Affiliation: Capitol Debate (High school) and Liberty University (College)
Experience: I've been involved in debate for 12 years now. I debated competitively in Policy Debate primarily (I dabbled in LD and Congress in HS). I have coached Public Forum on the MS and HS level for the last 6 years.

Basic Philosophy: (Novice/Middle School)

As with anyone, I enjoy high quality debates. I find that this comes from students debating how THEY feel comfortable and not trying to appease my every desire in the round. I debated from strictly policy to performative/critical argumentation. I say all that to say that no matter what you do i'll probably be open to it. My below comments will be pretty vague as I judge/coach many types of debate

My Specific Preferences:

1) Impact and Link turns hold my heart. A well executed turn debate always grabs my attention and you will see that reflected in both my interest and your speaker points.

2) I'm lazy, Tell me what do do. At the end of the debate don't just say "They dropped X so we win the debate." Tell me why! What does it mean for the rest of the debate? How should I weigh this against the sea of other arguments at play.

3) I love evidence. I love debaters who explain their evidence and pull out the warrants even more.

4) If you decide to take a more critical/non-traditional route, don't assume I know your literature base. While I am open to hearing it doesn't mean I understand what you are saying. Make sure you explain things in-depth.

5) I am pretty expressive in debates. USE THIS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE! If I look like I don't get it...chances are I don't. If you say "They dropped X" and I am shaking my head no then chances are, on my flow, it's not dropped.

6) Don't be a jerk. I hate it and my expressions and your speaks will reflect it.

Advanced Philosophy(Varsity)

Topicality-- I default to competing interpretations . To make these debates even close to enjoyable for me this requires an explicit list of what specific cases your interpretation permits and why this is beneficial for the activity. As for "Kritiks of T": I tend not to view these as RVIs, but instead as counter-standards that privilege an alternate debate curriculum that is more important than traditional conceptions. Negatives that plan on defending T against these criticisms should not only maintain that the 1AC does not meet what they view as fair and educational debate, but also need to go into a more specific discussion that impacts why their vision of a fair and educational debate is good and why the negative's alternate curriculum is worse in comparison. In round abuse is key for me. It's what you do not what you justify

Theory-- pretty similar to T debates but the one difference is that I will default to "reject the argument, not the team" unless given a reason otherwise. I have been known to go for cheapshots, but these require fulfilling a high standard of execution (a fully warranted and impacted explanation of your cheapshot, and closing the doors on any cross-applications the aff can make from other flows). Stylistically speaking, slowing down in these debates will help me put more ink on your side of the flow--otherwise I may miss a part of your argument that you find important. Additionally, a well-thought out interpretation and 3 warranted arguments regarding why a particular practice in debate is bad is significantly stronger than a blippy, generic re-hashing of a 10-point block.

Straight-up Strategies-- My favorite strategies often involve more than one or more of the following: an advantage counterplan, topic specific DA(s), and a solid amount of time allocated to case turns/defense. I am obviously open to hear and evaluate more generic arguments like politics, dip cap, delay counterplans, and process counterplans if that is your thing, and you should obviously go for what you are winning.

K and Performance Strategies-- I enjoy philosophy and have spent a significant chunk of my free time reading/understanding K and performance arguments. My familiarity with this style of debating makes it a double-edged sword. I will be very impressed if you command significant knowledge about the theory at hand and are able to apply them to the case through examples from popular culture or empirical/historical situations. On the other hand, if you fail to explain basic theoretical ideas within the scope of the K or fail to engage particular points of contention presented by the affirmative, I will be thoroughly unimpressed. Similarly, when opposing a K or performance, I am much more interested in arguments (analytics and cards) that not only substantively engage the K but thoroughly defend why your theorization of politics and interaction with the social should be preferred, rather than a generic 50 point survey of claims that are made by positivist thinkers. This is not to say that generic "greatest hits" style arguments have no value, but they certainly need to be backed up with a defense of the conceptual framing of your 1AC (eg, if the negative wins that the kritik turns the case or a no v2l claim, I'm not sure what "predictions good" or "cede the political" does for the affirmative). In terms of a theory/framework debate, I am much less likely to be persuaded by generic "wrong forum" claims but will be more likely to be compelled by arguments pointing to abusive sections of the specific K that is being run (eg, the nature of the alt).

