Pennsbury Falcon Invitational

2020 — Fairless Hills, PA/US

Farshid Ahrestani Paradigm

My name is Farshid Ahrestani, I am the father of Keya Ahrestani, an 11th grader at State College Area High School.

I will be judging public forum debate at the Pennsbury Speech and Debate Competition January 31-February 1, 2020. I have judged public forum last year and I greatly enjoyed the experience. That said, I would request that you please speak clearly and succinctly so I can follow your remarks properly.

Maukthika Ayalasomayajula Paradigm

1. I don't flow cross fires, any points made need to flow into speeches afterwards

2. Any points dropped should be brought up by the other team for me to consider them

3. With that being said, carry necessary arguments all the way through the round

4. Evidence is great for supporting arguments, don't use it as your main form of argumentation.

5. I'm a PF purist, don't spread or run Ks or anything like that :)

6. Please give me impacts, weigh your impacts, and give me voters

Ryan Brady Paradigm

8 rounds

LD: I believe that rounds are decided by framework work debate and values. You can have as many contentions with evidence as you want, but if you fail to connect them into your framework effectively you will not win the round. spreading is antithetical to the purpose of debate, slow down and articulate your points persuasively.

James Briski Paradigm

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD not Policy.

So with this in mind, speed and flow, I can flow very quickly, however if it sounds like you are hyperventilating then well, breathe, breathe and slow down, you will need to since you just dropped those points or contentions - you may even see me put my pen or pencil down as an indicator. Have you ever wondered what those breathing exercises got you? Do they help with a college or job interview? If you ever do speak that quickly during an interview can you please tape and put on youtube so we can watch the other person's reaction. =)

For your K - well we all know some may try to use, not the biggest fan, especially when the debater does not fully understand what they arguing or at least the premise of their K and or using a generic K that could be used anywhere in the world!!! What would be fun to hear is that the impact and alternative brought about puppies and rainbows =)

So with that in mind, life is simple, right? Your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you slow downed so I can actually hear them. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy !

Mark Bufanio Paradigm

4 Years Competing on the National Circuit & New Jersey Circuit in Public Forum, 4th year coaching

1) For the love of God, Weigh. Your. Arguments.

2) Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll call out "Clear" indicating you need to slow down.

3) I'll believe anything that goes untouched on the flow.

4) Default to Util if there's a lack of substantive framework debate.

Hillary Burchuk Paradigm

I am the parent of a debater. Although I make my living crafting persuasive arguments, I am a lay judge, with limited knowledge of the technical rules of debate. I will try and give you the best judging experience I can. You can help me, and yourself, but clearly and concisely stating your position, explaining why sources support your argument, and politely pointing out the flaws in your opponent's claims.

I prefer truth over tech. Evidence ethics are paramount. If the cards I see do not say what you say they do, I will drop the argument from the round— and depending how egregious the ethics violation, I may drop you. I do not want to see your cut card, I want to see the article or source, with the portion you used highlighted. I have no tolerance for sexism, racism, and rudeness. Be civil, be kind. And try not to talk too fast- I can't give you credit for an argument I cannot understand.

Your job is to persuade me, through your research and arguments, that your position is right and I should vote for you. I am not well-versed on the specific rules for extending arguments, however I will not credit any argument not in final focus. Signposts and numbering of arguments will be very helpful to me.

Naxin Cai Paradigm

I am a new parent judge. Secondly, after I learned the basic of PF debate process, I like it when debaters, spread or not, can articulate their points clearly and persuasively with well organized thoughts. Coherent logic is key to me as well as concrete facts as evidence. My impression of debate is always highlighted in the crossex, so I would like to see your ability to find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal but not the verbal attack to your opponents themselves :).

Be polite and respectful to your components and you will be treated reciprocally. Last but not least, have fun!

Leona Chan Paradigm

Truth over Tech - but you have to be prepared to debate. I have strong preferences against nonsense, but you must be skilled enough to meet a minimum threshold for responsiveness.

😤 WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS 😤

Hello! I'm a judge for Oakton High School. I'm a parent of a debater, and since I've traveled with him to many local and national tournaments, I have decent experience judging this event.

I like clear, well-explained arguments, backed up with valid and convincing evidence. Explain your arguments clearly, why I should vote on them, and why they're more important than your opponent's, and you'll be rewarded.

