to simply "win". Rounds should be balanced with presenting the most effective case, as well as a willingness to engage with the resolution at large.

If I stop flowing and cross my arms during your speeches, it means that you have become loud, incoherent, and not worth listening to. Increased volume does not equal a better argument. Please be mindful of that.

Off time road maps are unnecessary. Just start speaking.

Debate jargon drives me crazy. No one in the real world speaks like that.

Have all of your cards ready. Assume the other side will call all the cards you cite. Taking too long to produce them unnecessarily prolongs the round, and may factor in my decision.

I feel the need to include this since it has happened -- If you run a joke case to intentionally throw a round, I will report and reprimand you accordingly. It is a waste of everyone's time and undermines the effort many people give to make this activity possible.

I don't shake hands. It's not because I don't like you, I just prefer not to.

Be respectful, and have fun.

James Coburn Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bingjun Dai Paradigm

I'm a lay judge that has only judged once previously. I don't do well with fast speeds, and don't know technical terms. I don't record prep or any speech times, that is your responsibility.

Christoph Diasio Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joe Diaz Paradigm

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

Peter Ferraiuolo Paradigm

Public Forum

I have been judging Public Forum Debate for almost two years and I have been a trial attorney for over 25 years.

I expect respectful and knowledgeable debaters that present CLEAR arguments supported by evidence.

The debaters' job should be to persuade the common person that has no knowledge of the topic.

The debate should not be technical but rather based upon the strength of the arguments and the debaters' ability to persuade.

Speech

I have been judging Speech for almost a year, but I have been a trial attorney for over 25 years.

Extemp speakers should answer the question and the answer should be supported by some evidence.
It is beneficial to have a good intro, facts and a conclusions that sums up your answer/position.

With regard to other forms of Speech, please be clear and engaging in your presentation.

ALL SPEAKERS MUST BE RESPECTFULLY OF EACH OTHER

Katy Gonder Paradigm

Not Submitted

William Greene Paradigm

This is my third year judging PF for my son's school. Most of the competitions I've judged at have been local tournaments, which might not be on par with what you see on the national circuit.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. Make sure everything you say is understandable to a reasonable person.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round.

When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Also, don't waste time dilly dallying between speeches--it adds up and gives me less time to write my ballot before the next round.

I vote off the flow.

Vietta Grinberg Paradigm

I am an experienced parent, so you can consider me a new “Flay judge”.

Often I do tech over truth, sometimes I go logic over evidence, but it better be solid logic.

I flow the entire round and expect to see logical analysis to go along with all the evidence you present. Don't simply state a plethora of sources. I pay a lot of attention to how you extend and weigh.

Please do NOT speak too fast. Please announce the start and stop for your prep-times.

I appreciate your curtesy, but given that we are in the midst of the flu season, I prefer not to shake hands, thank you for understanding.

Manoj Jain Paradigm

Not Submitted

Danise Kimball Paradigm

For PF:

I am fine with speed. I flow and expect teams to extend tags, evidence and warrants. I won't flow dropped arguments in later speeches. I also expect teams to follow NSDA evidence rules. I am open to theory on disclosure, paraphrasing and powertagging. Evidence shenanigans in FF will earn low speaks.

Let's all be nice and generous and kind. I believe good PF debate should be a relaxed exchange of ideas as opposed to suppressed (or not) rage.

Don't give speeches during crossfire. Ask questions. And I prefer you ask questions in a way that is super chill.

Don't try to shake my hand--I'm not a germophobe...I just don't think debate should be teaching kids to be oily suck-ups.

For LD and Policy

****Disclosure on the Wiki is encouraged. Please add me to the email chain: danisekimball@gmail.com ****

I can handle a fair amount of speed but haven't been judging much LD/Policy lately so if you blaze, you may lose me. It helps me a lot if you make it clear when you are ending a card. I will say "clear" if I can't understand and "slow down" if I can't keep up.

For LD

I am not a traditional LD judge so please don't tell me your value. I am open to plans, K, Theory, etc. Slow down for theory shells and K alts, especially if they are novel. I am much more likely to vote for an argument that has been well explained. I am less technical in the sense that arguments that do not have a clear story with warrants won't always win a round even if they got under-covered or dropped.

In general, I am probably more likely to vote on kritiks on debate space and theory arguments than some judges. I will do RVI's in LD but I don't love them. I feel like policy has better mechanisms that make RVI's unnecessary.