It's also important to defend your impacts thoroughly. My favorite straight up affirmatives to read when I debated had big hegemony advantages. My favorite K authors to read are Wilderson (Afro-Pessimism) and other forms of Black liberation startegies. As a result, I am unlikely be swayed or guilted into voting for you if the only argument you make is a moralizing reference to people suffering/dying. This is NOT to say that I won't vote for you if you choose a strategy that relies on these impacts. However if these impacts are challenged either through impact turns or comparisons, I will not hack for you; I require an adequate refutation of why their impact calculation or understanding of suffering/death is false/incomplete and reasons for why I should prefer your framing. In other words, if the opposing team says "hegemony good and outweighs your K" or alternatively, reads a "suffering/death good" style kritik and your only comeback is "you link to our arguments and people are oppressed" without much other refutation, you will lose. When your moral high ground is challenged, own up to it and refute their assumptions/explanations.

Speaks-- Largely subjective, but I will generally stick to what's outlined below (in the open division). Other things that may influence speaker points include (but are not limited to): clarity, stealing prep, being excessively mean, humor, the strength of your CX

< 25: You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale 25: You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech 26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents 27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims 28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers 28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. 29: I feel like you will be in the late elims of the tournament that I am judging at 29.5: I feel like you are one of the top few debaters I've judged that year. 30: I feel that you are the best debater I've seen that year.

I am a parent judge, and this is my 4th year judging PF. I am also a political scientist, which makes me pretty pretty skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing.

3L at NYU Law. Competed in PF all throughout high school and have worked in tournament administration + occasional VPF judging since then.

A few ground rules:

• This is a safe space -- I absolutely will NOT tolerate any disrespect towards me, your opponents, or anyone else. This includes, but is not limited to, racism, sexism, homophobia, other discrimination, general bullying and/or rudeness, and so on. Be nice and be a decent person. It is disappointing that this actually has to be said.
• I will not intervene in the round unless specifically asked to (or there is something I need to address re: above rule, evidence, etc).
• HAVE FUN!! or at least do your best? Make this fun for YOU and ME. This isn't supposed to be a chore; passion, humor, and general enjoyment will be appreciated and will reflect in your speaks.

Your arguments:

• I look for you to honor the purpose of the event -- your arguments should be clear, organized, and understandable by "laypeople." Treat me as if I am a generally informed citizen in a "public forum" and you are trying to persuade me as such.
• Corollary to the above: I dislike theory and meta-debate. I REALLY dislike spreading. I feel that these take away from the spirit of the event.This means: I will NOT consider Ks.
• SIGNPOST: this is VERY important for me. If I can't tell which responses go to which points, you will not be happy. I need an organized flow to adequately judge the round.
• COMMON SENSE: Your impacts, and your arguments in general, also need to have common sense, and I will not consider your argument or your impact if it is ridiculous (e.g. some impacts that I found to be ridiculous: student loan forgiveness will cause "80 million people to die imminently" or will lead "North Korea and Russia to invade the US")
• LOGIC AND WARRANTS: a critical piece of this exercise is the art of logic and argumentation. Mere existence of a card isn't enough. This means: 1) don't just read me 30 cards -- add on some logic and a decent explanation of how the card fits in with your argument, 2) tell me why things happen, not just that they do.
• WEIGHING: You NEED to weigh, tell me what's important and what I should be focusing on in the round.

More specific preferences:

• SUMMARY + FINAL FOCUS: PLEASE give me voters. Make this easy for me.
• EVIDENCE: do not make up, misrepresent, or mess around at all with this. The sanctity of evidence is important, and this is non-negotiable for me. This means you need to have CONTEXT and the FULL SOURCE available. I reserve the right to ask to see a card. If I see a card that does not actually say what you say it does, I'm crossing out that card -- if your argument is resting on that, *shrug* too bad
• CONSISTENCY: extend your arguments through ALL speeches (not necessary in rebuttal) if you want me to consider them.
• CX: I won't flow cross. Make sure to bring up something that was said in a speech if you want me to consider it.