If your argument is remotely false I will drop you.

Yes: Weighing (not just impact comparison). Warranting. Comparing evidence and analysis. Implicating all arguments to the ballot (offensive and defensive). Arguments that make sense. Smart collapsing. Direction of link analysis. Signposting.

YES! Starting good weighing in rebuttal. Summary-final focus parallelism. Ballot-directive language. Productive use of crossfire. Creating a cohesive narrative in the round, supported by each argument you make in the round. Weighing your weighing.

No: Weak, blippy evidence. Cards without warrants. Independent offensive overviews in either rebuttal, especially 2nd. Rudeness. Ghost extensions. Not frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. Squirrely arguments that are unclear or confusing for the sole purpose of throwing your opponent off.

NO! Misconstrued cards. Extending through ink. New arguments in 2nd final focus. Saying something's dropped when it's not. Dropping weighing. Being unclear in speaking. Being actively mean, degrading, racist/sexist/homophobic.

Other

I kind of flow but not really, I take notes.

No defense in 1st summary unless if it's not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal (you should do this). All offense must be in every summary and final focus. I presume for the 1st speaking team.

If you say the words "do you have any preferences" without a specific question, I'll assume you didn't read this.

Kavya Chandran Paradigm

Hello,

Please be clear when you make arguments and be sure to have a claim, warrant, impact or else I will not be able to vote for them. I am open to spreading and more progressive arguments. Other than that, feel free to ask me for more specifics at the beginning of a round!

Donna Chen Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent of a debater with only a few round of experience.

Michael DePasquale Paradigm

madepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

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 have judged maybe 10 round this year, so i am not up to speed with topic specific arguments. Im 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 drop 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.

Maria Desautelle Paradigm

I am new to judging but not new to debate.

Your argument should be clear, concise and hit on a few main ideas/arguments, not every possible argument that can be made. Speak slowly and engage your audience. Speed talking is neither important or convincing to me. Slow down. Make eye contact, speak at a reasonable pace and convince me! I am not expecting to hear every argument that could possibly be raised in support of your position. I am looking for a concise and logical argument.

In your response to your opponents argument, acknowledge your opponents point(s). Refute opposing points where you can, but never be afraid to concede a point. It makes the rest of your argument more credible.

In debate and in life, be respectful to you opponent. The opponent you respect the most will be the one whose argument is as convincing as yours. Please do not interrupt your opponent(s) during crossfire rounds. Ask your question and give your opponent(s) the opportunity to respond. Additionally, ask questions is crossfire. This round is not your opportunity to make another statement or speech. Crossfires rounds hold a lot of weight in my ultimate decision. I believe it tells me the most about how well you understand your position and gives tremendous insight into your demeanor.

Observe, learn and implement what you have learned each time. Be proud, but never satisfied with you last debate.

Most of all -- have fun with it!

Julian Dotson Paradigm

Coached (and still coaching LD,PF,CX, CONGRESS, ALL FORMS OF SPEECH)

for 15 years

I am a very experienced judge and coach. Below I will go quickly into my paradigms for LD PF AND CX.

LD:

Very traditional. Speed should be moderate. Uphold your value through contentions. Hit each contention on rebuttal.


Don't wow me with tons of evidence. Get me through your case with logic. LD is not a one man Policy show. HOWEVER whoever does the better job debating will win the round.

PF:

I mind if you run a K unless it is so clever and used without abusing the resolution. PF should can be any speed except high velocity spewing and spreading.

Evidence rules, but not to the detriment of you just debating the way you would if you had no evidence and had to IMPACT your way to a victory.

Partners: If you have to save your partner by talking during the crossfire that is not yours, go ahead. Better to have a round that is saved than a nightmare. But that will ding speaker points.

Frameworks are not 100% needed.


CX: Anything goes.

Mary Durnan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Frank Fisanich Paradigm

I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge. If you go fast, please make sure you repeat the point multiple times. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me only your best argument(s) and then weigh the opposing arguments for me. Assuming your opponent's argument is sound, why should I weigh yours as more important?

Bonnie Gabizon Paradigm

I'm a parent judge and I've been judging for about two years. Treat me as a regular lay judge; I won't be able to follow you if you speak too fast and will probably vote on the argument that is truest and most well-defended.