For Policy:

Clash is good. K's are great if they are well argued. Please slow down for interp and alt. Same for theory shells. I am only going to go back to the speech doc if I look at a card.

Warrants matter a lot to me and I want to see the warrants explained and extended.

I like theory. Probably not voting condo bad tho.

Please don't clip cards or Powertag.

Joshua Koshy Paradigm

8 rounds

Rose's are red

Violets are blue

Ask me my prefs

Otherwise good luck to you

Javier Lluch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jonathan Matthew Paradigm

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

LD

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

PF

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

Arlene McCue Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ryan McEvoy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amisha Mehta Paradigm

I am a lawyer, Co-Director of the Westfield Debate Team and Co-Chair of the NYCUDL Board.

I have judged PF for the last 2 years, over 75 rounds.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

Jeremy Metz Paradigm

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

Nathaniel Muka Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shawn Nix Paradigm

I have judged debate since 2001. Since 2014, I have coached Public Forum and Speech events and am the current Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina. In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh the round. Speed speaking isn't real world and I won't flow what I can't understand. Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. I look for logical links to impact, clear organized argumentation that tells me how to vote. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

For Speech events. I am always enthusiastic about great cutting and a good story in interp. In platform events, great organization is invaluable. During competition, show me you believe what you are telling me!

Maria Olivero Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ulrich Palha Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi,

I have judged PF for a few years.

Be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire, and don't make bigoted arguments

I will flow your speeches, but I expect you to call out if your opponent dropped an argument, has incorrect logic/ facts etc.,

Speed: If I cannot understand/flow it, it does not count i.e., I favor normal speed speed , quality arguments vs spreading/quantity.

Cross: Raise items in speech if you want me to flow it.

Clearly identify your arguments, highlight clash, weigh, identify voting issues and why you should win the debate

Generally, I will call for cards only if asked, or if my decision rests on a card. Don't use that as an excuse to misrepresent cards.

Lastly, have fun!

Barbara Pascale-Blossom Paradigm

I’m a flow-leaning flay judge who did some policy debate a long time ago (not a ton). I've judged many PF rounds; I am used to flowing, looking at what gets extended, ignoring dropped contentions, etc. I vote off the flow but really appreciate a good narrative esp. by the end of the round. Collapse on what matters.

Cramming in loads of evidence (often of questionable quality) with tenuous links in an effort to overwhelm your opponent is not impressive to me as a judge, and is often counterproductive. When it comes to evidence, it's quality over quantity. Understand your evidence. Ideally you should be able to:

- explain any expert opinion you cite (rather than just stating it),

- understand where a statistic comes from (how a study was done, what its limitations are etc), and

- defend the relevance of any empirical evidence you present.

Be sure you’re not misrepresenting evidence! (I will sometimes ask for it.)

Weighing is important. I strongly prefer nuanced arguments over black-and-white statements like "probability is more important than magnitude... and we win on probability," or giant impacts based on a single card that's taken out of context. Also prefer good analysis to blippy arguments.

Especially for new debaters - be responsive to what is happening in the round; use common sense when deciding what to spend time on in summary & FF (don't bother addressing what's been dropped), and tell me why I should vote for you.

A few specifics:

- I’m not a coach, so don’t assume I’m deeply familiar with the resolution & evidence. Keep jargon to a minimum.

- A bit of speed is ok, especially if you’re making enough solid arguments to warrant it (otherwise speed is not your friend). But please do not go bananas! Maintain clarity always. If you can’t speak quickly and clearly, then don’t speak quickly.

- If something isn’t in summary, don’t bring it up in FF; I won’t vote on it in fairness to your opponent. And if you want me to vote on something, extend it through FF.

- Framework & observations, like everything else, can be important or not depending on the argument & particular resolution and round.

- cx: If you see me scribbling notes during cx, please know I’m not actually flowing cx; I don't vote off cx. (Do not take it as a sign that I think what you’re saying in that moment is important.) Cx is your opportunity to clarify arguments & evidence and employ strategies / get concessions that will help your speeches. Please be civil during cx.

- I'm generally not a fan of kritiks in PF. (Not steadfastly opposed, as long as not abusive.)