Seth David Halvorson, Ph.D


Years in the Activity: Longer than you have been alive
Coach: Bard High School Early College, Newark
Conflicts: None


Experience:
Lab Leader: Advanced Labs at Stanford University and University of Iowa (20+ years)
Co-Author: Introduction to LD Debate, with Cherian Koshy

Policy and LD Coach: Lexington H.S/Bronx High School of Science/Apple Valley High School
Debater at Apple Valley High School and Macalester College
NFL LD Curriculum Writer

Rule: Be nice and be smart.

I like smart, thoughtful, strategic debate, and love ideas. I also think speaking style is important. I dislike a bunch of stuff thrown against the wall to see what sticks, is dropped, and then turns out to be a “strategy.” There are really only a few good (like 4) arguments on each topic, and thus I don’t see any reason to speak quickly. The slow round is often the better round. I am hard of hearing so speak at a decent volume. I never vote on dropped arguments because they are dropped, development is necessary. A few arguments with solid internal links will always beat a bunch of blips. People have said over the years, some of them my students who are your coaches, say I vote for the smarter debater, not the tricky debater.


Good debates address the topic, using specific literature. I don’t like cases that over-emphasize meta-ethical/onto-ethical/ slash/slash considerations at the expense of the substantive nature of the debate. Thus, I often vote (most likely ALWAYS WILL) for the debater with topic specific evidenced turns over the generio-debater who argues something about the onto-poetic and Schopenhauer and never mentions the connection to the resolution. (I am happy to talk about those ideas over tea, however.) I don't think there are "pre-standards" arguments...maybe there are, but you need to convince me and the bar there is rather high. You want to resolve the problem of induction in 14 seconds? Wake up. Get to the topic.

A few years ago, prior to the TOC, someone told me that I pioneered the “scope/magnitude/long term/short term/likelihood” impact calculus in LD debate. I am not so sure that is true, as that is the basis of policy analysis and highly doubt it was me, but you should employ that impact calculus in comparing arguments to the standard. The more you do that, (provided you have the internal links to do so) the better for you. Also, I LOVE EVIDENCED INTERNAL LINK TURNS.

SOLID INTERNAL LINKS WITH A SMALLER IMPACT BEAT AN ARGUMENT WITH WEAKER INTERNAL LINKS AND A LARGER IMPACT.

I like evidence, and read widely. Read the author’s name, her qualifications, and the title and year of the publication of the card. I hate reading cards after rounds, and often only do so because I wonder if they actually say what you say they say. Or, you were too fast and didn't read this closely. Too often debaters say evidence says something, which it does not say, so you should critique evidence. (Since no one really constructs their own internal links these days)....

I don’t like theory debates, but will need a standard format for a theory violation if you will run one, and hate voting on theory without a clear in-round abuse. I hate sentence fragments, truncated forms of expression. An argument is at least three sentences long.

The activity is to teach a number of skills, professionalism being one of them. Being angry, a jerk, or offensive will result in things going badly for you. I never ever vote for jerks or mean people, even if they "won" the round. Be nice and be smart.


Note:

I am a philosopher and authentic presentation of ideas matters to me.

I don’t like the weird machismo of debate at all, never have. Never will.

Darwin had a good idea: Adapt to your environment.

Any specific questions, just ask!

Seth David Halvorson, Ph.D


Years in the Activity: Longer than you have been alive
Coach: Bard High School Early College, Newark
Conflicts: None


Experience:
Lab Leader: Advanced Labs at Stanford University and University of Iowa (20+ years)
Co-Author: Introduction to LD Debate, with Cherian Koshy

Policy and LD Coach: Lexington H.S/Bronx High School of Science/Apple Valley High School
Debater at Apple Valley High School and Macalester College
NFL LD Curriculum Writer

Rule: Be nice and be smart.

I like smart, thoughtful, strategic debate, and love ideas. I also think speaking style is important. I dislike a bunch of stuff thrown against the wall to see what sticks, is dropped, and then turns out to be a “strategy.” There are really only a few good (like 4) arguments on each topic, and thus I don’t see any reason to speak quickly. The slow round is often the better round. I am hard of hearing so speak at a decent volume. I never vote on dropped arguments because they are dropped, development is necessary. A few arguments with solid internal links will always beat a bunch of blips. People have said over the years, some of them my students who are your coaches, say I vote for the smarter debater, not the tricky debater.


