Loyola Blakefield HS, University of Maryland, Howard Community College


I competed for Loyola Blakefield in Towson, MD between 2009 and 2013. Currently, I am a Junior in College. While I am no longer a debater, I currently help judge/mentor for Loyola Blakefield's forensics team. Moreover, I keep myself in the loop by looking at topics and researching them. 

Judge Paradigm 

I did Lincoln Douglas Debate at various competitive levels between 2009 and 2013 for Loyola Blakefield as well as doing Impromptu in 2013. As of January 2017 I have judged for Lincoln Douglas, Policy, Improptu, Student Congress, Public Forum, Original Oratory, OI,DP, and Dec. My studies and experiences have covered a variety of topics ranging from local politics, health, trading regulation, taxes, etc. at the local and national level.

I believe that, between my experiences as a debater and level of activity within the Forensics scene as a whole, my expertise as a judge covers a rather vast range of topics and styles. To me, there is no set way that a debate should go. Debates are won by the better debater not necessarily by some random argument that one person or another happens to put in their case. It is their job to properly present and defend their arguments. It is not my job to debate for you. Debaters are responsible for connecting their own dots, not spitting information and expecting me to deal with it.

Presentation: I expect there to be a level of decorum and civility upheld throughout the round. I will not tolerate blatant disrespect from or between the debaters in round. While I will not drop a competitor if he or she exhibits improprieties in round, such factors weigh heavily in my distribution of speaker points. If debate is meant to be an educational exercise, then it does not include vulgarities, screaming, or rudeness. 

Speed: Personally, I have no predisposition to speed so long as you are clear and articulate with what you say. I will say "clearer" once if I cannot discern what a debater is saying. If enunciation or speed shows no alteration, then I will not flow what I cannot understand. That being said, I do have a high tolerance for speed- just show common sense and annucaition with how fast you deliver.

Theory/Off Case Arguments: I am fine with theory and other Off Case Arguments in round; I have no predispositions as to how I think a debater should approach a round. While the purpose of any rhetorical exercise is to discuss and discern the implications of the matter at hand, the argumentative parameters of the debate are set by the participants. Tell me how and why your position at the end of the round is superior. As to how one crystallizes the elements in round or presents their arguments, that is completely up to the framework and lens gleaned from the interaction between the two debaters. In addition, cases of abuse must be substantiated and proven; one cannot merely claim abuse and let it lie.

In essence: Give me clear IMPACT ANALYSIS AND thorough DECISION CALCULUS. 

Additional Considerations: No matter how a debate ends up being crafted in round, I do expect one thing: substantive clash. If the two debaters are not engaging each other, then the round is effectively useless, like two ships passing in the night. No judge wants to be left without a clear, definitive picture of how the round went or how each debater formulates his or her position. Even if the final RFD is hard to decide, a round of direct clashing is worth a thousand indirect rounds with specious reasoning and obtrusive argumentation.

Pet Peeves: I swear if my competitors have similar or overtly general values and proceed to debate which value is more preferable, I will give them both low speaks. Value debate at that level is practically useless and I almost never evaluate it.

Oral Critiques and Disclosure: If there is time for me to deliver an Oral Critique after the round, then I will. Otherwise, debaters are welcome to come and track me down for an oral critique. My disposition to Disclosure is slightly different. I will ask the debaters if they want me to disclose at the end of the debate. If both agree then I will proceed to do so. However, keep in mind that (at least in my experience), disclosure can be one of the most damning or amazing feelings in debate. If you want that risk, then go for it.

While qualified to judge PF and LD, I am primarily a Speech coach. I admire the analysis and argumentation skills developed through debate, but these should not take the place of solid public speaking skills--and the worst thing is for debaters to develop poor speaking skills as a result of trying to fit as many arguments as possible into the time limit. So, do not spread! Make eye contact with me and with your opponents. You may talk quickly but it should be expressive rather than robotic. Sound like you believe what you are saying, not just spitting out statistics and references.

Other than that, stick to the basics: counter each of your opponent's contentions with clear arguments. I want to see you clash head-to-head, not talking past each other.