Mary Gormley Paradigm

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

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

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

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

Jing Han Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a parent judge and usually judge PF. I do “flow” the rounds to track the speaks. If you have convincing and logical arguments (with or without evidence), and are able to effectively counter and prove your stand, it will help me vote for you. I would stop you for the type of discussion that is totally irrelevant to the debate topic. Speed is no problem, yet it’s not a contest to cram words in seconds.

Olaino Hardaway Paradigm

My preferred debating style is where the debater uses day to day vocabulary; smooth and coherent speaking style; uses of analysis of facts vs an abundance of information. Please do not go super fast, make your contentions and arguments clear, be respectful to one another.

Please take a moment to state your name, school and side of the debate (if applicable) each time you speak.

Sonia Hardaway Paradigm

My preferred debating style is where the debater uses day to day vocabulary; smooth and coherent speaking style; uses of analysis of facts vs an abundance of information. Please do not go super fast, make your contentions and arguments clear, be respectful to one another.

Brad Horstmann Paradigm

Social Studies Teacher that appreciates the value of an organized and well articulated debate, meaning, clear contentions with strong supporting evidence. I am conscious to put my own subjective bias on the back burner and will intently listen to your case. You need to be able to understand the evidence aside from just blatantly repeating it from a card. Speed should be appropriate for full articulation and processing for the other team and judge. Spreading should be avoided.

Framework of your speech should be based on common sense to a point but should also show some building significance as you move through the round.

Not attacking all of an opponents contentions isn't a deal breaker in my final decision. Rather, teams should present a strong case that doesn't simply rely on disagreeing with opponent but should refute it and use that refutation to advance your case, thus earning points. That said, this attack should maintain decorum and civility in the round. Teams that break this decorum and civility are highly frowned upon.

Not a fan of off time road maps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to figure that out. Road maps will be on your running time.

Finally, in in your final focus, I need to hear you articulate a "so what?" that crystallizes and wraps up your overall argument while bringing in final information that was brought up in round.

Brendan Kane Paradigm

CFL Policy Update

Judged alot of policy in my career, understand most policy arguments but you should walk me through voting off them (Ks, Topicality, etc. I am comfortable with. Speed isnt an issue if you disclose and honestly probably shouldnt be even if you do not so dont feel obligated.

Email for disclosure brendanjkane1998@gmail.com

(About Me:

I am the Assistant Coach at Xaverian in New York City, in charge of debate (Mainly congress and PF but I have a background in policy and LD) Since I'm mainly going to be judging Congress and Public Forum Debate this year I will break down my paradigm into congress and PF

FOR PF

TLDR tabula rasa - go fast but slow on tags, I like disclosure and evaluate basically any arg but walk me through it

General

At heart I am a tech over truth Flow centric judge who pretty much defaults to a standard offense/defense paradigm. I try my hardest not to be an interventionist IE i try and be tabula rasa. If you plan on doing any weird strategies just run it by me before he round (I.E. run a condo theory shell), because it's very possible I don't have experience with that particular argument(I never really ran them much but I understand most). If I'm not familiar with a technical pre fiat argument, walk me through it because I will be open to voting for it.

I will disclose if the tournament let's me, if they don't and you see me outside of round and I'm not doing anything, feel free to approach me and I'll gladly take out my flow and discuss the round.

Speed

I was always on the faster side so I'm cool with speed, just be aware, if you go super fast, I will stop flowing card names so try not to just extend a card by author last name but instead what it says too (If you slow down on tags I should be fine but most people don't).

LMK before the round if yall plan to be fast or not, I prefer for faster rounds to flow on paper since I am just more use to it from years of debating but if you guys plan to go like 200 WPM I will just flow on my laptop.

Feel free to ask in round if I have been flowing cards but anything south of like 300 I should be able to flow cards unless unforeseen circumstances occur.

If you disclose and I am on the email chain feel free to go as fast as you want.

Evidence Standards

I prefer dates in case and blocks(I get it if you don't but in the future please try). If you lie about evidence I'm at minimum dropping the evidence and at worst dropping you. I will call for evidence if:

A. I'm told to.

B. It's crucial in my decision.

C. I have reason to believe it doesn't say what you say it says

Summary/FF

I expect in first summary you to extend case (PLEASE FRONTLINE YOUR OPPONENT'S RESPONSES) and to extend turns. Terminal Defense does not have to be in first summary. For second summary I expect anything you plan on having be in FF be in summary.

