I competed in LD and PFD for Brophy College Prep ('13). I've been judging high school debate since '13, and have experience competing in collegiate Parliamentary and IPDA debate.

As someone who believes this activity is all about YOU (the debaters), I try not to set standards that would adversely affect your ability to debate the way you prefer. This means I am open-minded and accepting when it comes to alternative case styles, performance methods, K's, theory, etc. 

For the sake of my flow, please signpost at all times. Speed and spreading are fine with me, as long as I can get your tags/sources/authors.

As far as voting, I base my decision on whatever happens in the round aka I'm a flow judge. I look for clash, I look for impact calc, and I look for solid link chains.

This is what I ask for of my debaters:

1. Be kind. You're debating other human persons, and should treat yourself, your partner, and your opponents as such.
2. Be respectful. Being on time is a demonstration of respect. Allowing equal time distribution in cross-ex is a show of respect. Shake the hands of your opponents, but not mine.
3. Be smart. Don't waste time, don't make up evidence, don't make bad allegories.

This is how I assign speaker points:
(a great way to guess what your sp might be is watching my facial expressions when you speak)

30 - You were fluent, a great speaker, arguments had solid reasoning and link stories, provided impact calc, signposted, etc.
29 - Maybe you had one or two verbal hiccups or not-so-strong arguments
28 - Maybe you had more than one or two verbal hiccups or not-so-strong arguments
27 - This is what I call "average"
26 - This is what I call "below average"
25 - This is what I call "a mess"
24 and below - You probably said something offensive or hateful 

Miscellaneous things about me as a judge:

- I keep track of all prep time. I will ask "are you taking prep" at the end of each speech to the next speaker. I will NOT time prep during evidence sharing, but you should have your case/evidence ready for your opponents to review, because - guess what! - I may also want to review that evidence.
- If my timer starts beeping I stop flowing!
- Please don't address me in your speeches, it is not good word economy and it also makes me uncomfortable. Also please do not shake my hand unless you are going to lowkey slip me chocolate/ca$h.
- I am open to giving more in-depth advice/critiques after the round, as long as you don't interrupt me when I'm eating
- Don't interrupt my RFD, because that is ME time, I just had to listen to YOU speak for ~20-25 minutes total.  
- I am a human being with flaws so I apologize in advance for any and all facial expressions/vocal reactions I may have in a round I judge

LD: Veteran competitor. I like creativity. I don't flow cross-ex, so don't be timid - I want to watch you work and idle cross time is wasted time.

- Spread at your own risk: I will not punish you for speed but if you are unclear or I can't flow quickly enough to keep up, I can't give you credit for a point. I will give one verbal warning if I start to lose you, and it's on you after that.

- Progressive argumentation permitted, but I am not generous to arguments that attempt to circumvent a perfectly acceptable resolution or advocacy. That goes for both Kritik positions and theory defenses: I'm fine with debaters running them, but make sure your links are completely airtight. If you tell me something is so wrong with the round that I need to judge in your favor because of it, there needs to actually be something wrong with the round.

PF: Keep it simple. Frameworks help with weighing, if you choose to employ them, but I openly discourage speed and progressive argumentation in this format. If a non-specialist can't understand your argument, this is not the place for it and you should strongly consider moving to CX.

PF

I don't want to shake your hand.

No off-time roadmaps.

I am a lay judge.

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

11/10/19

Haven't gotten around to building my new paradigm yet as my old judge philosophy got lost in Al Gore's internet.

For now, a few things:

--Truth over tech.

--I am a debate coach. I am also a professional educator. I care about education, not just the game of debate.

--I flow. I have been in grad school recently and not judging much so I may be a bit rusty.

--Signpost the flow religiously.

--Framework is just another argument. You don't just auto win the round because they dropped framework arguments.

--I do not hear well. Be loud and clear as much as you can.

--Feel free to ask my any questions before the round other than, "Do you have any preferences?" Specific questions are better!

What I look for when I judge is respect of me and other debaters.  That you try to do your best and learn from round to round.  I also want to see that you try to be interested about what you are speaking about.   

I was a former congressional debater and national semifinalist, so I know how this event works. I competed in the Golden Desert (NV) debate circuit, and have judged Congressional Debate tournaments in the past. I have also worked with Extemp and Impromptu in the past. With that said some general thoughts...

General Paradigm
I am open to all types of arguments as long as they are logical. I assume everyone in the round is intelligent and can create logical links, with analysis, but you need to make the links and do the analysis for me. I am open to whatever kind of position you would like to run, but speak clearly and make sure I understand what position you are trying to take. Make sure that your arguments are clear.

Most importantly, this is a debate event, NO EVIDENCE, NO RANK!

Speed/Delivery

Don’t Spread, but if you have a lot to say, say it. I would say on a 10- point scale I like a 5-6 on the speed scale.

Cross Examination

CX matters and I do take your questions, not how many you have, but the quality of the question you are asking into account. As well same goes for responses. Don’t take 30 seconds on one question but don’t give yes/no answers, elaborate.

Civility

Debate is fun and I do like the occasional laugh just like anyone else but when you are saying hurtful or rude things to deliberately disrupt the round, you will be voted down. Be kind to one another. Good Luck!

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Overall:

-       I place an equal value on analysis, delivery and clash (when appropriate).

-       If I had to drill down on one aspect of analysis, it’s your impacting, and particularly weighing impacts. One aspect of delivery – it’s how well you comport yourself as an actual member of the House or Senate.

-       You need to play the game and you should conduct yourself with the decorum of a professional legislator.

Speaking:

-       I don’t mind speed as long as you are clear and understandable. Try to connect your speeches together from beginning to end.

o   You’re doing really well if I can trace the your narrative and advocacy throughout the entire speech.

-       Have clear, identifiable, topical sources.

-       It truly doesn’t matter when you speak in the round. Constructive, Rebuttal and Crystallization speakers have all won rounds with me.

-       Great delivery combined with really insightful, unique, and thought-provoking analysis that you highlight to me will always get you a higher ranking.

CX:

-       The best CX’ers are those who can set traps for the speakers and then link it into their own analysis later.

-       I also appreciate those who use CX to enhance the decorum of a legislative debate.

Presiding:

-       At national tournaments, presiding officers should generally be error free. More than one major error (recency, procedure, loss of decorum) will generally push you to the bottom of a Top 8 Ballot.

-       The best POs are the ones you can’t even tell they’re there because they are efficient in word economy and moving business along.

-       POs rarely win rounds with me, but can easily earn a 3rd or even 2nd place with a truly great performance.

-       As a Parli, barring major errors, POs will always rank highly on my cumulative ballot for their service.

Procedure:

-       There’s no such thing as a Point of Personal Privilege “to address the chamber.” This might be one of the worst decorum breaches – ever.

-       Just relax! If you’re prepared and rehearsed, you’ll do great! Good luck!

Link to JudgePhilosophies