I appreciate you articulating what you see as the voting issues in the round, but be careful not to tell me multiple times I "have" to vote in your favor. It's a pet peeve of mine to be told what to do by someone I do not know.

Credentials: 4 years of high school competitive experience in numerous speech events and LD. Coach since 2011, head coach since 2013.

· Focus on making a sound, well structured argument – 2 or 3 strong points will go much farther than 5 or 6 weaker arguments

· Avoid acronyms and jargon that are not widely known – if you must use them, clearly define them

· Do not speak over one another – respect your opponents time – this is particularly important during online tournaments

· Speak clearly and at a regular, speaking pace

I prefer a traditional style of LD that doesn’t run kritiks or feature spreading. If you do something more circuit style, you have to break it down for me very clearly so I follow you.

My Background:

- Am a practicing lawyer with 33 years of litigation experience

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

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

- Have judged Lincoln Douglas a few times over the years

What I expect from debaters:

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

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

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

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

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

MICHAEL KEANE PARADIGM

Background:

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

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

Debaters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Show respect for your opponents and teammates.

5. Have fun.

My experience as a debater spans several years, across events including LD, CX/Policy, Congress, throughout both high school and collegiate national circuits; though several years removed from competing; consistently serving as a judge nationally, from NY to TX to CA.

Rules: They're necessary and well-defined, and formalizes debate procedures. The recent interpretations of procedures - regarding open vs. closed CX; CX during prep; file/data transfer consuming prep-time, etc. - may be applied to rounds only when all parties are agreeable to the proposed interpretations. If at least a single party to the debate disagrees, then the traditional interpretation of the debate procedures will be applied. Procedures provide structure, but shouldn't foster stagnation. Rules, like laws, may be viewed differently from person to person, over time. So long as parties are agreeable to reasonable rules adjustments, they may be applied. I view the role of the judge as mainly silent, but present/involved.

Opinions/Intervention: Neutrality, but knowledgeable! I evaluate information presented to me, with no bias, whatsoever. While I may have familiarity with issues and facts surrounding them, the job of the judge is to evaluate the arguments presented. I generally do not seek to subvert the job of any debater. It is the debaters' job to present cases and to rebut inaccurate information, and to contend with faulty arguments. While personal knowledge may cause me to disagree with that which is presented, it would be incumbent upon the opponent(s) to counter-argue the point. I would not impart personal thoughts; but would instead weigh arguments presented on the basis of what is known to me. If ignorant in an area, I'd rely upon debaters to make the most convincing arguments.

Spreading/Speed: Speed is no issue; articulation/enunciation is. Points intended to be made by debaters will simply be lost if not well-articulated by the debater. I will not rehash items to clear up uncertainties. It is not the job of the judge to figure out the debaters' statements. It is instead the job of debaters to present clearly their arguments such that the judge could properly evaluate the same. An indistinguishable statement is just as good as one never spoken.

Paradigm: Both theory and kritik arguments win favorable votes from me. I am rather neutral on the types of arguments presented. I see no degradation to the advancement of educational debate with kritiks, and, similar to my position on rules, believe that interpretations and approaches may be adjusted over-time and across individuals, moving from more traditional ideas of theoretical debate.

Evidence certainly helps, but should not serve as a debater's crutch. Some may present convincing enough arguments of pragmatism and suppositions that lack concrete evidence. Others may present heavily-sourced arguments, with the expectation that Politico, Fox, Washington Post, Harvard Review, etc. will carry the case for them. I accept that evidence is rarely truly pure. Meaning, for example, that where "a Reuters poll (may) shows XYZ..." that poll/study may be laden with implicit/explicit bias. So, it's the duty of the debater to not only research, but to also present crafty arguments that may not be solely dependent upon a sources. Recency may help when/where more recent sources offer better evidence on a topic; but credibility, is most important. Perhaps there's a more recent study that fails to account for the depth of a previous one. New does not always mean better.