Theory

I don't have the highest threshold for theory but I'll certainly evaluate the argument if it's made.

IDC if it is shell or spike format I will evaluate either.

Road maps

For road maps, I'd much prefer you just tell me where you start if you aren't doing anything insane. If you plan on running an overview I need you to tell me where to flow it.

If the flow gets super super messy feel free to literally take me step by step with your roadmap I trust your judgement here.

Signposting

Just please do it.

It is not my obligation to figure out where things go in a debate- if you signpost poorly things will get lost and I won't evaluate responses you give

Speaker Points (also addresses disclosure)

SO this is the thing that is largest variable in my judging from tournament to tournament. If you respect that I am a flow judge you will probably get good speaks, but how good varies by weekend since I still haven't fully fleshed out how I want my speaker points scale to work out.

No matter what if you disclose your case to your opponents (if you email add me to the email chain brendanjkane 1998@gmail.com so I can verify and because it will make my life easier to flow) I will give .5 extra speaks for doing so.

If it is already on the PF wiki just LMK

Misc

If I flowed on my laptop feel free to email me after with what round and flight I judged you and I can give you my flow.

If anything is unclear in my RFD or comments feel free to email me.

You can be funny and I will appreciate that but if you cross the line I will lower speaks.

If your case is like 1K plus words I will flow it on 2 pieces of paper so signpost or else things will get lost.

Don't feel you have to wait for me to enter the room or do a coin flip.

I am human I may make the wrong decision but in the end I will try my best to fairly evaluate the round.

@PFVideos If someone wants to record the round plz get consent from both teams (if one team competing is recording PLZ ask the other if this is okay) if I discover one team is recording without consent I will drop that team. If you get consent feel free to record my RFD if you want

Still have yet to squirrel cry

Congress

General

So I've watched and competed in a lot of congress rounds and am an assistant coach mainly in congress. If I am parling a round you are in I will track reverse activity(If PO is using it to select questioners) and recency for speeches. If I am not parling I will not, but I usually can tell even without a recency chart if you mess up. I tend to flow the round, and I write my ballot during questioning(if there is no questioning, then I will not be flowing or else I would not have time to write your ballots).

Feel free to ask me questions about your performance after I've submitted my ballot (if I'm parling between session or after the tournament), I'll be happy to share my thoughts.

If I parli

very non interventionist or I try to be unless an issue with fairness arises

Authorships/Sponsors

I unlike most other judges truly value a solid author that sets up a debate. I understand that in the SQuo, authors (especially on the second bill of a session) are really discouraged and I get it, but I personally make an effort to try to not continue that skew.

Something also that differentiates me is that if your bill produces a solid, balanced debate, I will give you a bonus for it(this is my way of rewarding good, balanced bills).

Clash/Preemptive Responses

In regards to Clash, I expect It in every speech past the first affirmative.

For preemptive responses, I feel they often are disjointed whenever I hear them (that shouldn't discourage you but should let you know that I rarely see it done properly). If it's done properly I'll appreciate it

Late Speeches

In later speeches I expect more clash than new arguments.

Just aside I have noticed in my own judging that I rank people who frame debates very well- take that how you will

IE Events

I don't think anyone has ever looked at an IE paradigm, if I'm judging you in a speech round and you've read this please tell me, since it enough people do I will write one.

If you have any questions for me before your speech feel free to ask.

Akira Kawamura Paradigm

I am a parent judge. I enjoy listening to PF debates. When not judging, I am a chemistry professor.

Please speak clearly. Assume I don't know anything about the topic. Quality is more important than quantity.

Speaker points evaluation criteria: (1) clarity (in speech & logical flow), (2) persuasiveness (eloquence & body language), and (3) civility.

Patti Kelly Paradigm

I’m a parent volunteer judge, and I'm so impressed by the time and effort students put into Speech and Debate. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be judged by the widest possible audience, please use clear delivery, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll decide based on the accurate voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

Jonathan Kersun Paradigm

8 rounds

I have no previous debate judging experience. That being said, I hope to be fair, thoughtful, and rigorous. I like deep, creative, and original thinking. Humor is good too. Best of luck!!