Good debates address the topic, using specific literature. I don’t like cases that over-emphasize meta-ethical/onto-ethical/ slash/slash considerations at the expense of the substantive nature of the debate. Thus, I often vote (most likely ALWAYS WILL) for the debater with topic specific evidenced turns over the generio-debater who argues something about the onto-poetic and Schopenhauer and never mentions the connection to the resolution. (I am happy to talk about those ideas over tea, however.) I don't think there are "pre-standards" arguments...maybe there are, but you need to convince me and the bar there is rather high. You want to resolve the problem of induction in 14 seconds? Wake up. Get to the topic.

A few years ago, prior to the TOC, someone told me that I pioneered the “scope/magnitude/long term/short term/likelihood” impact calculus in LD debate. I am not so sure that is true, as that is the basis of policy analysis and highly doubt it was me, but you should employ that impact calculus in comparing arguments to the standard. The more you do that, (provided you have the internal links to do so) the better for you. Also, I LOVE EVIDENCED INTERNAL LINK TURNS.

SOLID INTERNAL LINKS WITH A SMALLER IMPACT BEAT AN ARGUMENT WITH WEAKER INTERNAL LINKS AND A LARGER IMPACT.

I like evidence, and read widely. Read the author’s name, her qualifications, and the title and year of the publication of the card. I hate reading cards after rounds, and often only do so because I wonder if they actually say what you say they say. Or, you were too fast and didn't read this closely. Too often debaters say evidence says something, which it does not say, so you should critique evidence. (Since no one really constructs their own internal links these days)....

I don’t like theory debates, but will need a standard format for a theory violation if you will run one, and hate voting on theory without a clear in-round abuse. I hate sentence fragments, truncated forms of expression. An argument is at least three sentences long.

The activity is to teach a number of skills, professionalism being one of them. Being angry, a jerk, or offensive will result in things going badly for you. I never ever vote for jerks or mean people, even if they "won" the round. Be nice and be smart.


Note:

I am a philosopher and authentic presentation of ideas matters to me.

I don’t like the weird machismo of debate at all, never have. Never will.

Darwin had a good idea: Adapt to your environment.

Any specific questions, just ask!

I have been a parent judge on and off since 2013.

•analysis > evidence. not everything needs to be carded. I give higher speaks for solid analytical responses that show conceptual understanding of the topic. I rarely call for evidence.

•arguments that work in the real world preferred over gimmicky arguments (e.g. long, relatively implausible link chains to huge impacts).

•for virtual debate: set up a way to share evidence with the other team before the round.

•style: I prefer depth over breadth i.e. choose your 1 to 3 best responses rather than listing a bunch without explanation and a clear link chain.

•speed: I can not promise to keep up with rapid speed. Don't assume that I know every acronym related to topic.

•cross: I don't pay close attention to cross. Say it in a speech if it's important.

•theory/progressive debate: I don't like theory and I rarely vote on it.

Speed
I will try to take notes/flow as you go, but I will not be able to follow your arguments if you go too fast. Try to slow down as much as possible.
Timing
You are welcome to keep your own time, but I will keep official time as well, including prep. Please do not steal prep by talking during the opponent's speech time - I will deduct speaker points.
Evidence
I might read a little literature related to the current topic, but don't assume I know everything that you're talking about.
Arguments
I will listen to anything as long as it makes sense.
Speaker Points
I'm usually not too generous with them, but I'll reward good effort, politeness, and logical argumentation.

I require a natural pace of speech. Machine gun style delivery will be ignored.

I want each team to show judgement in choosing *three* main arguments and justifying them with solid logic.

I discard statements of facts that do not come with credible references and contradict my prior knowlege.

I typically do not decide based on the idea of 'on balance' as often one cannot aggregate over pros and cons but usually there is one dominating argument.

I am a litigator with 28 years experience. I expect clear, concise, well layed out cases and oral arguments. I expect arguments to be strong, articulate and most importantly, professional. If you are citing cases or facts, I expect you to substantiate those claims and have evidence readily available. I consider myself firm but fair! Please remember to be polite and respectful during the debate!