Overall, my philosophy tilts more towards the tabula rasa school of thought. I am a neutral, largely silent, participant allowing parties to work through differences on procedural interpretations; and am open to different formats of argumentation, with no set standard; but, expect to be convinced by on party or another, no matter their style. However, there must be formality to debate. So, understanding the rules as traditionally interpreted and incorporating stock issues for a comprehensive and sound argument would help.

CatNats Update: Forgot to update this - oh well. The ensuing philosophy is dated. The bottom line is, "I have experience. It's your activity. Make good arguments."

Experience: 4 years debating at Marist, 2 years coaching at Pepperdine, intermittent coaching at UWashington and Seattle high schools. Currently at Dutchess Community College coaching full-service.

After a brief hiatus and exodus from the Northeast, I'm back! I think judging philosophies are a good thing, but I've been out for so long that it's difficult for me to put into words what I'm "looking for." Moreover, I don't think that debate is about what I'm "looking for" (debaters don't debate for my edification), but it's about what students want to get out of it.

So, here's the old 2011-2012 version with changes applied as needed:

"Despite my sincerest efforts, I am still not the fastest of flows. As a result, I tend to look at rounds/speeches in a more holistic fashion and am not super-persuaded by arguments about line-by-line drops as concessions. Conceptual drops, however, still apply. Keep it clear and this shouldn't really be a problem.

Also, a few thoughts on niceness... I might be one to say that a little bit of antagonism is good in debate but I place the emphasis on the "little" as opposed to "antagonism." Let's face it - you're competing and you don't have to be all buddy-buddy with the opposite team (if you want to be, awesome!). It's cool to show that you know what you're talking about in CX but it's an entirely different thing to be an outright jerk. The whole "eye rolling/raising the voice/acting generally disgusted by the other team" thing just doesn't fly with me. Your speaks will probably reflect this if it gets to be too much. Snarky comments during the RFD also don't fly (and it perceptually discredits your skills as a debater...).

I debated for Marist and we were kind of non-traditional in our lines of argumentation. But, this doesn’t mean that I’m all about the K or non-traditional debate. Make sense? I hope so.

Anyway, I’m a sucker for a good, well-warranted debate. You have two hours to make me vote for you – and I’m not going to do the work for you. This probably means that you shouldn’t run your blippy DAs, framework, or shallowly articulated Ks in front of me. This also means that you shouldn’t run a K and assume I understand what your author’s talking about or run a DA and assume I keep up with every current event imaginable. Debate is about understanding the “why”s of a situation – not about spitting out as many cards as possible.

If you’re running T or framework, give me tangible reasons why I should vote for you – none of this “potential abuse” nonsense. I typically don’t buy “fairness” as a valid argument. If you’re on the flip-side of the T/framework debate, impact turns are a good route to go. Tons of arguments about how the other team is “excluding” you? Not so much.

As for those of you wondering if you should run a K or a DA/CP… either one is fine. Just explain it well. See my call above for warrants. I'm relatively well-versed in critical literature (lots of crit. ped. and cultural theory...) and am usually up-to-date, current events-wise.

And, if you’re wondering if your performance/non-traditional arguments are “safe” in front of me – yeah, they are. But, just because you sing/dance/read a poem/talk about identity, it doesn’t mean I have to vote for you. Give me the reasons why this is important, just like you would for a straight-up position. To me, performance/non-trad needs “solvency”, like any other argument. An example? It’s fine to talk about why the topic is bad – now what are you going to do about it…?

I'm fairly expressive non-verbally as a critic. If I look absolutely perplexed or stop flowing, there's definitely a reason why. Take that in-round feedback and tailor your arguments accordingly. It might mean that you have to take a step back and explain your argument with a little bit more depth but it'll be worth it. I promise."

TL;DR:

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

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

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, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within 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". 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 the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. 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.