Judith Kroboth Paradigm

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

Gotam Kumar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Philip Lehmann Paradigm

I am a US History, Personal Finance, and Intro to Law teacher in Lexington, MA and have taught Civics in a past life outside DC. Meaning that I have a strong academic background on the policy issues that are being discussed. That said, I am a new comer to academic-style Debate.

As a PF judge I expect solid arguments that correctly apply strong evidence and do not ignore major flaws or counter-arguments. I would much rather hear someone say "we do not disagree that the aff/neg argument is valid, but here is why ours is stronger/more relevant." Speak clearly, speak slowly. No faster than a hyper-teenager please. And have fun!

As an LD judge I am new to the game but well versed in solid arguments. Refer to your framework in your arguments to strengthen them and do not engage in extensive de-linking unless you are on solid ground logically. I will lean on my understanding of logic in the arguments rather than fancy debate tactics. Also if you spread, I will not understand you and thus may have to drop you. Keep it civil in CXs but don't be afraid to press your opponent if their answer is weak. Email is Plehmann@lexingtonma.org for speech docs.

Changyu Li Paradigm

Please speak slowly and clearly and explain your most important arguments in your last speeches.

Victoria Linn Paradigm

My previous experience includes participating in Public Forum debate in high school. As a judge, I prefer debaters speak with intention and use concise arguments backed by logic. All evidence should be provided with substantial reasoning for why the argument is being made—laundry lists of information without a supporting analysis is not preferred. A successful round, in my opinion, includes debaters speaking clearly, providing thorough logic for their arguments, and demonstrating why the arguments being made outperform the opposing team. Best of luck!

Sheila Lubert Paradigm

I enjoy a good debate and require you to be respectful of your opponent at all times. Speak your argument clearly and get your message across. I am fine with speed as long as it is coherent... I must understand what you are saying. I will not vote on a presumption and require solid information.

I am a Public School Administrator with two teenagers but they do not debate... with anyone but their mom :)

I love to see children grow in the events and show their talents/knowledge. Good Luck!

Brian Manuel Paradigm

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Stanford, Harvard, and a crew of exceptionally talented college debaters I've had the pleasure to coach)

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta than you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016


HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is a mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any one set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments amongst participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; that the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and using it to get judges who will automatically check in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. Its not about who wrote the best constructives only. Its about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is bmanuel@stanford.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered.Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era were students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasis the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must proves their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negatives burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2 year old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Suzuki and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; its what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - its rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This mean they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your life long friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

Additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or its won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and less sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. Its called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am Currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full time coach. Debate is my full time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being ran every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Ashley Murphy Paradigm

TL;DR:

· Make it easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, debate is an educational activity and rounds should be inclusive. Will vote down arguments that aren't.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think tricks debate sets a bad norm for debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". Don't oversimplify responses and, in the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Terminalize your impacts and spend your time on analysis, not card dumping. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum and how clean your speeches are.

For PF: I don't require 1st summary to extend defense, but link/impact extensions should be in summary for me to evaluate them in final focus.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Rounds where you need to spend more than 30 seconds pulling up a card make me more sad. I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetoric skills, not my reading ability. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

Why yes, I would like to be added to the email chain:

AMurphy4n6@gmail.com (Side note: As Gen Zers, I have faith in you to successfully hit "reply all" when continuing an email chain. Don't let me down.)

A Final Note:

This is a debate round not a divorce court and your tone should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Varun Nair Paradigm

I debated PF and was relatively active on the circuit in my junior year. I know nothing about the topic except for as much as I know.

Tldr (but not all inclusive)

- weigh

- tech > truth

- do warrant & impact

- can handle moderate speed, send speech doc if necessary

- presume first speaking team

- only vote off of whats in summary & FF

- defense is sticky

- evidence: (1) will drop you if you miscut (2) always include year and author (3) pulling up evidence should take 2 min max

- be nice & have fun

- world star rules apply

FULL paradigm

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered here, ask them before the round begins.

