A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

Update: Jan. 18, 2020

I’m a teacher from Toms River, NJ who teaches US1 and US2 Honors. I’ve been coached PF/LD Debate and extemp at Ridge HS for the last 9 years, but it's been probably two years since I've found myself in an LD pool. Please read this paradigm before the round for the best picture of what I’m like as a judge. This is far more detailed than the readers-digest version that I’ll give orally before the round if requested.

LD

It's been a while since I've been in an LD judging pool. Needless to say, I'm out of practice.

Speed: Start out at a reasonable pace. I need to hear your voice and your cadence for a few seconds before the spreading starts. I'll call clear two or three times before I give up flowing. If you're reading a plan text/interp/role of the ballot, don't spread it. I want to hear all of it. If you're reading theory in front of me, good luck. I'll need you to go slow and hold my hand through it.

Argumentation: I'm most familiar with policy args and kritiks. That said, I'm open to whatever you want to put in front of me.

Theory should only be read in the case of actual in-round abuse. Theory for the sake of theory isn't fun for me to listen to. If you're going to run theory, you should read it at a slightly faster than conversational pace. I'm not familiar with the arguments, and often a lot of it goes over my head. I need the abuse story to be clear and concise to the point where I can explain it start-to-finish in an RFD. The more accessible a theory argument is, the easier a time I'll have evaluating it.

I have a super low threshold on responses on spikes at the end of a constructive. I tend to ignore arguments like time skew, if I'm being honest.

Don't feel like you have to go for every argument in the round. Be strategic in the issues you select. You're constructing a ballot story for me and if all I have are blippy arguments to vote on, I (and probably you) will not be particularly happy with the decision rendered. I prefer seeing thoughtful debate with depth on one or two issues in the round rather blippy, surface level arguments about everything.

Warrants are important, logical and otherwise. "That isn't true" isn't an argument...you need to tell me why something isn't true.

Ad Hominem attacks against a debater are unacceptable. I'm not going to vote for a debater who calls their opponent racist, sexist, ableist, etc without any justification.

Racist, sexist, abelist, etc. arguments are a no-go for me. Run at your own risk.

Speaker Points: I'll follow whatever standard the tournament sets. You'll probably notice that I'm a bit stingier with speaker points than other judges. That's not to say that I've never given a 30 before, but it's not a particularly frequent occasion.

Evidence: The evidence standard in LD (in my experience) is remarkably higher than it has been in PF rounds that I've judged...that said, I still feel the need to say it...Academic integrity is extremely important. Please be honest. Don't alter a card's meaning, don't intentionally misrepresent evidence. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent.

_______

PF

Speed/Speaking: I enjoy fast/circuit style debate. However, I will not flow if you spread. Spreading has no place in PF. I consistently reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they are talking about. When I evaluate a speaker I take into account a number of things: strategic decisions, coverage, efficiency, speaking style, persuasiveness, etc.

Points: 0-25 (or whatever the lowest base the tournament allows to give) are reserved for those who are offensive (more on that later). 25.5-26 is a debater who has a lot to work on, has serious flaws in arguments, couldn’t fill speech times, and most likely will not make it to elims. 26.5-27.5 is an average debater. May make it to elims, but still has noticible flaws in arg construction, lines of logic, and is not a great speaker. 28-29 will most likely break. Lines of logic are mostly solid and I was probably impressed by the case. Args may have flaws but they are minor. 30 is the ideal debater. Flawless argumentation, a stellar and strategic speaker.

Things that will lose you speaks: The thing I most frequently award 25 speaks for is for not citing evidence correctly. A few examples of this are additions or omissions of words (even the omission of a word like “might”), straw man arguments, literally making things up. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent. Debate is an academic activity. As such, academic integrity is important to me. If you feel that you cannot debate in front of me without unethically interpreting evidence, please strike me.

While it may not earn you a 25 outright, talking during your opponents speeches is extremely rude. Your opponents speeches are not prep time for you. If you need to communicate with your partner, write or type a note. Every time a debater decides to speak during their opponents speech, I’ll subtract a half point from them.

During CX, please treat your opponent with respect. I understand CX gets heated sometimes but yelling over your opponent, being condescending, etc won’t win you points with me.

Framework: Please have one at the top of the constructive. It’s difficult to debate literally every aspect of a resolution without some reasonable restrictions to ground or without telling me how I should evaluate the round. I’m not sure why this has become a trend, but debaters have started framing debates/running observations in their rebuttals (not overviews, full blown frameworks). If a framework turns up anywhere but the beginning of the constructive, I won’t flow it. I don’t think framing the debate in the rebuttal (the second rebuttal especially) is particularly fair.

Weighing: Please weigh especially if you’re working with two different metrics (money and lives for example). If you don’t weigh, I have to do the weighing myself and I prefer not to.