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. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. 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.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round 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.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

Background:
I competed in LD debate, Extemp, and Congress from fall 1998 - spring 2002 (plus some other speech events). I then competed in Parliamentary debate for all 4 years of college. I find speech and debate to be highly valuable to the participants and wish to give back to the community. That is why I started coaching in 2014 when I returned to the US after my army service.
Current Affiliation: Needham High School Assistant Coach (speech and debate)
Last Update: February, 2023

LD Paradigm:

QUICK: I am old school / traditional. I expect LD to be like it was when I did the activity. If someone has a value and criterion, links their arguments back to their criterion and impacts how those arguments achieve their value, I am extremely happy and give high speaker points. I also really like it when people have strong crystallizations (voters). Clearly weighing and explaining why I should value your arguments more than your opponents make my job easier, which give you more speaker points.
I dislike theory / policy debates in LD. Policy debate exists, do whatever you want in a policy round. Don't do it in a LD round.

Additional Details: I love LD debate because of the standard debate inherent to the activity. The ability to explain why I should use a certain moral standard and then explain how your arguments lead to the achievement of your standard are critical in my mind. That is the only thing I want to vote on. I expect the debate to be centered around the resolution provided.
Any other argument, ie, policy debate, theory, fairness, etc, no matter how well done, or how much time is devoted to it, misses the point of the activity in my mind, so it will be treated as such in my RFD.

Also, as a speech and debate coach, I value both the delivery and the analysis. Both are part of the speaker scale. For speech aspects, speed, clarity, sign posting, eye contact are things I look at. For analysis, the more in depth, the better. I want to hear the student, not the card. Telling me to extend a card without telling me why the card is important in the round in not analysis.

In addition, since I do believe in the educational merit of this activity, I will gladly talk with anyone after the round. I usually don't disclose, but am fully willing to explain how I saw the round, what can be improved, and what was done well.

DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Policy Paradigm:

Everything I hate in LD is kosher in Policy, so knock yourself out. That being said, I enjoy rounds on substance and the speaker points I give reflect that. I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

PF Paradigm:

I enjoy judging PF. Due to my LD background, having some sort of framework / framing the round helps me as a judge and helps you win the round and get higher speaker points. Due to the short speech times, I really want you to explain why one or two arguments that you are winning are more important than the one or two arguments your opponents are winning. Weighing is really important!

Something a bit more specific - being the second team to speak in a round means your rebuttal can deal with the first 3 speeches, and while I don't require you to do so, it really helps your side when you deal with both the pro and con cases. Use that advantage!

I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Cheers,
Adam Nir

* Congress *

Just a couple notes on places where I may differ from certain other judges.

First: I see Congress as a true speech AND debate event. Rhetoric, passion, body language, facial expression, changes in pace & tone, the use of pathos & humor (where appropriate) -- these things matter! If your speech is three straight minutes of speed-reading through a list of arguments and cites, you'll absolutely get credit for the evidence & argumentation, but you'll also get dinged for treating it as a CX round, which it is not.

And, second: I find I'm much more impressed by discernible consequences than by abstract notions of fairness or inequity. That doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about big ideas, about right & wrong -- that's great, by all means you should include it. But if, for example, your Neg speech boils down to, 'Alright, the bill is better than the status quo and, sure, no one in particular is really harmed by it. But the legislation doesn't go far enough, and the benefits of the bill are distributed in an unequal way, therefore the bill is unjust and we must negate' ... then to my thinking you've accidentally given an Aff speech. Oops.

History has shown that not all judges see this issue the same way I do, and that's fine. But if you're trying to game my ballot, show me tangible harms or tangible benefits.

I’m a new judge for PF so don’t speak too fast.

Be clean on your flow

Don’t interupt each other during cross X. Ask a question and listen for an answer and vice versa.

Please make sure to speak clearly, it allows for easier interpretation of arguments and support

Make sure that you bring supporting evidence with your arguments, especially main contentions

When refuting your opponents points, make sure to give a clear description of what is the flaw in their position. If you can support your own counterpoint with more evidence, it makes your counterpoint strong. Contending points is one of the best ways to eliminate your opponents main points. Keep in mind you should challenge their points directly, make the connection that your points have more magnitude or scope, and really focus on solidifying your position in summary.

