Hi everyone! I'm Ben Oon, currently a freshman attending the University of Pennsylvania (Class of 2020). During high school (and some of middle school), I primarily competed in LD and PF (the former comprising most of my forensics career from 7th through 9th grade; and the latter being my main event from 10th through 12th) though I've had interludes of parliamentary debate and other events strewn in there. I suppose since I could be judging either of those two events, I'll post both my paradigms here under separate sections (note this is extremely tentative and bound to change for sure; nevertheless, let's begin! I've already gone on a tangent so...):

LOOKING BACK, THIS IS EXTREMELY LONG, SO THERE WILL BE A SUMMARY (TL;DR) AT THE END FOR EACH SECTION.

GENERAL

Ethics: Be nice. This means everyone must be respectful of ideas, property, conduct, and other such debate-related behaviors. (This shouldn't be an issue so I'll keep it short.)

Timers: You may use whatever timers you wish, just remember that my time's the official one. Signposting, if kept brief, will not affect your speaking time (Brief = 5-10 seconds). 

Delivery: I NEVER did policy. That means that I DO NOT ENJOY SPREADING. Feel free to deliver as you wish; just note that if I can't follow or understand your arguments, I'll be less likely to flow them throughout the round. In my opinion, debate should reflect the ability to clearly communicate, not simply fit in as many incomprehensible arguments as possible during the time you have allotted to speak. (I'm sure many would disagree, but you're probably reading my paradigm for a reason, so here it is. :) )

Speaks: I'm not really all that formulaic in terms of how I award them, but I have sort of an internal hierarchy for each debate. I think it'll be very clear albeit somewhat implicit in each respective section what I look for in a debate round.

Miscellaneous: I come from the northeast PA circuit, meaning that I, along with most of my former fellow competitors, judges, and coaches are rather traditional, not progressive. Also I'm not the best at tracking card titles unless you clearly state so throughout the round. It's best if you describe arguments to me in their nuanced form whenever possible, unless you feel you've made it abundantly clear what Smith '13 is (at your own risk, of course).

Oh yeah, there's also this thing called fun. Have some. :)

PUBLIC FORUM

The first thing I want to establish here is that whether you choose to have a framework or not is fine, just be sure to clearly weigh the round (READ: this is how you win). Unlike LD, there is no clear weighing mechanism so I expect you to tell me how I should be evaluating each argument down the flow AND how you're outweighing, whether it be qualitatively or quantitatively. Further, I really hate definition debates. They muddle up the round, take way too much time (30 seconds of a rebuttal is 1/8 of your time that could be used to clash at the contention level or more importantly default to the above guideline), and overall force the debate to take an often irrelevant turn towards the trivial. Instead, convince me why your arguments should stand under a general analysis of the resolution, and tell me the conditions for which we should frame the round (similar to above, in a sense).

With the above being established, keep in mind that I still hold reservations regarding each contention/voter. Essentially, this means that just because your opponent didn't address an argument doesn't automatically mean it flows through as a warrant on the ballot. Obviously, this is an extreme example, but stating that nuclear war saves lives won't really help you much even if your opponents dropped it. That being said, make sure that you do drive home any dropped points, and more importantly how they contribute to a (pro/con) ballot.

Constructives: Use evidence as appropriate to warrant your claims, but don't forget impacts. You can tell me that controlling the South China Sea is important for geopolitcal control (and provide historical context), but tell me what impacts it has to Japanese society, American society, militaries, etc. Impacts are key in evaluating the round.

Rebuttals: I've seen some teams do this (more often in novice than in varsity), but please don't make an extension of your case during the rebuttal (i.e. don't have an 8 minute case broken down into two stages). All you're doing, especially if you're Con/going second (depending on the division's by-laws) is setting yourself up to be knocked down by your opponent's rebuttal while simultaneously pigeonholing them into a position where they can't logistically address everything. It's an awkward, unfair dynamic and doesn't really apply to public forum in any sense. (This shouldn't be a problem in most cases, but I have this weird premonition that it would be relevant, and if even one team reads this and changes their debate format for the sake of adhering to standard procedures, I will have done my job.)

Crossfires (all of them): In my view, you should certainly make the goal of this phase of the debate to advance the debate. When you're asked a question, defending is fine, but if you really want to up your speaks, turn the argument and make the point seem in your favor. Then, when you ask your question, make a concerted effort to try and challenge your opposition. Small clarifications are normal and in some cases necessary, but I prefer listening to direct clash and progression of argumentation during literally the only stages where you verbally interact with your opponents during the debate. Also, avoid questions that inherently involve follow-ups, unless it actually serves a purpose other than taking time away from your opponent to ask questions.