- First and most importantly, make my life easy by doing weighing.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow. Tech > truth. But don't mistake this for voting off of who spews the most tech jargon. Relying on tech jargon is not good debating. Your speaks will drop if I see you purposefully being tech.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted, and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- If you read a unique/non-stock case and/or you make jokes (that I find funny), I will boost your speaks.

- World Star rules apply. (https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel)

- I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. You also may run the risk of too much speed hurting your speaker points. If in doubt, just send me a speech doc.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and only pay attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on something if it is in both summary and final focus. If you read an impact card in your case and it is not in summary, I will not extend it for you, even if the other team does not address it. Of course, there are inevitably exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from its initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses are fine.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense for it to be in final focus, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense. This obviously does not apply if your defense is frontlined in second rebuttal. Second summary and both final focuses need to extend defense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly; don't be caught off guard.

- I will ask to see evidence after the round if (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it's never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to read it.

- All you need to read for evidence is last name and year.

- If I call for a card and it's miscut I will automatically drop you. Also don't card dump.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity.

- I expect all exchanges of evidence to take no longer than 2 minutes. If you delay the debate significantly while looking for a specific card, I may dock your speaker points for being disorganized and wasting time. If someone requests to see your evidence, you should hand it to them as soon as possible; don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Wear whatever you want, I don't really care.

- Be nice to each other!

- Bonus points if you show me a good meme.

Ulrich Palha Paradigm

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 speech 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.

Theory? Please don't!

Lastly, have fun!

Bhargav Pandya Paradigm

Hello, my name is Bhargav Pandya and I am very excited to be judging you this tournament. I am a rather inexperienced lay judge and prefer logical, on-case argumentation. I appreciate signposting within speeches and references to the flow so that I can judge the round as fairly as possible. My speaker preferences include standing during speeches but crossfires are left up to the debaters preferences. Slow, clear, enunciated speaking is preferred, and I personally try to judge the round based on the information/evidence presented, debated, and responded to by the debaters. I also like critical, evidence-based thinking with supporting statistics provided that logic is also given. If basic impact calculus is provided, I will do my best to weigh the round and judge fairly.

Nikos Papageorgiou Paradigm

I am a relatively new parent judge.

Simplicity and clarity is what i am looking for.

Raj Patel Paradigm

Hello,

I am a new parent judge. I am not too accustomed to many aspects of debate, so it would be best to try to explain debate related concepts or anything else. Other wise have fun, don’t say anything universally wrong (racist, etc.)

Chiranjeevi Peetla Paradigm

I am a parent judge. I like it when debaters focus squarely on the resolution. Debaters should stick to the actual topic of debate supported by facts/research. Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is clear. I look for logically coherent and smart arguments. I tend to vote for good rebuttal debaters. I expect all debaters to have good sportsmanship and be respectful to opponents.

Jun Qiu Paradigm

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.

Robyn Reichert Paradigm

I appreciate your speaking slowly and clearly (no spreading).  I believe this is an important skill to develop for all public speaking.  Also, if I miss what you are saying I won't be able to judge it.

 

If you introduce a concept (e.g. social contract) please be sure to provide a clear definition.

 

I appreciate debaters who make full use of the purposes of each stage of the debate.  For example, during negative constructive,  state your case and then argue against the Aff.  In the final phases, make sure you summarize/crystallize your argument, etc. Think about what you want to accomplish in each stage.

 

I choose to judge debate because I find it very stimulating and thought-provoking.  I enjoy seeing different debaters' styles and ways of approaching topics.

 

My hope is that you enjoy the challenge of debate and see everything that happens as an opportunity to learn and improve.

 

Best wishes!

Heidi Rinkacs Paradigm

I have been my school's debate coach for three years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly. If you are going too fast, I will signal for you to slow down.

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow and will note if points are dropped. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

Krystle Salvati Paradigm

- Be respectful

- Don't break debate rules

- Speak as fast or as slow as you like

- Voting points are extremely important at the end - tell me why you won and the other team did not

- Most important: I judge based on how well debaters know their cases, the topic, and how well they argue against their opponents' cases

Brinda Sinha Paradigm

I am a PF judge and coach that prefers arguments based on logic. I don't care much for evidence based clash, rather I want to see how well you can point out logical flaws made by your opponent via in-depth analysis of their case. I encourage the use of a framework, as that helps direct me as to what I should be looking for, and I do like seeing impact analyses in Final Focus.