UPDATED FOR 2020-21 SEASON:

INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAINS: alan DOT tannenwald AT GMAIL DOT COM.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE PARADIGM:

SHORT VERSION: Flow-leaning "flay" judge. Go slow - speed does not work via Zoom. No jargon. Signpost. Weigh (that means compare) and give me a weighing framework early in round. I need narrative and warrants - please extend them through every speech and into final focus. Summary and Final Focus should be voting issues with weighing framework overview at beginning. Rebuttal should be line-by-line. Be careful with theory and kritiks, as I am generally hostile to both.

Please let me know before the round if you require any accommodations but don’t take advantage of it either. I will try to avoid using pronouns unless competitors disclose preferred pronouns prior to the start of the round.

LONGER VERSION:

BIO: I coached PF, Speech and Congressional Debate for Newton South High School in Massachusetts from 2011 until 2019, at which point I retired to devote more time to my family. I competed in Congressional Debate in high school, APDA parliamentary debate in college and moot court in law school. In real life, I am a corporate attorney for a software company. My former students would describe me as being a flow-leaning "flay" judge since I am not up to speed on the latest PF tech jargon. I've judged late elim rounds at most national tournaments, including the final round at NSDA Nationals in 2018.

SUMMARY SPEECHES: I do not want line-by-line summaries or summaries that are like mini-rebuttal speeches. Your summary should consist of voting issues with a brief framework overview at the beginning. First speaking teams do not need to "frontline" defense in summary; however, if one of your voting issues involves one of your defensive arguments/blocks, you need to extend that defense into your Summary speech.

SPEED: I really struggle with speed, especially with online debates. I can flow slightly faster than a conversational speed but not much more than that. If you go too fast, I will miss things on my flow.

WEIGHING/FRAMEWORK/NARRATIVE: I want comparative weighing, framework and a cohesive narrative. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them and if you do not provide supporting warrants for them. Please extend the warrants and narrative into summary and final focus and don’t lose track of the resolution you are debating when you get to those speeches. Please try to clearly introduce your preferred weighing framework early in the round (top of case and/or top of rebuttal). If you do not provide a framework, I will use my own to evaluate the round (I default to utilitarianism). BUT don't make the round into a framework debate. The best way to win my ballot is to win on your framework and your opponent's framework.

I caution you against spending too much time debating about how to interpret the resolution unless your opponents are doing something super abusive. As a general rule, these types of arguments detract from your narrative.

OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS/ARGUING ABOUT EVIDENCE WHEN CALLING FOR CARDS: Please signpost during your speech instead of giving off-time roadmaps. Please don't argue about what evidence says when calling for cards.

JARGON: I really do not want to hear debate jargon in a PF round. I should not need a glossary or dictionary to judge PF. If you are going to use terms like "terminal defense," you need to explain to me what it means as you would to a lay judge.

FINAL FOCUS: *Slow down* and give me voting issues and weighing analysis. Warrants, links and impacts should all be clearly extended. Please make sure all of your voting issues are in your final focus. If you don't extend something into Final Focus, I will assume that you don't want me to vote on it.

CROSSFIRE: I usually don't flow crossfire, as I try to use at as a time to evaluate how your arguments are interacting with each other. If something happens in crossfire that you want to be a voting issue, please mention it in summary (unless it comes up in grand crossfire) and final focus.

MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE: Please don't misrepresent evidence. I will dock your speaker points if I call for evidence and discover that you are misrepresenting what it says and, if it's a voting issue, I will give you the loss. If I call for evidence, I am likely to want to see the original source material and NOT just the cut card. Over the years, I have seen many instances where card cuttings have misrepresented evidence and, as a result, I am predisposed to distrust them.

When reading evidence, I don't require exact quotes (especially in rebuttal, summary and FF) but I do expect accurate paraphrasing and for quotes not to be taken out of context. If your evidence doesn't support your contention without your drawing your own conclusions about what the evidence means, make sure you are clear that the conclusions you are drawing are your own conclusions and provide a warrant for those conclusions.

Here is an illustration of what I consider to be misrepresenting evidence:

Saying that your evidence says that, as a general rule, increasing funding for mental health care by 10% reduces homelessness by 5% when your evidence only says that increasing funding for mental health care by 10% reduced homelessness in Boston by 5%.

