John W. Arnold

Howard High School
Ellicott City, Maryland

I have been competing in forensics since middle school! I have taught public speaking, coached and judged IE, LD, CX and Public Forum debate since 2006.

Public Forum Debate Judging Philosophy

I find Debate to be much like a game of chess. A good clash of ideas makes a most enjoyable debate for me. So, don’t be afraid to take risks and be passionate about your arguments, so long as you support, defend, and explain them. PFD is a debate of currently relevant events; therefore, please make sure that your arguments and evidence reflect that current relevance.

Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are equally important to me. Speed has the potential to harm your communicative ability. If you are reading too fast, I will let you know, and expect you to adapt to my request. Your speaker points are based solely on your ability to communicate with me. Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you.

Teach me, explain and apply the evidence to me, don’t just read it. The quality of your evidence is much more important to me than sheer quantity of evidence. You must be able to use--weigh, impact, link, extend—your evidence, showing me that you know and understand it.

Absent a framework being established, I will evaluate the debate on the voting issues presented in the Summaries and Final Foci. Be sure to use those speeches to explain and convince me of what the debate boils down to, and why I should believe you over your opponent -- be sure to warrant these assertions!

Crossfire, especially Grand Crossfire, should remain civil.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Judging Philosophy

I will not intervene during the debate, nor ask to see evidence after the debate. Feel free to ask any questions prior to the round.

I enjoy judging LD rounds when the debaters focus on communicating with each other and educating me. This is the basis on which I assign speaker points. Don’t be afraid to clash, in fact, clash intentionally, but with civility.

I prefer a clear standard with which I can evaluate the round. Make sure that you link and impact back to the standard. Don’t just tell me that they do, prove it. I am definitely listening for claim—warrant—impact in the presentation of evidence and logical argumentation. I’d rather LD debaters did not spread, but as long as your speed does not affect your articulation and comprehensibility, I am fine with it. Make it easy for me with road maps and signposting. Both AFF and NEG should be sure to clearly and effectively crystallize their position in their final speeches.

My decision is based on my review of what I have on my flow at the end of the round.


Policy Debate Judging Philosophy

I find Debate to be much like a game of chess. A good clash of ideas makes a most enjoyable debate for me. So, don’t be afraid to take risks and be passionate about your arguments, so long as you support and defend them.

Communication skills and the resolution of substantive issues are equally important to me. Speed has the potential to harm your communicative ability. If you are reading too fast, I will let you know, and expect you to adapt to my request. Your speaker points are based solely on your ability to communicate with me. Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor. Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that I can understand you. Teach me, explain and apply the evidence to me, don’t just read it. The quality of your evidence is much more important to me than sheer quantity of evidence. You must be able to use--weigh, impact, link, extend—your evidence, showing me that you know and understand it. I’d rather not evaluate the debate in topicality issues, but will if forced to. Absent an in-round framework being established, I will evaluate the debate on whether or not the topical plan would be a good idea. I don’t think kritiks provide for the best debates, but will listen to them and consider them, if given a clearly articulated and warranted reason to.

Argue what you believe in, are passionate about and are good at. Enjoy what you are spending so much time doing!

2 years of experience as a high school speech competitor, four years of experience debating on the American Parliamentary Debate Association circuit.

Ok with speed (flowing with pen and paper so please don't gosuperfast)

Looking for weighing, impacts, points of crytalization, and kindness

I am looking for topicality does the thesis of the affirmative really meet the standards of debate. I also look and see what evidence is being used and if it used effectively and not just some random piece of evidence that is biased. You see their is the subjective and objective facts in each debate. I also look at see when you quote evidence is up to date and plausible to support your thesis. I expect language to be respectful to each other if you are aff or neg. I do not like to use profanity in this educational setting. Do you use your time wisely? Does someone leave two or three minutes left in a rebuttal if so why? Doing crossfire do you answer questions properly or ask probing questions to help you win the debate. I value good speakers and good flow.

Aimee Sann Paradigm

Policy is a fascinating debate format! I love it, and I am still learning it. If I am your judge and you are sending emails, please include me: sanna@notredameprep.com.

1. Be organized. I prefer claims numbered, deliver tags clearly and with emphasis, roadmaps, and signposting. Otherwise, my flow will just fall apart. My flow will be on paper.

2. Lay out your framework clearly and don’t fail to say why you won. In the end, I need to hear what you believe carries the most weight in the round. How you met your burden. How the other side failed to meet theirs.

3. Don’t assume I know all the jargon. I have familiarity with most of it, but explanation matters.

4. Treat statistics with care. If there is clash on them, I will be attentive to your knowledge of how they are collected and how to measure their strength.

5. In Ks, I will be looking for specificity with reference to the AFF’s plan, and I will be listening for your alts.