I have no background in debate, but I've been judging since 2013 and I do flow.

State the resolution (amazing how many forget to). I like frameworks but they're not musts. Introduce important acronyms.

When it comes to evidence, I look for quality over quantity. Be clear about sources ("Smith of Harvard" doesn't tell me much) and how the evidence supports your claim. I will ask to see evidence if I sense it's been misused.

Please weigh in summary and especially final focus.

Speak clearly. I'm not a fan of spreading.

I have been a National Debate Judge for over 6 years, focusing mainly on LD. I look for air-tight crosses and rebuttals, as I put a lot of weight on a strong defense. I am very "face-value" in my decision making process, so I will base my verdict on what was presented, no assumptions will be made to fill in the blanks. Also please avoid spreading as much as possible.

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

Updated for 2018 TOC

Public Forum Paradigm for 2018 TOC

First thing to know about me, I am a lay public forum judge. I have judged around the circuit, but I emphasize to you, I am a lay PF judge. I am judging for Bronx Science.

I like delivery that is slow, tasteful, and artful. I prefer big picture analysis over a highly technical line-by-line approach. The role of the final focus should be to tell me who is winning the round clearly and concisely--narrative speeches are preferred. Extension is very important to me, and I will not take well to teams that extend through ink.

With that being said, ink will be limited. During speeches, I like to sit back and listen. Persuasion is very important to me, and for that reason, I value understanding your arguments over following them on the flow, and will take limited notes. I am not aware of arguments regarding topicality or kritiks, and plans are illegal in Public Forum, so I will not vote for them.

I tend to value style and argument equally, as both are very important. I will always vote for the team with the clearest arguments and delivery at the end of the round. I do not care much for how you structure your speeches, but all arguments that you expect to win on have to be in both summary and final focus--not grand crossfire. A second speaking team is not expected to cover their own case in rebuttal.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:


To preface my paradigm, I have very limited LD judging experience. That said, you may want to strike me. If you are a brave soul and have decided not to strike me, or are considering preffing me more highly in the pool, here are what I expect to be my judging preferences as a new LD judge:

• NO SPREADING. I don’t have problems with it on principle. I just won’t understand you. If you are going too fast (spreading or not), I will simply stop flowing.
• If you are debating in front of me, I might not understand the nuances of the more complex frameworks. If you decide you don’t care and read a complicated framework in front of me, you should be using cross-x and your later speeches to make it as clear as possible for me. If I can’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.
• As someone who has more public forum and congressional debate judging experience, I appreciate good public speaking skills and a strong sense of ethos in round. I will reward these qualities with higher speaker points.
• Please be respectful. There is a big difference between being funny in round, and being rude/hostile. Debate is an educational activity, which requires a level of respect between competitors.
• Finally, to reiterate- I AM AN INEXPERIENCED LD JUDGE. Do not run your Ks, Plans, Counterplans, Disads, T-interps, or run theory arguments in front of me. I will not know how to evaluate these types of arguments. I will probably just be confused.

I guess in general I’ll say the following: You can think of me as an extremely ‘lay” judge. If I cannot understand an argument, I will not vote on it.

Russ Ricciardi

Judging Paradigm - updated August 31, 2016

 

SUMMARY DESIGNATION FOR UPCOMING YALE 2016:  TRADITIONAL

 

AFFILIATION:  NONE

 

 DEBATE (GENERAL)

 I view academic competitive debate as a species of communication arts. You should speak clearly, and presume as little as possible about your audience and your judge. I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round. I will generally not ask to see evidence after the round, even if advised to do so by the opposing team. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly. The burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine. You might say I am rather old-fashioned. Nonetheless, I have voted for “critical philosophy” cases on the rare occasions I have heard them. The key to my ballot is to present the argument logically, clearly, and persuasively.