To ensure that I am able to make a fully informed decision, PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD EXCESSIVELY! I won't be able to understand what you're saying, nor will my flow reflect your case. I don't mind kritiks, but you need to do them well in order for me to evaluate them. Regardless, I prefer traditional-style debates.

I do judge tabula-rasa and my RFDs will reflect that, but if you display a lack of basic understanding of the necessary economic, political, or whatever background concept pertaining to the resolution, I will point that out in my comments to you. Basically come to round having done your research.

Saurabh Sircar Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a careful listener and like to listen to cogent and persuasive arguments.

I generally keep abreast of recent and not-so-recent news but there may be topics on which I may not know many of the details. Of course, this is what will make judging interesting for a PF debate implying that I would like to listen to convincing arguments - affirmative or negative. I will be taking notes as the debater speaks and also when rebuttals and responses are given by opponents.

I pay attention to evidence-based arguments and if there are opinions rather factual statements presented, I would like to see if the debater is citing similar opinions from reputable sources.

I believe that the delivery of the argument is also important. If the delivery is poor or too interrupted or unclear due to speed or volume, I may not follow the argument at all. This can only hurt the debater; so, it is important that the debater pays attention to clear and lucid delivery of arguments.

Good luck to all debaters!

Melinda Stackle Paradigm

My kids have been debating for a few years, yet this is my first time judging. I am looking forward to hearing your arguments. Please speak slowly so that I may fully appreciate all of your arguments.

Marina Tu Paradigm

I am a LAY judge.

Your best choice of action is to speak slower.

I try to be tabula rasa. I vote off of strongly supported arguments that are not refuted well by the other team. I do listen to crossfire as well.


Also make sure to weigh, and try to convince me.

Heng Wang Paradigm

8 rounds

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.)

Brittany Widmann Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Yu Paradigm

I am more of a lay judge than technical judge. Quality and delivery of content matter more to me than quantity of arguments. Speakers who articulate their points clearly and persuasively will fare better than those who speak very quickly. I find cases that have a logical narrative and build towards a compelling conclusion are more effective than a long laundry list of arguments that are only semi-related.

Civility during the round is important, but only seems to be a problem <10% of the time.

Jackie Zheng Paradigm

Greetings Scholar!

There are three things I love that have no relevance to this paradigm: architecture, computer science, and quantum physics. There are definitely more things that I like, especially all genres of music (classical, all types of pop, indie, 1980s rock, instrumental, you name it). What is relevant is that I am a former PF debater, so interpreted as you will. For the time being, you can consider me as a flow or flay judge, but let us do some housekeeping. I will try to keep everything short and concise:

[-] Etiquettes:

- It does not matter where, and when, you stand and sit.

- You may time yourself, but it is up to you to be honest about your time. I will keep official time regardless.

- I don't handshake, and if you do, I will just stare at you and wonder if "you read my paradigm".

- You may spread, but both your opponents and I must agree to allow it for the round.

- I permit off-time roadmaps and won't penalize you for using it. In fact, it might help your side.

[-] Weighing:

- I am not a tabula rosa, I will actively and logically think about your arguments and how you can improve throughout the round.

- Please be clear on the magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

- When you frame your case or the round, you must prove that your side ultimately solves for that framework. For example, if you ask me to weigh lives above everything, please tell me why and provide a detailed, unique reason. I will not vote off lives because “life is a prerequisite” or “we save more lives”, but on how you frontline, extend and link your case to your framework. If you can't solve your own framework... we got a problem, Huston.

- Not everyone is a rational, utopian being.

- Rawls = Not Good, Bentham = Not Good, but Rawls + Bentham = Best Philosophy.

[-] Additional Feedback & The Empire of RFDs:

If you want more feedback on the round (i.e on how you can improve, why you won the round, why you lost the round, etc.), I can explain it to you. I will try to walk you through the entire round and my opinions, to the best of my ability.

That would be it for housekeeping, you should be in the round by now. Ask me if you have any questions. Semper Speech and Debate!

Lucy Zhu Paradigm

1) Acceptance of traditional syllogistic as an adequate account of the logic of judging

2) Be respectful, articulate, well prepared

Laurel Zydney Paradigm

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!