- I’m not a fan of running a contention that you clearly have no intention of going for, because wasting your opponents’ time - while strategic - drags down the overall level of debate & is less educational for all. Of course it’s within the rules and I won’t vote against you for it (you won't get the highest speaks though).

- minor quirk: during grand cx, if you are sitting across from your opponents, please look at them when you speak (not me).

- I’m starting to time speeches again because I’m noticing more & more PF teams running over in rebuttal, summary & FF

- I sometimes avoid disclosing at large tournaments in order to get things moving.

Good luck and have fun!

Killian Potts Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alex Qiu Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and give reasoning behind your arguments. Be civil to each other in round; rudeness is not tolerated. Humor is appreciated only if appropriate.

Gopi Sadagopan Paradigm

Ideal speech should be well organized with contentions and potentially with sub-points if needed. Overwhelming me with data and evidence tags is not good. I am looking for a combination of logical reasoning with data.

Chris Salamone Paradigm

I tend to attempt tabula rasa with all debate events. No weighing, impacts, burdens, plans, solvency, etc. will be default valuable. Please extend any evidence or argumentative tools you consider outcome determinative. Quantitative evidence, which is probable, brings me joy. Please time yourself. Manners maketh the debater.

Background:

-Director of Forensics, Santa Fe High School, Gainesville, Fl

-Teacher of Debate III-V Honors, AP Macroeconomics, AP Government & Politics, and AP Human Geography

-Bachelors in History w/ emphasis on China, Minor in Mass Comm. (UCF)

-Masters in Education Leadership (UF)

-Juris Doctor in Law (USD)

Boost in speaks for the team/individual that best incorporates (pertaining to your case) a seasonally appropriate haiku, featuring a classic 5-7-5 format. :-)

Niranjan Sardesai Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Joe Scheide Paradigm

Not Submitted

Craig Sculli Paradigm

As a lay judge, I look for teams to make cohesive clear arguments. The quality of your arguments weigh more to me than the quantity of your arguments. I will try to provide a few points as to why I’ve come to the decision I did. It’s a pleasure to judge your debates, and best of luck!

Tej Shah Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karen Shor Paradigm

I appreciate off time road maps.

Speak slowly and clearly, finish your sentences and complete your thoughts.

I prefer a balance of fully developed and efficient warrants over voluminous recitation of facts and a litany of citations that are presented without a clearly woven argument.

Don't raise your voice or shout - decibels do not win debates.

Brent Smith Paradigm

Not Submitted

Julia Smolyanskiy Paradigm

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and explain all abbreviations. I do flow all rounds. I look for logical, well explained and well supported arguments.

Kate Sundeen Paradigm

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion.

If you're a CX debater, get a life (JK!). I value good argumentation over debate acrobatics.

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

Whitney Torres Paradigm

Not Submitted

Heng Wang Paradigm

The Guide to Public Forum Debate stresses remarkably that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. I really resonate to this statement thus have my preferences below.

Normal speed: Please don't speak too fast. If you believe you have to speak fast or you cannot complete your messages in time, you need to cut your contents to make your messages concise.

Straightforward:Please express yourself in natural way to be understood.

Clear structure: Please integrate all of your points and keep them consistent through the entire session.

Have a fun!

( I am a lay judge.)

Huyi Zhang Paradigm

TLDR: I am a lay judge (paradigm written by my son)

I won't disclose and don't post-round me.

I have judged many LD, PF, and Parli tournaments in the past, but I haven't judged for a while but these things make the round so much easier to evaluate:

1. No speed

2. Signpost during speeches and give me sufficient time to find my spot on the flow

3. Write the RFD for me in the FF

4. Make comparative analysis between the two cases i.e. clash. If not, my RFD will not make much sense and won't make anyone happy. On a similar note, W E I G H.

5. Have a clear narrative throughout the round. I won't be able to understand the round otherwise.

6. Don't tell me to call cards, I am not familiar with this.

Speaker points:

Your speaks will drop if:

1. You aren't fluent, so organization and clarity are key

2. You don't use all of your speech time

3. You don't directly answer your opponent's questions in CX

4. You get hyperaggressive or are blatantly rude

manjula jetpoul Paradigm

I am a parent lay judge from unionville started judging public forum from 2019 I prefer teams to speak slowly to understand the cases clearly with evidence impacts and resolutions.

if you want me to vote correctly please speak clearly so that I will be fair in retaining information to vote for the winning team.

Good Luck and Thanks