Grand Crossfire: DON'T MAKE THIS A SHOUTING MATCH. Please. For the love of everything sane in this world. There's a line to be drawn between cutting someone off for the sake of getting one's arguments across and simply screaming to the point of incoherency. It's a relatively clearly established line, and one that should be debated around as such.

Summary: Try to distinguish this from the final focus. I don't want to hear the same thing rehashed in both. What you should do instead is deftly craft a shrewd response to your opponent's crossfires/rebuttals while simultaneously providing a small overview of the debate, and maybe even a small preview of what I should be noting during the final focus for you to win. I think here particularly is where you should detail the specific points of clash and how you're outweighing. It's up to you on how exactly you want to do this, but try to make this the general focus.

Final Focus (REALLY IMPORTANT): Voters. Voters. Tell me voters. Tell me why you've won the round. Tell me exactly what points I should flow, what I should outweigh, and make it clear and concise.

Evidence: Oh boy. In more progressive divisions and leagues, it's more of a conventional practice to ask for evidence during the round. I have no idea how progressive the leagues are going to be by the time I get around to judging, so I'm simply going to say that the team that asks for evidence will be the team whose prep time is utilized. The other team will have a reasonable amount of time to search for it, after which they'll be penalized if it goes on for an absurd amount of time. If a team is unable to display evidence, that will depend on the tournament policies rather than my own preferences.
A note on faulty/made-up/skewed evidence: If it's blatantly obvious, there will be consequences. I'll keep that one simple.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Similar to the PF section, there's something very clear I want to make: the importance of the value and value criterion/standard (or whatever terms you might have for it). As I am more of a traditional judge, I definitely place an emphasis on having a solid framework through which you qualify with strong philosophy. This does NOT mean copying down the first definition you see from the SEP (though plato.stanford.edu is definitely a good starting point). You have to explain to me one thing regarding the value, and that is why we, as a society, or as individuals (or any other entity you might choose) must adhere to this value given the resolution, above all else (provide a sufficient overview in your case; clash can definitely come during cross-examination/rebuttal). As for the criterion, it needs to be the mechanism by which we weigh the round, especially if you and your opponent have the same value. Stemming from this, your contentions have to fulfill your value through this criterion (so think carefully of how you want to frame the round!).

Regarding contentions, I'm open to anything stock as well as creative arguments (I think LD is a wonderful event that enables you to display more "personality" in a sense; by choosing which framework to uphold you can definitely adopt some unique positions). Policy stuff, however, is a bit trickier. As I noted in the PF section, I never did policy, and thus am not super familiar with things like Kritiks, counterplans, theory, DA's, or anything else of that sort. I'm not saying you'll automatically lose the round with 15 speaks if you do so, but you have to be VERY CLEAR on what you're trying to argue (basically, assume that if it's born from the realm of policy, it needs to be explained to a complete amateur on the subject). If I'm the only judge on the panel who thinks this way, and there are two experienced, nuanced policy judges, by all means, do your thing. (I know this is a competitive event so I'm understanding, but keep in mind that I can't judge something I literally cannot understand.) The thing I definitely ask for all arguments, however, is what I alluded to above: link it back, somehow, to your framework.

I'd prefer spending 3 minutes listening to the AC talking about the framework and 1 minute hearing about contention-level issue discussion than not talking about the framework whatsoever (though obviously both are definitely suboptimal ways of winning my ballot; just giving you an idea of how much I prioritize framework.

As with PF, you have to tell me how you win the round by weighing arguments and framework, but I'm not 100% constrained by the flow I have written down if I'm not personally convinced that I should affirm/negate the resolution based on what I've been presented with. Within reason, I'll mostly adhere to the flow, but if I have a hard time agreeing with what you're putting forth, I'll still make the call to evaluate each component of the debate separately. (I will definitely try to be as clear as I can in my RFD/ballot.)

Observations: Do as you wish, just don't be abusive. Your opponent doesn't have to necessarily call arguments as abusive if I see them as detrimental to a healthy evaluation of the round, but if you're shrewdly trying to corner your opponent by getting them to willingly debate under your terms, then that's fair game.

AC: Nothing too special to note here, just make sure you have impacts throughout your contentions as well. This can be either through your framework (which is always nice), or they can be a combination of such a link as well as an impact relative to the real world (pragmatic impacts). Your impacts can easily vary based on your personal style, anticipation of cases given the circuit we're in, or simply the resolution. Still, remember that LD is largely a philosophical debate and the framework should remain a central issue.