As a corollary to this, since I take allegations of misuse of evidence seriously, please don't make blippy rebuttals in which you falsely accuse your opponents of misrepresenting evidence as a defensive strategy.

THEORY: Theory argumentation really doesn't belong in PF. The only situation in which I will vote on theory is if a team is engaging in behavior or argumentation that is just intolerably abusive. To win a theory debate with me as your judge, you need to (a) clearly identify the abuse with specificity and (b) clearly explain how the abuse precludes a fair debate. To discourage people from running theory arguments, I will automatically dock 1 speaker point for each debater who runs a theory argument that becomes a voting issue and loses. I will not vote on disclosure theory (unless there is some misdisclosure that you can prove), speaker points theory or any other similar nonsense that is being imported from LD and Policy. Substantive, resolution-based debate is mandatory for you to win my ballot.

KRITIKS: I am ambivalent about Ks in PF because I don’t think the speech times and judging pools allow for them to be run and adjudicated properly. For me to be able to vote on a K, I need to feel that you are actually engaging with the literature and warranting analysis and not just making a cheap attempt at winning a round. HOWEVER, no one should be forced to lose a round simply because of the side of the resolution they were assigned to debate. if you are running a K that forces the other side to make oppressive arguments to win on the flow, I view that as counter to the spirit of public forum debate and exclusionary. Advocate for change - but do so in a way to allows for actual debate and keeps the round accessible to everyone. Also, substantive, resolution-based debate is mandatory for you to win my ballot. If you don't like the resolution, take it up with the Topic Wording Committee outside of the tournament setting and don't compete. Do not run a K in which you claim that a resolution is X, Y or Z and then run a non-topical case.

BE RESPECTFUL: I REALLY hate it when debaters hold up their timers when their opponents are going overtime, roll their eyes, mock their opponents, and make ad hominem attacks against each other.

SPEAKER POINTS: 28 is my baseline for an average debater. I give out maybe 1-2 30's per tournament.

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

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE PARADIGM:

This was my event in high school so I have some strong opinions about it. Analysis and quality of evidence are key. But use of both shouldn't be at the expense of your delivery, which should be at a conversational pace and not involve yelling, screaming or speed-reading. To get my "1", you should aim to be the "refreshing voice of reason" in the chamber. In judging, I typically weigh analysis/evidence 66% vs. delivery 33%. I penalize harshly for rehash, especially if you try to extend one-sided debate in order to sneak an extra speech in. You are much better off giving fewer original speeches than multiple speeches that repeat other debaters' arguments. After a couple of cycles of debate, you should be clashing with and referring to other debaters' arguments. I don't like gimmicks or cheesy jokes unless they are especially clever and tasteful. During cross-ex, you should ask thought provoking questions that illustrate the flaws in your colleagues' arguments but you should not be virulently attacking them.

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

LD/POLICY PARADIGM:

I almost never judge these events. However, if I am judging you in one of them, treat me as a lay judge and don't spread. LD'ers - I am looking for traditional LD, not post-2002 circuit-style LD. Note that I was a Philosophy Minor (almost a major) in college so I am fairly familiar with most famous Western philosophers and their writings, as well as some Eastern philosophy. My views on progressive argumentation in LD are similar to my views about it in PF except that I may be more inclined to vote on a K in LD since the speech times allow for proper development of the arguments. That being said, topicality is mandatory for you to win my ballot, as is debating the actual resolution.

I am the coach of Scarsdale HS and have been in the activity for 20 some odd years

LD

These days I tend to tab rather than judge so I am generally out of practice. Treat me as you would an educated parent judge. Go slow and clear. Signpost. Weigh

As a more traditional judge, I prefer to hear arguments that are actually about the topics. I will listen to any well reasoned and explained arguments though although voting on argument not about the topic will probably make me want to give poor points.

PF

i would prefer fewer cards and stats that are actually contextualized and explained than a slurry of paraphrased nonsense. Anyone can make individualized stats dance, but a solid debater can explain the context of that work and how it links to other pieces of info