  

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

 At any tournament sponsored or sanctioned by the New York State Forensic League, including particularly all Long Island Forensic League (LIFA) tournaments, I will expect that the primary focus of the debate be on the clash of values or value-criteria. This expectation is supported by the definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate as given by the NYSFL:

>> Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a form of … debate that focuses on values, their inter-relationships, and their relationship to issues of contemporary human concern. The focus is not upon facts to be ascertained or policies to be implemented, although such matters can be referred to as supporting material. Rather, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate should require the students to explain in a persuasive manner the most important values and criteria for judgment about the resolution under debate.<<

The definition of Lincoln-Douglas debate by the National Catholic Forensic League is brief:

 >>Individual students debating issues of values and philosophy.<<

 In light of the NCFL statement, at any competition under the auspices of the CFL, my judging emphasis on values and philosophy, in preference over policy considerations, will be at least as strong as the emphasis I will bring to any NYSFL-related tournaments.

 In contrast, the website of the National Speech and Debate Association (National Forensic League) provides a more flexible description:

 >>Many people refer to LD Debate as a “values” debate, as questions of morality and justice are commonly examined.<<

 The NSDA statement is much weaker that the two previous statements. It does not place values at the center of the debate necessarily, and it is a qualified descriptive statement, not a normative statement.


 As I do not find any stronger authoritative universal statement concerning the relative importance of the values framework to the policy considerations in an LD debate, I will strive to keep an open mind on this point in all competitions not sponsored by the NYSFL or NCFL or their affiliates. I will expect the debaters to each make their case as to how the debate should be decided.

  

PUBLIC FORUM

In the Public Forum format, debaters should strive to make themselves and their arguments intelligible to the average citizen, not presupposing that their judges or audience have any prior experience, training, or knowledge of interscholastic debate nor the topic under consideration.  

 

 

Competitive Experience:

College: None

High School: Policy debate, local circuit (1974-77)

 

Judging Experience:

Total four years local circuit (1981-82, 1986-87, 2014-16)
A few national circuit tournaments in the Northeast

 

Other Experience:

Attended teacher training track in Public Forum at 2015 Harvard Summer Workshop

 

If you have any questions or comments for me about this paradigm, or any other Speech and Debate matters, 
feel free to contact me at:  ricciardi.sd@gmail.com

 

----------------------------

Paradigm originally posted to WikiSpaces Feb. 13, 2015. Last previous revision December 22, 2015.

 

Former circuit debater in the 2012-2015 school year. I have judged at several TOC bid tournaments like Harvard, Science Park, Yale and Berkeley for several events but mostly LD and speech. I expect to see some form of framework in LD rounds like traditional VL/value criterion or critical role of the judge/role of the ballot.

If I can't understand your spreading, I can't flow you, I will give you a warning and you should adjust.

If you read frivolous theory I will probably drop the argument. If you're losing substance and this is your strategy, I'm most likely dropping you too. It's boring and reduces the educational value of this activity.

I enjoy K arguments if they are well done.

I’ve competed in Policy Debate at Science Park High School/University High School (Jersey Urban Debate League now known as Newark Debate Academy) in Newark, NJ.

*Experienced Judging in LD, Policy Debate as well as Public Forum.*

-I prefer debaters to stand when speaking.

Speed: I generally don’t mind debater spreading as long as they are clear when they are reading evidence. I would like for debaters to slow down when reading tags. I want to be able to hear your warrants in the evidence. If you are going to be making any analytical arguments be sure to slow down for that as well.

Cross-Examination: I love C-X! Good C-X that is. Open C-X is OK with me as long as the debater whose turn it is does most of the speaking.

Speaker Points: 27 is average, I generally don’t go lower than a 25.

Evidence: Evidence should readily be available to everybody participating in the debate round. If there’s evidence read that doesn’t have any citation, I will disregard it.

I really appreciate it when debaters in rebuttals provide an overall summary of the round and crystallization.

The team that makes the best arguments and overall does superb job persuading me wins!

LD: Standards should be clear (Values and Criterion)

I am an old-school judge. In LD I want to see very clear values and a criterion that weighs them so I can judge whether you've tied your impacts in support of your case. I am going to judge your arguments on quality not quantity, so please don't throw out a bunch of statistics and cards without putting them in perspective for their impacts. In PF, everything applies other than the value and criterion, but it should be clear from your contentions what is important in the round. I appreciate frameworks, but not kritiks so if you do a k without contentions that support your aff or neg, it's probably not going to score very high.

Most crucially, I do not like speed or spreading. Make your best arguments and support them. If you go too fast and I can't understand your argument because of how fast you're speaking, I can't score it.