Rebuttals: I understand the value of the line by line. What I dislike are massive card dumps with 8 responses against each subpoint. I reward debaters who can make sound logical arguments (with a source or two where appropriate) to dismantle a contention. Please warrant all responses. Warrants can be logical or source based. I don’t want to hear “my opponent is wrong.” Or “this contention doesn’t make sense”...tell me WHY your argument is true. (This should be self explanatory, but I’ve written too many ballots that say the words “no warrant/please warrant your response).

The Summary: There isn’t no enough time to cover a line by line in a summary. Give me logical responses (sources if you have to) to arguments and crystallize the debate. Set up the voting issues.

Final Focus: Don’t run new arguments in the Final Focus.

Id be happy to answer any other questions you have before the start of the round.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

Public Forum:

I haven't competed in public forum since my freshman year and have spent the last three in Congress. As such, my judging for PF will be almost entirely based on three things:

Weighing: Simply put, your final focus should feed me my RFD. If you can accurately weigh your opponent's and your own arguments and give me the reason that your argument should be weighed above the opposition's, then you will have no problems with my ballot. If you don't make my job easy then you haven't done yours correctly

Evidence: As debaters, you should know the validity of a source and your cards should reflect that knowledge. Frankly if your cards include something from a hit-piece or entertainment journalism like Vox then I will be disinclined to vote for you. If you use what I think to be a sketchy card then I will, if the tournament permits, call for your evidence. Finally, please do not simply state the author of the card if you refer to it ore than once as it makes my job more difficult.

Framework: First and foremost be clear about your framework and make sure to weigh it against your opponents in order to clearly demonstrate the value of it. Also, do not use abusive frameworks that place undue burden on your opponents as it does not demonstrate actual ability and instead gives me an inclination to favor arguments of your opponents that break through such abusive frameworks.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE - Based on Phillip Hedayatnia and Joe Bruner

As I have spent most of my career in Congress, there are certain things that I expect of any round no matter what level of debater you are.

1. Be courteous to your competitors. I enjoy a good competition as much as anyone and believe it to be healthy. However there is a difference between competitive and abusive. You can be as angry and impassioned in a speech as you want and even slightly mocking if the situation permits. However, when your arguments become personal attacks and you do everything in your power to embarrass a fellow competitor, then I will not be ranking you highly and instead will more than likely speak with your coach about proper decorum in a respected debate event.
2. CLASH, CLASH,CLASH. The entire point of debate is to speak about the arguments of the side opposite of yours and to either disprove or weigh them for the judges. The ability to do this is what sets Congress and other debate events apart from events like oratory and interp. If I wanted hear 20 constructive speeches in a round I would be listening to oratory. Every speech other than the authorship should utilize refutation to the best of the speaker's ability. There are a few ways you can do this (even in an authorship):

• Synthesis/Crystallization. Sometimes you get horrible precedence and all your arguments get taken (I've been there, I know the feeling), however, that doesn't mean you can't contribute to debate. Giving me a good crystallization speech is 1) impressive, because being able to summarize the whole debate and break it into voting issues isn't easy, and it is 2) helpful, because I'm trying to rank people and probably didn't flow the round - if you help me write my ballot, I might just put you on the shortlist for a high rank. Try to include at least one constructive argument, though, or at least some new information. If you don't, it won't hurt you much, but it doesn't help.
• Refutation. This is simple - I expect refutation from the first negative speech onward (if you do not refute anything and have abundant opportunities to, your speech is pointless to me). When refuting, identify the original claim and the speaker(s) who said it; make a counter-claim that contradicts them; explain why your counter-claim is true using evidence or strong logic; then, and this is the important part, impact it to the round, explaining why your refutation MATTERS.
• In early speeches, you don't have much to refute, since the debate hasn't really fully happened yet - so bring up possible stock arguments from the other side and refute them if you can. You don't have to do this, but it gets debate going, and it actually helps you; as everyone else refutes you again and again throughout the rest of the round, you get tons of name ID and I remember you when I'm ranking my ballot. Pre-empting.

4. Evidence. You should know what evidence is credible and which is not. Evidence should exhibit that knowledge and your ability to research. I do not prefer speeches that have an overwhelming amount of evidence but that said if you only use two pieces of evidence in your speech it will be hard to give you a good rank. Shoot for four excellent pieces of evidence that reflect your ability to do research well and create a good basis from which to warrant your arguments.

5. Warranting. This is the most key aspect of your speeches other than your clash. If you can explain to me in the most simple way possible why and how your points work in the debate and in the world of the legislation then you have my respect and a better rank waiting for you at the end of the round. I will choose a debater with better analysis over a debater with better evidence pretty every day of the week and twice on Sunday.