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

Be kind and have a great debate.

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

I am a parent judge and have been judging for the past three years .

This should go without saying but I see it happen every tournament .Please, be nice to your opponents!!! I have little patience for people who are rude, cocky, rolling their eyes ,obnoxious, etc. in round. It really is unacceptable and you will be penalized for it ! You are here to debate your topic so do it strong and respectful ! Please make this round enjoyable for everyone and don't ruin it!

Voting

I vote for the team with the most persuasive argument. The soundest vote for me is an offensive argument........this means you clearly state your argument while also pointing out the comparative merits over your opponents.

I want you to convince me to vote for you based on your arguments not by the speed you talk . If you talk too fast your speaker points will reflect tht and if you speak so fast that it's difficult to understand you you will lose because I can't vote for a argument I can not hear !

Crossfire

I don't care if you sit or stand during crossfire . Do whatever you're the most comfortable with.

Evidence

Please do not call for evidence often unless you feel tht there is a real concern for its accuracy . If I feel you are calling for evidence purposely to distract or sway round you will be penalized .

I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible. If you tell me to call for something, I most likely will unless it's really unimportant for my decision. I may also call for evidence if something sounds suspect/too good to be true .

Speaker points

Articulate your cases and you will be rewarded . The more you know your case and can articulate it the higher your speaks . Reading from the screen of your computer like a robot will not get you high speaks .

IF YOU SAY things that are SEXIST , RACIST ETC or act rudely as mentioned earlier , I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. The threshold for me dropping you is pretty high so please never make me do this.

Overall, I am here to hear a strong debate and have a enjoyable experience ! I hope you enjoy the debate as well and have fun !Good luck 🍀

Hi,

I was a policy debater in high school and in college.  I coached policy debate for several years.  This is my second year coaching public forum.  

I don't mind speed as long as you are clear.  I try to write down everything that you are saying and do my best to make my decisions based on what was said in the round and not let me predispositions get in the way of deciding who won or lost. 

You should refrain from being rude to the other team and try to have fun.  

I am a parent judge aligned with Regis High School in New York City. I have been judging debate for several years at some of the larger regional tournaments, states, and local tournaments, judging mainly Public Forum, rounded out with a BQ qualifier and BQ nationals. Parliamentary Debate is a new format for me.

I work in finance. I'm familiar with basic debate jargon (turn, extend, etc.) but I'm certainly not a very 'debatey' judge. For PF, off time roadmaps are welcome. Please be sure everything you say is understandable. Speed is okay but you must be clear. If I can't follow you it will be harder for me to understand connections between your contentions, warrants, and impacts or challenges to your opponent's arguments.

When time runs out, please finish your thought and stop speaking.

I will vote off the flow.

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 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 have debated policy on the Rutgers Newark debate team for three years and have been judging middle school and high school debate since 2015. I have recently graduated Rutgers Newark with a bachelors in sociology making me qualified to judge up to college debate.

I like a good K and critical arguments when they are being presented, argued, & defended properly.

Theory is fine as long as a clear analysis is made.

Go off on your cross X. Do not bore me please. Make it intentional. Don't fill space just to fill space.

I do not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, and really any prejudice being argued in a debate round.

Speed is fine with me, but in the beginning please make sure I can hear your voice and your arguments. I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can flow properly. I am not the best at flowing, so I might ask to pull cards if I miss anything or need clarification.

I give high speaks if you are clear, interesting, and/or entertaining when you speak. Also I am a fan of creativity in a debate round. Snatch my wig off, I'm ready to hear your compelling arguments.

If you have any questions, you can email me at matthewsmariah@gmail.com with the subject line DEBATE JUDGING.

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.

The most convincing argument shall win.

I debated for four years at Bronx Science and am currently a junior at Yale. That probably makes me a pretty traditional flow judge at this point, but I have no idea. I would say do normal things and you're good

If you want more specifics

I don't think that first summary has to cover terminal defense. I also don't think second rebuttal has the burden of frontlining your own case. Personally, I probably don't think either is strategic, but it is totally up to you

I think probability is a really undervalued standard in debate. More compelling than any impact calculus is convincing me that your impacts will materialize in the first place. This often means winning on the link level, but also relates to the types of arguments you make. In general, I have a low bar for what constitutes a good response to low-probability, high-magnitude type arguments, and I would be very receptive to teams that use probability as a way to evaluate the round

On a similar note, I think it is important that teams maintain the truth value of their arguments over the course of the entire round. I don't think you can concede defense on an argument to get out of a turn your opponent reads on it. You ran that argument — you should at least be able to defend that it is true for the entirety of the round

I am a big fan of narrative debate and teams that tell a cohesive story over the course of their speeches. In the end, the best teams will be able to distill my decision to a single sentence as to why I should believe the resolution is or is not true. It is really persuasive when that thesis is articulated from the jump

Theoretically, I am open to theory and Ks, but truthfully I had very little experience with them when I debated. While I understand that is what tech debate has been gravitating towards, I will have a very hard time voting for a non-topical argument. If you are running theory or a K as your central strategy, you should think of striking me

s/o Mr. Huth, Ben and Elias :), and the Bronx debate team. Big things only