NC: Pretty much the same as the AC. Don't forget to rebut, obviously.

Cross-examination: This is your time to shine. Unlike PF, you have the floor entirely to yourself during this allotted time, so use it to advance your side and knock down your opponent's arguments. I feel this phase of the debate can really shape the debate and elevate it to the next level, or just the opposite (turn it into such a reductive wash that everything becomes meaningless). *hint: it's also a great area to look at if you're trying to improve; took me literally years after I stopped maining the event when I did LD as a side for tournaments where my PF partner wasn't available. It makes a large difference!*

1AR: Regarded by many as the toughest speech in the round. It's your job, in 4 minutes, to tell me how you're winning the round on both fronts (your side being upheld while defeating your opponent's). I'm okay with condensing part of the value debate and explaining everything in terms of the overall structure, but make sure that I can still evaluate the round through framework and remember that you need to explain why your framework is superior; or, even if you concede the framework, why your analysis holds under theirs. Note here that losing on framework doesn't automatically lose you the round, despite what my above comments might indicate. You would have to do a pretty good job convincing me that you can achieve your opponent's framework better than they can, but it's certainly possible.

NR: Here's where you continue the work you did during the NC and cross-ex. Remember that you should address the arguments put forth during the 1AR as well. Don't bring up new arguments here. Many of the same guidelines I detailed in the 1AR section apply here. Also, spend the last couple minutes telling me why you won the round. (Read: voters.)

2AR: I think that this time should be entirelly allocated to discussing voter issues, though I'm not opposed to different uses of the 3 short minutes you have to address one minor issue. Definitely no new arguments here.

SUMMARY (TL;DR)

GENERAL: Use common sense. My time's the official one. Don't spread; talk comprehensibly. I'll award speaks based mostly on weighing the round, among other things (best to read the full sections). I'm from the Northeast PA circuit so I'm very traditional, not progressive. Avoid spewing card titles unless you've explained them thoroughly. Have fun :D

PUBLIC FORUM: Since there's no weighing mechanism (like the VC in LD), weigh impacts and tell me how you're winning through this evaluation. Don't do definition debates. I'll look at the flow, but if I disagree I'll adhere to my personal judgment (with explanations on the ballot). Standard stuff for cases/rebuttals. Advance the debate during Crossfire. Don't shout over each other during Grand Crossfire. Tell me how you've won during the final focus, with a more detailed/argumentatively nuanced preview during the summary. Asking for evidence is wonky, but generally tournament procedures apply first.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Framework is the most important. Tell me why your value is supreme, how your criterion is the proper weighing mechanism, and how your contentions operate through your framework. All arguments are fair game (including policy!) but for policy, be super explicit to a beginner (me). Same guidelines regarding flow vs. my brain's judgment apply (see PF). Always weigh (framework is essential, pragmatic things are a bonus but not necessary/advantageous, just interesting and a potential voter). Losing framework doesn't make you lose automatically, but win through their framework or some alternative.

TOURNAMENTS JUDGED

For personal reference:

• Langan Invitational at Shikellamy, 12 November 2016.
• Scranton NCFL National Qualifier 2017 at Shikellamy,  4 March 2017.

In debate, please ensure that I can understand the words you are speaking. If you are speaking too rapidly for me to understand you, I will ask you to slow down. If you continue to be difficult to understand, that hurts your chances of winning the round, as I won't give you credit for arguments you make, but I cannot decipher. If you're speaking rapidly and your diction is sharp, all is well. Slurring or mumbling hurt you.

To the degree to which it is possible, I strive for mens rea. I will judge the round based on what is actually said in the round. I may comment on lost opportunities, but the decision comes from the arguments presented, not from anything I fill in from my own experience.

Overall - I will vote on anything I can understand - this includes speed/spreading. I won't tell you if I can't understand you. Speed at your own risk. I'm mostly non-interventionist, although if you're making grossly false statements about empirical facts, I reserve the right to not accept them. You can be aggressive, but at all times remain respectful to your opponents. Argumentation and logical reasoning are the foundations of debate. I don't care about your cards or meta-analysis unless you tell me why I should. Shake hands with your opponent, not with me.

LD Specific:

LD is a value debate. LD is a value debate. LD is a value debate. If upholding your value isn't the point of your case, I'm not going to vote for you. A value is not a "framework." Your contentions should link to your VC and your VC should be measuring your value. LD is not 1 person CX - don't talk to me about plans or solvency. LD is a value debate.

PFD:

Don't turn your presentation into policy-lite. Make arguments, don't just read evidence. I don't inherently care about any of your evidence unless you tell me why it matters.